Slashdot Mirror
Cool-Factor Predicted To Spur Energy Conservation
An anonymous reader writes "Panelists at a recent technology expo argued about how to motivate people to conserve energy, dragging out all the usual suspects, from financial incentives to emotion appeals to 'save the planet.' However, one panelist trumped the status quo by noting that adding the 'cool factor' could make energy conservation fun via apps on smartphones and tablets. By making energy conservation as fun as a video game, the fickle on-again, off-again of human nature might just be overcome."
Will I be able to use a Doom interface to shutoff the lights in my house?
If I were God, wouldn't I protect my churches from acts of me?
Are they implying that Apple will be designing the new energy conservation technology?
...are much more energy efficient then normal phones!
I doubt population control was even mentioned. Soon the crap from humans will be causing too much methane, no matter how much we converse it will be futile.
There's no need for clever new strategies to promote adoption. If you want to sell something just give it sex appeal. Sex sells. Always has, always will.
Two of my imaginary friends reproduced once
Nah, that'll never work.
Dog is my co-pilot.
Maybe times have changed since I was a kid, but saving money to spend it on something I actually wanted, rather than putting gas in the car or paying for a power bill.
Sig not found.
... is not even a week old. http://www.smbc-comics.com/index.php?db=comics&id=2286#comic
I don't think the effect is huge, but since i switched from a Rav4 to a Prius i've noticed that my driving habits have gotten a little more conservative, and i think the main factor is the little current and cumulative "miles per gallon" readings on the display. Trying to keep it above 45 mpg can be kinda fun, and it really doesn't seem to affect how quickly i get anywhere very much.
I used to gun the motor a lot more in the Rav4 just cause it was fun and there wasn't much reason not to (the difference in mileage and thus the difference in how often i had to fill up seemed pretty marginal) but now that i've got direct and immediate feedback playing with the mpg gauges is also fun, even if in an entirely different way, and now it's the marginal difference in time that i'm dismissing rather than the marginal difference in mileage. (And i still drive faster than i probably ought to, and i still will gun my car from time to time just for the fun of it, just nowhere near as often.)
This Space Intentionally Left Blank
Maybe we could do one of those rapping songs the kids are so keen on these days?
"By making energy conservation as fun as a video game, the fickle on-again, off-again of human nature might just be overcome."
Because people never change their idea of what is cool....
0-60 has been measurable for decades.
The problem is going slow will never be cool. Going fast will always be cool.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
if the light switch were shaped like a clitoris, men would be stumbling round in the dark trying to find it.
Economic power allows women to choose the size of their family, and experience shows that population growth levels out when a country achieves a certain level of prosperity. Condoms, birth control pills (synthetic hormones - bad for long-term health of the woman, but good for temporarily preventing conception or implantation), vasectomies (or wearing a testical-heater/nut-cup), etc - lots of ways to prevent babies. Even "Natural Family Planning" works pretty well, because there's only a few days a month that a woman is actually fertile.
Learn the rules so you know how to break them properly.
www.teslabox.com
this is a problem of human nature that everyone likes to feel superior. the reason scarcely matters.
Isn't it right next to the cochlea?
When I commute, I want to be able to glance at a gasoline usage meter and see how much I've used up to that point and how it compares to the same point on previous commutes. Then I can compete against myself, similar to the "ghost" in Mario Kart.
Any sufficiently unpopular but cohesive argument is indistinguishable from trolling.
After living most of my life in a community where things like recycling were common practice my the vast majority of it's citizens, I moved to a large city in "the southwest". The trendy society page people have just, in the last two years, started to talk about "going green", recycling, etc. as if they were "the latest thing". Yeah, it's lame, but if that's what it takes to get people on board, fine. Everything that helps to disarm the conservative, "fuck your grandchildren and their environment" types, when they try to paint environmentalism as some commie-liberal evil plot, is a welcome addition to the dialogue.
