Slashdot Mirror
Volkswagen Concept Car Averages 262 MPG
coolnumbr12 writes "The Volkswagen XL1 averages an amazing 262 mpg, and although it may never hit streets in the United States, the technology behind the car could impact future Volkswagen vehicles. The keys to the incredible mileage in the Volkswagen XL1 were reducing the weight of the vehicle and eliminating wind resistance. The XL1 only weighs 1,753 pounds — that's more than a thousand pounds lighter than the Toyota Prius, which weighs in at 2,921 pounds. The wheels on the Volkswagen XL1 are as thin as road bike's and wrapped in custom Michelin rubber. The XL1 chassis is a single piece of molded carbon-fiber, and has a drag coefficient of only 0.189 – similar to a bumblebee."
Looks good except for the fact it has rear wheel drive.
I really can't be arsed to convert numbers that obviously were metric to begin with, back from bass-ackwards to metric, in my head or otherwise. As nerds you ought to have figured out which system* is better and have made a complete transition long ago.
* One is an actual, well-integrated system, and that's but one reason it is superior to the other, which isn't.
We have very safe cars but they're also very heavy as a result. Granted gains can be made with expensive and exotic materials, but how about CHEAP and LIGHT cars that could be had for just a few grand, and get 80-100MPG? before you think no-one would want to drive something without airbags and side impact beams and crush zones, what about motorbikes? I really think it would be a big hit with consumers who don't wish to be exposed to the elements or have to balance a motorcycle, but would opt for BASIC transportation with a 500cc motor, 3 or 4 wheels, and enclosed cab. Current safety standards for 4 wheeled vehicles make basic and light car not an option.
"The Most Fun Possible on 4 wheels" is at SunBuggy in Las Vegas
Why are the USA still not using them?
Because the Germans at VW and the American regulators are all a bunch of FUCKING ASSHOLES.
What's a mile ? A gallon ? A pound ? Do they use those units in Germany ? This summary only makes sense in Myanmar, Liberia and the US. Was it that hard to convert into proper unit, at least as a complement, as most of us will have to do now ? If you can't bother to adapt to your readership, your readership won't bother adapt to you.
I remember watching a show on PBS in the recent past where the technology of designing cars was investigated. The kit at the end was some prof somewhere that suggested the carbon frame and directly reducing weight is what will be needed to increase vehicle mileage in the future. Am I crazy? Anyone?
-Daiv
Why are talking about a two year old concept car as if it's a new thing?
So it has a 2.6 gallon tank for the motor and a max range of 310 miles. I'd say the range is closer to 119mpg.
Since this is an European car, I demand all data to be transformed in furlongs per pint and stones.
My 2000 Honda insight has a curb weight of 1,880 lbs, While I can't touch 262mpg I still get about 69 mpg, and that's in a car with most modern safety features, over a decade old, and at a not unreasonable price....
Given the drag coefficient, I assume this car exhibits Laminar flow. This can get disrupted by external factors (say getting passed by a buss) and result in localized turbulent flow. This would drastically increase the drag on one part of the car, causing a sudden unexpected side load, likely causing a turn (into the passing bus). An airplane bouncing around is not much of an issue, but when your car moves over 6 feet sideways on the freeway unexpectedly, it can be rather bad.
Generally maximally aerodynamic cars are not safe. They may not have gotten to that point, or may have cleverly worked around the issues, but given the lack of side mirrors, I think mileage was the priority over safety here. Its a neat technical feet, but as mentioned in the article, its dangerous in multiple respects.
A Prius weighs 2,921 pounds? A Fort Pinto with a steel body and cast iron engine weights 2,015–2,270 lbs according to Wikipedia. A 1965 Chevy Nova with FOUR DOORS and a cast iron small block V8 only weighs 2935 lbs. How in the name of all fucked up eco bullshit engineering does a Prius weigh 2921??
Wait. I got it. That's how much extra luxury crap it takes to actually get the liberal gentry to buy one.
Ok. Yeah. That makes sense.
You'd have five service trips before the first gallon is burned.
German cars are enjoyable to drive, but they are high maintenance vehicles and seem designed that way.
Ask VW owners about engine oil mysteriously disappearing - this is no joke.
Fuck systemd. Fuck Redhat. Fuck Soylent, too. Wait, scratch the last one.
Sensationalist bullshit. From the article:
Volkswagen claims a consumption rating equivalent to 261 mpg; but that's using the full charge of the battery.
310 miles in all, starting out on a charge, on its 2.6-gallon (yes, that's right) fuel tank.
