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."
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?
Rear wheel drive is not a problem. Read wheel drive with all the weight over the front wheels is a problem, especially in low traction situations. Ideal is really all wheel drive with weight distributed close to evenly.
Which of the two widely used metric standards do you want? ;-)
If you're from one of the countries that uses the km/L measure (Netherlands, Denmark, Japan, Korea, etc.), then this Volkswagen prototype gets about 110 km/L.
If you're from one of the countries that uses the L/100km measure (Germany, Italy, Australia, etc.), then this prototype uses about 0.90 L/100km.
10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
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 mile is 8 furlongs and a gallon is 8 pints. So this car can do 262 furlongs per pint. That's quite an achievement considering it's mass is 125 stones.
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
Basically. The vehicle's so lightly built that a fricking DODGE OMNI will tear through you like you were toilet paper.
Over in Germany, if someone spatters themselves on (or by the side of) the road, it's the driver's fault for not knowing their car.
Here in the US, it's the manufacturer's fault for not making the car crash-survivable.
Chas - The one, the only.
THANK GOD!!!
Basically. The vehicle's so lightly built that a fricking DODGE OMNI will tear through you like you were toilet paper.
Over in Germany, if someone spatters themselves on (or by the side of) the road, it's the driver's fault for not knowing their car.
Here in the US, it's the manufacturer's fault for not making the car crash-survivable.
Never mind the willingness of people in Pickup Trucks to drive 70, 80 or 90 MPH in them. Remember when a Pickup was a farm or construction vehicle and could scarcely get over 55?
A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
There is absolutely NOTHING wrong with rear wheel drive. (unless you don't know how to drive to begin with)
Why is it that most of the people that I encounter seem to have been shat from the Sphincter of Mediocrity?
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
The concept car is real wheel drive with rear engine, similar to the origianl VW although it isn't aircooled.
"If you're from one of the countries that uses the L/100km measure (Germany, Italy, Australia, etc.), then this prototype uses about 0.90 L/100km."
We use that conversion here (New Zealand) and it makes a whole lot more sense since I can see precisely how much less fuel this will use compared with my current car which gets around 9L/100Km. Basically, this goes 10x further per gallon than a typical family wagon. Impressive. More so because it is dragging a car around and my 650cc motorcycle only gets 4L/100Km which I thought was pretty good. I did have a 100cc scooter at one point which managed about 2.5L/100Km.
Trying to relate all of this with mpg or even lpk is much harder.
"I have the attention span of a strobe lit goldfish, please get to the point quickly!"
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
Basically. The vehicle's so lightly built that a fricking DODGE OMNI will tear through you like you were toilet paper.
Over in Germany, if someone spatters themselves on (or by the side of) the road, it's the driver's fault for not knowing their car.
Here in the US, it's the manufacturer's fault for not making the car crash-survivable.
Actually, in most of Europe, vehicle safety is concerned with protecting who you hit, particularly pedestrians versus you the driver or the occupants of the vehicle. That doesn't mean that automakers don't exceed those standards, but that is a priority. VW even admited that their test fleet of these vehicles had to get a special waiver because it didn't have a passenger side air bag.
That said, VW also said not to expect this vehicle in the US as it would not meet US safety standards and would have to be totally re-engineered to do so which would probably kill the high mileage it gets.
The problem with RWD is that 99% of drivers have never driven one and have no clue how to properly handle one. But then, 99% of drivers simply don't know how to drive at all, so it doesn't really matter.
The thin little tires are what bothers me most. There's a damn good reason we don't use "bicycle wheels" on cars... traction and cornering stability. (and the reviewer breifly mentioned how quickly the tires give up.)
Actually, There has been some shift back to a taller, narrower tire lately. The idea being they are keeping the same ground contact patch area, only in a different orientation, which produces better traction in wet conditions, additionally, for reasons that are math, they improve fuel efficiency.
http://www.bridgestone.com/corporate/news/2013030502.html
I've decided to Diversify my Holdings. I've divided my cash between my left and right pockets, instead of all in one.
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.
But when you say "goes 10x further per [unit fuel]" you're talking about it the other way! I.e. this one gets 110 km/L, 10 times more km per liter than your car that gets around 11 km/L.
If instead you're comparing 9 L/100km to 0.9 L/100km, that's not talking about how much distance you get per liter, but about how many liters you use per distance, i.e. the rate of fuel consumption. Of course, they're equivalent ratios; it's just a reciprocal.
10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
A mile is 8 furlongs and a gallon is 8 pints. So this car can do 262 furlongs per pint. That's quite an achievement considering it's mass is 125 stones.
But don't exclude the performance figures! It will do 266,112 furlongs per fortnight. Not too shabby for what it is.
much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
(unless you don't know how to drive to begin with)
That describes 90% of all U.S. (and I suspect the world's) drivers.
If you're excluding German and English drivers.
I dont blame the drivers, it's the cars that coddle them.