Is that they are focused on the irrelevant. The biggest CO2 contribution of *anyone* is coming from car travel, just about the sum of all other CO2 expenditures on average - but since electric cars are
a) overly expensive due to the cost of batteries
b) total crap if you need to get anywhere over a certain distance due to the inability to "charge a tank" quickly, the idea is to improve public transports and have people use cars for long-distance travels for which other options suck.
Second important one is excessive house heating. That one has an appeal too - don't heat as much , and/or insulate your house, and you'll save money, and quite a lot - honestly I think it's one of the few cases where all that is needed is to inform people , because along with enviroment it brings a clear benefit to them.
Anything else, from charger unplugging to lights out/whatever is trying to douse a fire with teaspoons of water.
I'm sorry, but I can't help but feeling smug when one of my dumb neighbors complains about how he's spending hundreds of dollars a month on gas for his jacked-up V8 pickup truck, and I'm spending less than $50 for two 30mpg cars. I probably wouldn't feel smug but for the fact that idiots like that complain so much after making stupid choices, and then they refuse to make smarter choices that would alleviate the problems they're complaining about.
There's a lot of people where I live who just HAVE to have a giant, jacked-up pickup truck with huge wheels, so they can drive it down the freeway to the mall. No, they don't ever drive them off-road; these things are spotless. But they constantly complain about how much they spend in gas, as if the rest of us are supposed to feel sorry for them when they did it to themselves. They could even sell their stupid truck and buy a small car, but no, they don't want to do that, they just want to keep complaining.
For example, a new office building could be made so that all its walls and roof are covered with solar panels, underneath which water pipes run - light is converted to extra electricity and hot water. Start a program to outfit regular house roofs with solar panels, too, and try to get people to get and drive electric cars in cities to ease the load on the electrical grid and make the air clean to breathe.
Because these things all have enormous capital costs. Money doesn't grow on trees (unless you're the Federal government).
But being late is so disrespectful, you'd think all the kids would be doing it.
Yes, that's a problem with how America does things. If it can't be used to make huge profits, a perfectly fine idea gets ignored. Businesses would much, much rather sell people on a $1000 "Energy Star" dryer (LOL) than a $5 clothes line. Too much of our economy is about selling us the most expensive fixes for our problems, and making up more problems for us.
Have had half a dozen window sellers try to persuade me to spend $6K to $14K to upgrade all our windows to fancy double or triple pane ones filled with argon gas, etc. They claim it could save up to 50% on the heating and cooling bills. Rather comic how they showed their true colors by always pitching the very most expensive windows first. I looked at the numbers, and figured even the cheapest weren't worth it. We spend about $500 per year on heating and cooling. At that rate, it would take 24 years to pay back $6K. Hate to think how much worse financing would make that. There was the argument that we were making our house more valuable, to which I pointed out that if so, we would have to pay more property tax. Then, suppose they exaggerated, and the windows actually only save 20% on our heating and cooling? There are other ways that maybe aren't as good, but they sure are a lot cheaper: tint, good drapes, and maybe awnings. Probably are worth putting into new houses, but not houses that already have windows, however crappy.
Hot water and light are good uses of solar. Electricity from solar panels is not so good because it isn't that efficient for the cost. Sure don't want to spend $10k on a solar panel installation that may well be obsolete in less than 5 years.
Intellectual Property is a monopolistic, selfish, and defective concept. It is "tyranny over the mind of man"
I thought Idiocracy is just a movie, but when we really have to sell a sustainable way of life with coolness, I start to doubt that. On the other hand, this would make Europeans pretty cool compared to people from the US. ;-)
It's been demonstrated tons of times that when you make something fun, people go for it.
Just look at Volkswagen's The Fun Theory project for proof.
~Syberz
a few degrees, unless the landlord pays for your electricity , which is bloody unlikely, pays off now, even if you don't own the house. It is a matter of choosing applicable strategy based on where you live
And nobody was talking about solar panels or other overly expensive methods anyway - polystyrene plates for wall insulation are reasonably cheap, and they do deliver.