Not sure what "starting out on a charge" means, but if it means starting with zero battery power, the mileage is 119.23 -- and that is only according to the manufacturer. The test drive in the article was too short and limited to be meaningful.
Stop-Prism.org: Opt Out of Surveillance
Kudos to VW for this achievement. However, I'll keep on driving my 1982 diesel Westfalia. For me, the driving experience is better :)
For one, I never have to worry about speeding ;)
I really think it would be a big hit with consumers who don't wish to be exposed to the elements or have to balance a motorcycle, but would opt for BASIC transportation with a 500cc motor, 3 or 4 wheels, and enclosed cab.
You mean something like the Persu or the Carver One?
Why are these not on the market? Shut up and take my money!
I think in a decade or so, all the cars will get an electric motor as the zeroth gear.If the IC engine has work only above 5mph or 7mph they can tune it completely differently and improve fuel economy by 50% easily. Much of the fuel economy of the Prius comes from the engine that does not have to work below 10 mph. It would not be too expensive to store enough juice to pull the car up to 5 or 10mph a few times.
sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
Great work on what it would take for a 100MPG+ vehicle. http://physics.ucsd.edu/do-the-math/2011/07/100-mpg-on-gasoline/
Anywhere near 261Mpg is highly unlikely after using up the battery
If a bumblebee has such a low drag coefficient I'd be completely astounded - I'd guess closer to 0.5.
1.6l engine, 48hp, 1753 lbs sounds a lot like my 72 beetle that has a 1600cc engine 54hp and weighed 1800 lbs. Of course, it only gets 27mpg around town and about 32 on the highway, Besides, it's fun to drive by the school yards and watch the kids all punch each other in the arm and yell "Slug bug!"
Sure, an ultralight care is not going to keep you safe from the idiot driving and SUV with his knees while texting with one hand and cramming french fries into his mouth with the other. Unsafe drivers fall under "there are seldom good technological solutions for behavioral problems". Building more and more heavily armored cars doesn't solve the problem because unsafe drivers can buy them and become that more dangerous to others.
The real problem is that cars are so overbuilt that they are menace to each other and to every other road user.
I ride bikes on roads with cars, so why would I worry about driving a car that offers minimal protection? I would just as soon realize the efficiency and cost advantages of more lightly built cars and take my chances since they are pretty much the same chances I take when I travel by bike (or on foot).
don't want cheap cars that result in injured drivers. They make their money when you wreak your car, not your body. In America insurance is mandatory, and the insurance companies pay out for medical claims (no socialized medicine here). A wreaked car is a one time expense where they give you 1/2 or less the value of the car and jack your rates way up (I've had friends turn down their own insurance claims because the rate increase was higher than the cost of a new car). Medical expenses though can be ongoing. I knew a gal that got rear ended by an SUV doing 40 mph (she was at a dead stop at a train crossing). She's had back surgery on and off for decades.
Want cheap, light vehicles America? Ban SUVs, get socialized medicine, or forget it.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
This car is the third iteration of a concept car that has been around since 2009, this iteration since 2011. Is there some other significance that I am missing that puts it in the news today?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volkswagen_1-litre_car
I bet the MPG drops by 10% if you peel the packing tape off the seams.
I remember when Shell was building high MPG test vehicles with bicycle tires and a lawnmower engine. They would crank it up as fast as it would go and then shutdown the motor and coast to a stop. Wash, rinse and repeat.
None of what they learned was ever applied to consumer use.
not yet available and not cheap:
Frequently Asked Questions
When can I get a Persu V3?
Production vehicles are targeted for a 2014 model release.
How much will the Persu V3 cost?
MSRP is targeted at $25,000.
"The Most Fun Possible on 4 wheels" is at SunBuggy in Las Vegas
Ya, I love the strength per weight that carbon fiber brings, but the stuff is (as of yet) unrecyclable and non-repurposable. Shatter a bit of carbon fiber and all you have is is a bunch of broken carbon fiber. The repair process is shaky and there's no reclamation process for the baked final product...
My idea of a an irony-laden "green" auto:
Carbon Fiber Frame/body
Plug-In Battery Electric
Owned and Operated in Appalachia
Metals are recyclable. Plastics can be recyclable. When we keep our eyes on the cradle-to-grave aspect, we make better judgements for the futures of our children, grandchildren, etc.
VW makes THE dullest looking vehicles on the market today. Even as a prototype this XL1 wouldn't even look cool or modern in an 80's James Bond flick staring Timothy Dalton.. I actually puked a little bit looking at this thing. Its like they started off with a boring Jetta front and then just gave up as they reached the back.