No need to learn manual, just buy an auto. Cant park, we'll now we have self parking cars. Cant keep a constant speed, try cruise control. Cant keep a safe gap, adaptive cruise control. Cant be bothered using your mirrors, now we have rear and side proximity sensors.
We've been moving towards fully automated cars for years, it's only recently have people even noticed.
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.
Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
Over the years, I have driven pretty much all types - rear wheel (VW's mostly), front wheel, all wheel (Subaru - Oh yeah!), and 4-wheel. (Yes, there is a difference).
The FJ40 is very much like the Volkwagons, excepting that they are way top heavy. It's a HEAVY 4WD for its size (over 4,000 lbs), and a relatively light rear end. It has a habit of breaking loose on wet roads in the turns (much like my '69 VW Camper. Have to be pretty careful. My 2004 Subaru Forester simply could not give a damn about the road conditions - it was just completely predictable (after I disabled the anti-lock break system). My old '69 VW Square Back was very predictable and drifted like a freaking dream. Believe it or not, it out handled many of the heavier American muscle cars. Not all that fast (top speed of about 100mph), but on mountain roads it was freaking awesome.
It's all old school for me now.
The golden rules:
Know your limits
Know your vehicles performance limits
Know your vehicles foot print on the pavement.
Why is it that most of the people that I encounter seem to have been shat from the Sphincter of Mediocrity?
Why wait? Plans for the XR3 (a strikingly similar vehicle) have been around for years and you can build it yourself. It basically uses a Kubota D902 diesel up front and an electric motor drives the rear wheel. The design even lets you forgo one or the other and go all diesel or all electric. But combined you get the 200+ MPG version.
"A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky dangerous animals and you know it." - K
"Ideal" depends on what you are trying to achieve. To go fast, yes mid/rear or mid/awd is the way to go.
To be fair, I did specify performance and sports cars, so balance is key there.
If you're talking about a cheap runabout, Front Forward is the way to go as it gets better gains out of smaller engines, reduces the weight of the engine/drive train and are a hell of lot cheaper to build. People who buy a Toyota Yaris dont care about performance as much as just getting from A to B cheaply.
Ultimately, the cheapness of FF cars is what drives people towards them.
Not that FF cars are all bad (cheap and cheery), you get some crackers of FF's like the Honda Integra and Ford Focus ST's.
Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
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!
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.
Yeah, this is the same stuff they've been doing with early electric cars here in Norway. Classify them as motorcycles, because then you don't have to fulfill any safety requirements (almost). That does not mean this isn't as unsafe as a '62 Chevy Corvair.
for i in `facebook friends "=bday" 2>/dev/null | cut -d " " -f 3-`; do facebook wallpost $i "Happy birthday!"; done
massive rubber on it.
I've always suspected BMW drivers use their cars as penis extenders, but this takes "safety" to a whole new level...
for i in `facebook friends "=bday" 2>/dev/null | cut -d " " -f 3-`; do facebook wallpost $i "Happy birthday!"; done
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...
You are missing his point. Since you apparently are someone who uses U.S. Standard Units, I will convert his point to those. It is easier to compare the gas efficiency of two cars if you use Gallons(Liters) per 100 Miles(Kilometers) than it is to do so using Miles(Kilometers) per Gallon(Liter). For example using mpg (or kpl) it appears that a vehicle that gets 40 mpg is as much better than a vehicle that gets 20 mpg as a vehicle that gets 20 mpg is better than one that gets 10 mpg. However, if you convert that the Gallons/100 Miles(gp100m) you discover that a vehicle which gets 10 mpg gets 10 gp100m, while a car that gets 20 mpg gets 5 gp100m and one that gets 40 mpg gets 2.5 gp100m. Meaning that you save 5 gallons per 100 miles traveled when you go from a vehicle which gets 10 mpg to one that gets 20 mpg, but you only save 2.5 gallons per 100 miles traveled when you go from a vehicle that gets 20 mpg to one that gets 40 mpg.
Understanding this makes clear how much it is costing us to make ever smaller incremental changes in improvements in gas usage by vehicles. Paying attention to that will allow us to more readily recognize when further improvements in fuel efficiency are not worth the cost. It is called the law of diminishing returns, a law to which we as a society pay too little attention.
The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
A F1 car is a single-seater speed machine with a cockpit engineered to be crash survivable. Not just with layers of carbon fiber honeycomb. But with exceptionally strong bonding agents between the layers, holding them rigid.
Somehow I doubt this little street car is engineered to the same specs.
Chas - The one, the only.
THANK GOD!!!
" For example using mpg (or kpl) it appears that a vehicle that gets 40 mpg is as much better than a vehicle that gets 20 mpg as a vehicle that gets 20 mpg is better than one that gets 10 mpg. "
It doesn't just appear that way, it's true. A doubling in mpg results in a halving of gal/100mi. You picked the wrong numbers to illustrate the difference between the metrics. Should use something like 10 mpg vs 15 mpg (10 to 6.66, 3.33 gallons savings) and then 30 mpg vs 35 mpg (3.33 to 2.86, 0.47 gallons savings).