Must be nice! I spent that much in one month during the winter, and my house is properly sealed and insulated (by 1990s standards). Obviously, you either live in an ideal climate or have a house that is already very efficient. Certainly in your case, new windows do not have a short ROI and this is true for most houses.
Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
Yes, that's a problem with how America does things. If it can't be used to make huge profits, a perfectly fine idea gets ignored. Businesses would much, much rather sell people on a $1000 "Energy Star" dryer (LOL) than a $5 clothes line.
Actually, the problem I discussed wasn't about "huge profits" at all, it's about 1) problems endemic in the home mortgage industry, 2) problems with the mentality of the average home buyer (wanting the biggest house for their dollar and ignoring all else), 3) the simple fact that people don't stay in one place that long any more, which isn't necessarily bad or good, just the way things are with modern society and this economy (I mean the way the overall economy works, not the current downturn). As an engineer myself, I can find myself moving from city to city now and then as I go through job changes. Lots of people are the same way. I would never think about staying in a house for 30 years until I'm retired and absolutely sure I've found the place I really want to settle down, and by then hopefully I'll be building my own house someplace rural, not living in some city where I have to worry about the neighborhood going to pot in 10-20 years.
As for dryers, people generally use them because they're convenient, not because they have to. However, depending on your climate, the possibility of rain can make the energy use of a dryer well worth it. Can you imagine trying to dry your clothes outside in Seattle, where it's constantly raining?
Complaining about energy-efficient clothes dryers is like complaining about fuel-efficient cars. After all, you can forgo a $20k car and buy a $1000 bicycle, right? People drive because they prefer it, and because it saves them a lot of time compared to walking, biking, or taking the bus. However, many people would prefer to use less fuel doing so if they can.
I looked at the numbers, and figured even the cheapest weren't worth it. We spend about $500 per year on heating and cooling.
Then you're an exception, or you like to suffer. Here in Phoenix, you can easily spend $2-300 in a month on A/C during the summer, if not more. In more northern states like Minnesota, there's no way $500 will keep your house warm in the winter. America is a land of pretty extreme climates, and high home energy bills are a fact of life.
There was the argument that we were making our house more valuable, to which I pointed out that if so, we would have to pay more property tax.
Wrong.
Government tax assessors don't come into your house and inspect your windows or look for granite countertops when they're making a property tax bill. They just figure it off of square footage and historical values in that area, just like real estate appraisers do. And the tax assessors generally assess very low, so that no one argues with them over such small things (of course, these days with house values falling, it's a little different).
Sure don't want to spend $10k on a solar panel installation that may well be obsolete in less than 5 years.
That makes no sense. After 5 years, those solar panels will still be making plenty of electricity. It doesn't matter if new panels are 20% more efficient or whatever, or even 100% more; that doesn't stop your older panels from working.
Of course, this does mean you have a calculation to make: you could spend $X,000 to replace your old panels and buy new, more-efficient panels and then generate more power (and sell your old ones to someone else), or you could spend $0 and keep your old panels and generate less power than the newer ones. Unless there's been a giant increase in solar panel efficiency, AND you're using a lot of power (or your power company is giving you a fantastic rate for your generated power excess), it'll most likely be more cost-effective to keep your old panels.
Do you toss out your car every 5 years because the new models have made it "obsolete"? It still runs doesn't it? Do you refuse to buy a $20k car because it "may well be obsolete in less than 5 years", and just take the bus?
We have gas heat, we're in Texas, and our house is relatively small. Possibly the clutter helps too. A/C is the bigger cost. The biggest savings is from setting the thermostat to 80 F in the summer. I'd go even higher, but the rest of the family whined. I tried sneaking in higher temps, set it up 1 more degree, but they noticed and set it back. Texans are funny about A/C. It's like they want to show off how well the A/C works by cooling to 69 F. I take a jacket on the rare occasions I go to a summer blockbuster movie.