Das "Boring" Auto.
I haven't thought of anything clever to put here, but then again most of you haven't either.
Light weight cars go crumble on the autobahn. Bad news. I would rather get lower mpg and be safe. Better yet, I minimize travel.
Interesting how they say their measurements start with a full battery charge but don't say they end with a full battery charge. It's almost as though the so-called MPG number is totally made up out of thin air.
As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
Here, I'll help you:
<smug>This.</smug>
So subtract the 31 miles on battery, leaving 279 miles on gas, and it can get 107.3 MPG on gas alone. The 262 MPG figure probably comes from a shorter test drive where the first 31 miles were on battery, the remainder on gas, then attributing the total distance to gas. Which if I did my math right is a 52.5 mile run.
Thing is, if you're going to cheat this way, why not just make it a 32 mile run and claim your car gets over 3400 MPG.
It's also worth pointing out that outside of research, these ultra-high mileage vehicles are rather pointless. MPG is the inverse of fuel consumption, so higher MPG means smaller savings. e.g. Consider a trip of 300 miles in a variety of different cars:
15 MPG SUV = 20 gallons consumed
25 MPG sedan = 12 gallons consumed
50 MPG hybrid = 6 gallons consumed
100 MPG research car = 3 gallons consumed
300 MPG super-car = 1 gallon consumed
So if you consider a switch from an SUV to a super-car on a 300 mile trip, where exactly do the 19 gallons of fuel saved come from?
8 gallons saved comes from the 10 MPG jump from 15 to 25 MPG.
6 gallons saved comes from the 25 MPG jump from 25 to 50 MPG.
3 gallons saved comes from the 50 MPG jump from 50 MPG to 100 MPG.
2 gallons saved comes from the 200 MPG jump from 100 MPG to 300 MPG.
The biggest fuel savings comes from the low end of the MPG range. The smallest savings from the high end. Or in other words, in a SUV to super-car switch:
42.1% of the fuel savings comes from the 15-25 MPG jump
31.6% of the fuel savings comes from the 25-50 MPG jump
15.8% of the fuel savings comes from the 50-100 MPG jump
10.5% of the fuel savings comes from the 100-300 MPG jump
Diminishing returns says the cost-effectiveness of improving mileage rapidly drops off above about 50 MPG. If we want to reduce overall fuel consumption, we should be concentrating on ad campaigns to get people out of gas guzzlers into smaller cars. Not concentrating on designing ultra-high mileage vehicles.
Sieg Heil VolksWagon !
I have a car in the garage that gets infinite miles per gallon. It's pretty old, too.
The wheels on the Volkswagen XL1 are as thin as road bike's and wrapped in custom Michelin rubber.
So having a 1700lb car riding on road bike tires just seems like this car is ripe for a disaster. How much friction/traction can be gained from having such a tiny tire? If these tires are super-sticky tires then they'll have almost no lifespan. I wonder at what speed you could nolonger take an emergency avoidance maneuver? As they say, "Sir Isaac Newton is in the driver's seat."
There's a reason why high performance race cars have wide tires and bicycles or those college competition solar powered vehicles have ultra narrow tires.
Do you want low resistance or low traction, pick one.
I don't know that it was ever acknowleged but as a proud Pinto owner I know the nasty visibility constraints of the rear "posts" were a problem and I've always suspected Pinto owners put themselves into position for a rear collision and explosion.
What a bunch of anti-tech luddites. Don't they know 3D printing is the future?
The only thing I can think of when reading this article, is how on earth the US still hasn't moved to metric. Seriously, how do you cope with that?
So you've got cars like the Subaru Forester/Outback which are labeled as All-Wheel Drive, and then you've got cars like Land Rover/Range Rover which seem to be Four Wheel Drive. What's the actual difference? I'm guessing it has something to do with the differential?
Plan My Week for iPhone
So you've got cars like the Subaru Forester/Outback which are labeled as All-Wheel Drive, and then you've got cars like Land Rover/Range Rover which seem to be Four Wheel Drive. What's the actual difference? I'm guessing it has something to do with the differential?
To me the difference is:
AWD and "4x4 on demand" are computer controlled. 4 Wheel Drive is either selectable or always on.
IIRC the AWD in the Subaru Impreza's distribute the power 70-30 between the front and rear wheels but the computer alters this according to the detected conditions. If you get into an old school Land Cruiser or Pajero, you'll see two sticks, one for selecting 2WD and 4WD and the other for selecting gears.
Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
All wheel drive systems are engaged all the time. 4WD systems are engaged on demand and contain a transfer case in a traditional manual style. Many of the AWD systems have transfer cases which are miniature automatic trannies like the 90's Jeep Cherokees. Some AWD systems like Subaru's dispense with the transfer case altogether and have the axles jammed straight into the tranny because they built the proper mechanisms internally to the tranny. The difference to me seems to be that 4WD systems are designed as an after thought that is to be slapped on to the tailshaft of the standard transmission while AWD systems are designed to be integral to the transmission's purpose. 4WD's also do not like to be driven on the highway all the time while engaged. You kick them in when you need it but otherwise it'll suck especially if you have to run with the front axle hubs locked in. AWD is all the time, and handles so well you'd hardly even notice and won't prematurely wear cause you left it engaged- that's it's design.
As I understand it, generally the "4 wheel drive" types have either part time 4 wheel drive with lockable/freewheel front hubs (no center differential - on bitumen you need to disengage 4 wheel drive), or a center differential which can be locked. They also usually have a dual range gearbox. AWD typically have a non-lockable center differential and single range gearbox. Though trick stuff like the EVO and higher grade STi have electronically controlled center differentials these days which has blurred the line somewhat.
I run: Windows, OS X, Linux, FreeBSD. Just because you have a hammer, doesn't mean everything is a nail.
In 1966, VW built a car with a curb weight of 1672 pounds. They did it with inexpensive steel, not expensive carbon fiber. Perhaps they should review herr Doktor Porsche's designs, so they can remember how it's done!
BTW, I drive a six speed manual without traction control. I drive a lot better than most because I dont expect my car to pull me out of dangerous situations I get myself into.
I am a completely mediocre driver with traction control, anti-lock brakes and as much safety tech as I can slap on a car. When I hit an unexpected patch of black ice, my computer chips will react far faster than any veteran race car driver that ever lived. Don't let pride blind you to to the advantages of technology.
HA! I just wasted some of your bandwidth with a frivolous sig!
Amory Lovins was barking about hypercars years ago. This is not a new idea. Back when he was pissing and moaning, gas was cheap. Now oil's $100 bbl. So, now it "makes sense". Duh. As if making sense has to be about money.
Shoes for Industry. Shoes for the Dead.
Holy fuck! Nobel prize in physics coming right up!
A lot of the concepts in this concept car are no good. The mass budget is just too tight, they've thrown out too much structural strength, safety equipment, comfort equipment, etc.
BUT, turbodiesel hybrid is the way to go. Turbodiesel is inherently more efficient than gasoline, but it's got a much flatter torque profile than gasoline, meaning you can't get much by putting the pedal to the metal. But that's where the electric motor comes in. Diesel and electric techs are a match made in heaven, as anyone who's ever designed a rail locomotive is well aware.
4WD systems include a (generally) manual shift transfer case that puts power to the front axle. In my case I also have manual locking front hubs (really old school here) The transfer case has three settings: 2WD (rear), 4WD high for driving in dirt and snow and ice, and 4WD low for when you need extra torque for steep hills or pulling. Because the power split is 50/50 front rear, handling can be a bit strange for the uninitiated.
In the AWD systems, you have a center differential along with the normal front & rear diffs. Some of them are electronically controlled to split the power asymmetrically and some are fixed. The asymmetric ones are more common. They provide excellent handling in pretty much all driving conditions and most drivers would not be able to tell if it was AWD at all.
The problem with the Subaru (and perhaps others) is that the tires need to be close to the same diameter on all four tires. Prolonged driving on an undersized spare can cause serious damage to the center differential. It is recommended to replace all tires at the same time. If you can not afford to, then 'shaving' the new tire down to match the older tires is recommended. I always rotated my tires through the spare so if I ever had a flat, the spare was always close enough to the driving tire diameter so that I had no worries. That being said, I only had one flat in the eight years that I owned the Forester. I have rolled the bead during rally races though.
It is also pretty much instant death to the center differential to tow the car on a car dolly or with a conventional tow truck. The safest way to tow a Subaru (and perhaps other AWD vehicles) is on a flat bed. It is sometimes permissible to tow the Subaru with ALL 4 wheels on the ground (I.E. behind a motor home), you should consult the owners manual for your specific vehicle - there are differences between auto and manual transmissions..
Why is it that most of the people that I encounter seem to have been shat from the Sphincter of Mediocrity?
Being a good driver is two things. [...]
My grandmother used to say that "Good Driving is Good Manners".