Intellectual Property is a monopolistic, selfish, and defective concept. It is "tyranny over the mind of man"
Marketing is hard. It has taken decades and great expense to learn how to successfully market unneeded junk to people. It will also take a very long time to learn how to market to the whole public to use less of something that they perceive a benefit. One effort was made in California to provide on your electric bill how your energy usage compared to your typical neighbors to try and generate competition. While many people did respond well in the short term there was always one outlier that increased their usage. Wisely, the sociologist went back and looked for common factors among those that increased their usage. They found the population was well described by two factors: they did not buy green power and they were republicans. Was this a case of conspicuous consumptions or a political statement? When this population read their bill why did they go over to the wall and turn on a light? Did they say to themselves, "I'm not getting my fair share," "look how important I am," or "I hate those Al Gore types telling me what to do?" Did these people consciously decide to use more energy, was it by accident or just coincidentally that this population all went out and bought an energy hog appliance without thinking? Designing solutions that stick for a mass public is not easy.
There is value in rebranding the problem. Us old times here remember the energy crisis of the 70s. The big word was conservation. The public took that to mean, "put on a sweater and shiver in the dark." Efficiency seems to carry a much better acceptance. It seems to tell folks to get more value for their money. So, yes language does matter. When oil hits $150 a barrel when the US economy picks-up you will see efficiency become sexy for its own value.
Suffer? No. We become acclimatized. Supposed to be healthier too. I find 85 F quite comfortable in the summer, and 68 F in the winter is just fine.
The pay back on electric solar panels can be as bad as 80 years. If the panels degrade over time, they may never pay for themselves. I'd like to do it, but after technology brings the prices and risks down a lot more. There's a real possibility that panels could indeed be improved by 100% or more in the next 5 years. Meantime, we can get more bang for those bucks with other measures.
Cars on the other hand are frustrating. We can make huge improvements in the fuel economy, but we don't. I hang on and hang on to the old beaters because the new stuff is not significantly better. 40 mpg? Big deal. I have 90's era cars that do that. Hybrids are significantly better, but also enough more costly that the overall benefit is doubtful. If an automaker were to roll out an X Prize winning 100 mpg car that seats 4, and isn't exceptionally costly, I'd buy it. And I would bike or walk more if I could. But the US is so car centric. For instance, not legal to pedal a bicycle down a freeway, not that I'd want to! I've had plans to walk to the store scotched because on so many overpasses, freeway designers couldn't be bothered to include a sidewalk. When choosing an apartment, I've checked that there were no impediments to walking to work.
Tax assessors around here seem to think home values rise by 20% or more every year. We've made many trips to the tax office to force them to reduce their valuation. Show them reports of the sale prices of similar homes in the neighborhood. You may be right that new windows would go unnoticed, as unlike a pool or a car port, we would not have to clear that with the city.
For drying clothes, I use racks, and keep it indoors so I don't have to worry about rain. Hang the shirts up damp, leave a little space between each one, and leave the closet door open. The dryer is actually more work for me, an extra step between 1) put dirty clothes in washer, and 2) put clean clothes away.
Intellectual Property is a monopolistic, selfish, and defective concept. It is "tyranny over the mind of man"
Suffer? No. We become acclimatized. Supposed to be healthier too. I find 85 F quite comfortable in the summer,
Sorry, I evolved in a cold climate judging by my skin tone, and 85F is not comfortable at all. There's nothing healthy about living in heat near your body temperature.
Cars on the other hand are frustrating. We can make huge improvements in the fuel economy, but we don't.
No, we can't. It's beyond the laws of physics. We're pretty close to the limits of efficiency already. There's just no way around it: when you're trying to push around a 5-6000 pound vehicle, using an engine that works on the heat cycle, and you have to size your engine for the maximum load (i.e., you want your 6000-pound vehicle to accelerate from 0-60 in 5 seconds) you can only be so efficient.
You can try some tricks to get around these limits. You can try a hybrid powertrain, where you downsize the engine a little and add an electric motor to help with peak loads, but that really isn't panning out in practice, probably because of the extra weight of the hybrid powertrain and batteries. You could try a series hybrid powertrain, but because of scale issues that seems to only be viable on railroad locomotives and giant construction vehicles.
You could also try to reduce weight, but that means you need to use exotic materials, which cost far more than steel.
Of course, you could try downsizing the vehicle, but there's two problems there: 1) crash protection features add weight. Not necessarily a huge amount (just look at the two-seat Smart), but it's significant, and you can't forgo crash protection legally. and 2) car buyers simply don't want small cars, they want giant trucks to drive to the mall.
You could also eliminate the ICE engine and switch to something else, like full electric. However then your range sucks, because our battery technology isn't so good. You could also put in a fusion power generator that runs on cola cans and banana peels, but there again we don't have the technology.
I have 90's era cars that do that.
As I said before, that's illegal. 90s cars don't meet modern crashworthiness standards. There's a reason an '89 Honda CRX HF can beat the fuel economy of the latest Prius.
Hybrids are significantly better
Not from what I've seen. Most of them get better economy simply by being more economical: smaller chasses, low rolling-resistance tires (which suck for handling), tiny engine with very little power (even with the electric assist), etc. When applied to a more conventional model, such as a Camry, the results are really rather unimpressive, and the small bump in fuel economy doesn't come close to making up for the giant extra up-front cost at today's fuel prices, or even if you double fuel prices hypothetically.
If an automaker were to roll out an X Prize winning 100 mpg car that seats 4, and isn't exceptionally costly, I'd buy it.
That's beyond the limits of physics, without either 1) eliminating crash standards, 2) having a top speed of 30mph, or 3) using a carbon fiber chassis that makes the car cost $1 million, or more likely some combination of all three.
Sure, you could make a vehicle that's basically an enclosed bicycle with 3 or 4 bicycle tires and some small hard plastic seats, slap on a really well-made and fuel-efficient engine that's the size of a Briggs & Stratton, and cruise down the road at 20mph (or even 30mph) getting 100mpg. But no one wants this, and there's no way you could legally sell it as long as people are still driving Hummers that could run into you.
Tax assessors around here seem to think home values rise by 20% or more every year. We've made many trips to the tax office to force them to reduce their valuation. Show them reports of the sale prices of similar homes in the neighborhood.
This is entirely a recent occurrence, with the housing meltdown, and the shitty economy with local governments trying to squeeze everyone for more tax dol
I'll stick to just the automotive issues.
No, we can't. It's beyond the laws of physics. We're pretty close to the limits of efficiency already.
Do you really believe that? It's true that recent safety regulations have made it more difficult to save weight, but we're nowhere close to exhausting the weight reduction possibilities with cheap materials. No need for exotic, expensive lightweights. For example, all cars still carry spare tires, despite flats being less common. We could change how we handle flats. There is still much in the engine bay that can be reduced. Can toss the power steering and not only save a bit of weight, but eliminate another drag on the engine. Can use even more aluminum in place of iron. Windows are another target for weight savings-- glass is heavy.
Almost every combustion engine uses the Otto cycle, but that's not the most efficient one. Another easy improvement is the turbocharger. Then there is the compression ratio. We compromise there to reduce emissions. And heat makes engines more efficient, yet we waste a great deal of energy on cooling because our materials can't take too much heat. Even so we are too conservative on that, and could run our engines a little hotter than usually done now. Another way to change that is to use a cooler burning fuel such as methanol. Could get by without a water pump.
Then there's aerodynamics. Take a look at the underside of a typical car, and you'll see aerodynamic horror. People wouldn't put up with corrugations, breaks, weld seams, projections, and so forth on any other surface, but the underside is very much out of sight and out of mind. We don't have skirts on the wheels because everyone feels it's ugly. Marketing can't even bear to make the relatively minor change in appearance of reducing the size of the grill opening. Take a look under the hood and see if the opening extends beyond the width of the radiator and condenser coils. On many cars, it does. We could have coefficients of drag under 0.2, but hardly anyone even tries for better than 0.3.