Treating other road users with courtesy and respect is more important than any level of technical skill. Not only will it make you consider their actions and act appropriately, it will keep you calm and avoid the sort of aggressive and impatient driving that causes the majority of accidents.
And, yes, it is good manners to behave well to people even if they do not behave well to you...
This is a PRODUCTION car you will be able to buy and drive (if approved in your country).
It's design is based on a previous concept car: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volkswagen_1-litre_car
http://www.vwvortex.com/news/volkswagen-news/volkswagen-xl1-gets-green-light/
How is that "not cheap"? If it gets the claimed MPG over its lifetime it's an absolute bargain.
It is a VW, they are well built quality cars. $25k would be good for a VW even if it wasn't this efficient.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
I instantly thought of this head-on test: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=joMK1WZjP7g
But I'm being a little unfair in comparing an 80s vintage to a 1959. I still love those fins and tear-drop tail lights on the '59 Chevys. Naturally, they ruined them in '60.
Is there some technological reason for covering the back wheel? I noticed a lot of early electric or hybrid prototypes did this too. If there's a technological advantage then that's ok-ish, but if its just for stylistic reasons I just can't see the appeal.
"People who think they know everything are very annoying to those of us who do."-Mark Twain
This is a nice Proof of Concept. I wonder if eventually we will develop a graphene based car shell which won't be cost prohibitive and could be used for manufactoring automotive parts such as the exterior, for example.
The problem with the way our automotive industry is regulated is that it mandates so many specifics that many new developments are basically a bad investment for manufacturers. And it's not just limited to automotive.
Boeing had to submit requests for all kinds of exemptions for its 787, having to explain why requirements that assume a metallic fuselage were not relevant to the composites used in their new jet.
Similarly, I see all sorts of vehicles which are allegedly non-road that upon a quick smell test reveal themselves to be every bit as much of a car as any other. They don't call them cars, of course, that would make them illegal. Sooner or later, we must as a society step back and decide if all these well-meaning regulations are what we really want.
In SOVIET RUSSIA... erm...NSA AMERICA, the Internet logs onto YOU!
Many of the implementations are strictly forbidden by U.S. law (mostly due to it being outdated). It's a long time problem in the U.S. automobile industry. Just changing to newer better headlights took an immense campaign because the law stated they had to be x,y,z.
Its time to break our addiction to the car and get serious about transportation:
http://www.skytran.net/
Cars and trucks are incredibly wasteful when you consider all the weight which has to be moved from point A to point B along with your fat ass. Increasing MPG does very little to solve the real problem of too many cars/people and not enough geography.
How many lanes can really fit into an area? I've driven on 5 lane highways which did little or nothing to increase traffic flow and forget about rush hour...its still a parking lot.
Imagine a 'network' of Skytran pods being able to haul people within 1/2 mile of any destination. The business advantages are immense when you consider a manufacturing company which builds their own hub and has pods deliver their materials. FedEx and UPS would no longer be the only game in town.
Look at the advances which the public road system does for humanity and then increase that exponentially with a SkyTran system...:)
Oil companies will have the U.S. Gov't torpedo the ships.
Over in Europe, Smart Cars get twice the mileage as here. Cars in Japan are almost twice as fuel efficient.
They'll have to put a device on the thing that makes it get under 50MPG, or they won't let it in the country.
Googled cheap cars.. The lowest end car is apparently the $12780 Nissan Versa. (I sure thought I've seen new cars even cheaper in dealer ads in the newspaper, but that was only me skimming, and I'm not 100% positive they were new.)
Over $12K "left over" from that thing, that looks much more like a motorcycle, compared to a 'regular car'.. that $12+K will buy a lot of gas.
(Yes, some people will pay extra for lots of things, like luxury cars.. and I am going to look into solar panels even though I think it won't make financial sense for me, though I also intend to get an electric car which may weigh it more in that direction.. But this sub-thread was about cheap/safe/legal transportation.)
The current definition I'd use is "Is the center diff manually controlled?" If yes, 4WD, of no, AWD. Though, the '80s Subaru GL I owned once had selectable diff, but was considered AWD at the time, but the label on it was 4WD. It didn't have a low, and so some consider it a 4WD only if it has a variable speed transfer case. Though I own an AWD SUV that doesn't need its 1 (6 speed automatic), so 1 is essentially a low, though about as low as 2nd in "low" on the "real" 4WDs I've driven. But manual lows has always been lower to allow for pulling boats out of the water with minimal clutch feathering.
Learn to love Alaska