As for 0-60 in 5 seconds, anyone who thinks that is all that useful is spoiled. One of my cars needs 30 seconds to get to 60. Drive a car like that and you'll better appreciate a fact that we've covered for with our jackrabbit starts. We have too many stoplights, and they're brainless. That brings up another way to save: instant engine starts. Letting our engines idle at stops is very wasteful, but we do it because sometimes they can be difficult to start, or we want to keep the A/C on.
Some of what I mentioned really is low hanging fruit.
Intellectual Property is a monopolistic, selfish, and defective concept. It is "tyranny over the mind of man"
Do you really believe that?
As long as we keep building cars the way we do now, with stamped and welded sheet steel, and modern safety standards, and internal-combustion engines, yes. Obviously, some kind of new super-high-capacity fast-recharge battery technology would be a complete game-changer, but that always seems like it's "just over the horizon", just like nuclear fusion which is always 30-40 years away (i.e. a moving target).
No need for exotic, expensive lightweights. For example, all cars still carry spare tires, despite flats being less common.
A typical compact spare tire weighs probably around 20 pounds. That's insignificant in a 3-6000 pound vehicle. Yes, some cars are eliminating them these days, but it's not for weight savings, it's because they're cutting corners and improving their bottom line. Typical humans are 120-250 pounds, remember; a 20-pound difference isn't going to make a difference.
Can toss the power steering and not only save a bit of weight, but eliminate another drag on the engine.
You've got to be kidding. How in hell is a 95 pound soccer mom going to steer a 6000 pound Hummer without power steering? Even if she's driving a modern "small car" which is around 3000 pounds, it's too much; there's no way weak drivers can turn the wheel in a parking lot.
However, lots of new cars these days have moved to electric power steering, or electro-hydraulic power steering. This eliminates some hosing in the engine bay, and saves a lot of fuel by not having to run a belt-driven pump when the car is at speed, where you usually need little or no assist. It's only in parking lots and at very low speeds that you need steering assist. From what I've read, a lot of cars have gotten a 2-5% boost in highway fuel economy this way. So, I consider that a problem solved.
Can use even more aluminum in place of iron.
Now you've suddenly moved to exotic materials, which you just said you didn't need. Aluminum is expensive, compared to steel. Aluminum chassis cars do exist (like the Audi TT, and Acura NSX), but that adds thousands to a car's base price if not more. Remember, the whole issue here is that it's my contention that we can't substantially improve fuel efficiency without making cars much more expensive. Some mid-line cars have moved to aluminum suspension components, however, which helps, and of course to aluminum engine blocks which not only cuts weight, but improves performance since it conducts heat better. Aluminum wheels are also a common item now since they reduce rotating mass (and look a lot better). But an aluminum chassis is a big step beyond all that. If aluminum prices come down, this might become more common, but even so, it probably won't affect fuel economy that much. A few hundred pounds shaved off the car's weight will help, but not nearly enough to get to 100mpg. Don't forget, a car's weight has less affect on its fuel economy the faster you go. At constant highway speeds, it makes very little difference, thanks to Newton's first law.
Windows are another target for weight savings-- glass is heavy.
Another small savings, if you can invent transparent aluminum. Again, a 100-150 pound difference in weight isn't going to make that much difference, especially considering 25 years ago small cars used to weigh 2000-2500 pounds, and now they weigh 2800-3500 pounds.
Another easy improvement is the turbocharger.
Turbos are great--lots of European cars use them to get great power and good efficiency--but they also add a lot to the price, perhaps $2k or more. Those European cars aren't cheap.
Then there is the compression ratio. We compromise there to reduce emissions.
Weren't you just complaining about the smog in LA? Now you want to lift the emissions laws?
Another way to change that is to use a cooler burning fuel such as methanol.
And where are you going to find a ready source of methanol that you can pump out
There were large vehicles long before power steering. Just had high ratios on the steering wheel.
Aluminum is not an expensive, exotic material. And we're looking at the practicality of using more magnesium.
I have driven my slow car on the freeway. It's nowhere near as bad as you make out. The average loaded 18 wheeler needs over 60 seconds to accelerate from 0 to 60, would you call that dangerously underpowered? Doesn't sound like you appreciate just how fast 0-60 in 5 seconds is. That's modern muscle car territory. Most newer cars are around 8 seconds, and they're only that fast because power has been steadily creeping up over the years.
You say that the changes I mention aren't significant, that 20 pounds isn't much, and 2% isn't much of an improvement in economy. But that's exactly how you get good economy! A little here, and a little there, and pretty soon you've saved hundreds of pounds and improved fuel economy by 20% or more. And you will get improvements that large.
A 100 mpg car that seats 4 and is comfortable does exist: Edison2. Why did you give up on the idea of a tandem car? I've thought of those as well, and wondered if they could be made long enough to hold 4 people and still fit in a parking spot. Or, could the seating be a little tighter, somewhat like in a bobsled? As for safety, they can be better than standard vehicles. More crush space to work with on the sides.
Intellectual Property is a monopolistic, selfish, and defective concept. It is "tyranny over the mind of man"
There were large vehicles long before power steering. Just had high ratios on the steering wheel.
No one wants to go back to the days of huge steering wheels, and even then they certainly were hard to steer, especially for women. Just ask your grandmother. Higher ratios also aren't much fun to drive, with having to turn the wheel so much. Do you really think you're going to get people to abandon power steering to save 10 pounds of weight (probably the typical weight of a modern EPS motor)? You can go take a crap and lose half that much... just kidding.
Aluminum is not an expensive, exotic material. And we're looking at the practicality of using more magnesium.
Aluminum is expensive compared to steel. That's why only high-end cars (or experiments like the Insight v1) have chasses made of them. And magnesium burns (in addition to its high cost).
That's modern muscle car territory. Most newer cars are around 8 seconds, and they're only that fast because power has been steadily creeping up over the years.
Yes, 8 seconds is probably fairly typical these days, perhaps as slow as 10 for some cars. That's a far cry from 30. With 30 seconds, that means you can't get up a freeway on-ramp fast enough and merge safely. Yes, big trucks are that slow too, but everyone gives them a wide berth anyway. Cars need to be able to maneuver to avoid accidents, instead of counting on everyone else to avoid you because of your sheer size. Also, big trucks are a small minority of road users in most places.
A little here, and a little there, and pretty soon you've saved hundreds of pounds and improved fuel economy by 20% or more.
Hundreds of pounds and 20% improvement is not going to get you anywhere near 100mpg as you were saying before. On a typical 30mpg car, that'll get you up to 36mpg. Whoopee. You still have another 54mpg to go.
I have a challenge for you: take a typical modern car if you have one (not a 30s 0-60 dog), and strip out 300 pounds of weight. This might be a little challenging, but you might be able to get there without cutting the roof off by stripping the interior, dashboard, power steering, putting in a motorcycle battery, filling the fuel tank 1/4 full, etc. Now, drive it around for a bit and see how much your fuel economy is improved. Probably not much. You'll get some better 0-60 acceleration for sure (maybe a 1/2 second better, maybe a full second), but you probably won't see much difference in mpg, maybe 1-2 in the city and probably 0 on the highway (unless you resort to cutting off the roof!).
Why did you give up on the idea of a tandem car?
Because I don't have time to build my own car; there's other things I'd like to do with my free time.
I've thought of those as well, and wondered if they could be made long enough to hold 4 people and still fit in a parking spot. Or, could the seating be a little tighter, somewhat like in a bobsled?
And exactly how successfully do you think such a vehicle would sell?
Your ideas seem to mostly depend on the idea of force, i.e. forcing people to buy cars they really don't want, with giant steering wheels and high steering ratios, 60-second 0-60 times, and seating that makes a modern airline's economy-class seating look luxurious. No one is willingly going to sell their modern, 30mpg comfortable sedan for something like this.