Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Will Your Next Car Be Covered In Morphing Dimples?

Posted by samzenpus on from the slicing-down-the-highway dept.

cartechboy writes Golfing and cars, not much in common there. But that's about to change thanks to a new technology from a research lab at MIT called Smorphs. The idea is simple: put a set of dynamic dimples on the exterior of a car to improve its surface aerodynamics and make it slipperier, and therefore faster. Pedro Reis is the mechanical engineering and research spearheading this project. A while ago Mythbusters proved the validity of the dimpled car form in a much more low-tech way. The concept uses a hollow core surrounded by a thick, deformable layer, and a smoother outer skin. When vacuum is applied, the outer layers suck in to form the dimples. The technology is only in its very earliest stages, but we could see this applied to future vehicles in an effort to make them faster and more fuel efficient.

31 of 138 comments (clear)

  1. The Future. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

    My wife's car just had $10k worth of hail damage repaired via insurance. You're telling me that on her future vehicle we will be expected to pay extra for the "animated hail dimples" option?

  2. 11% fuel efficiency improvement by Max_W · · Score: 5, Interesting

    It is a lot. Why car industry does not make cars like this?

    1. Re:11% fuel efficiency improvement by Mashiki · · Score: 2

      Don't worry, I'm sure speed holes are up next.

      --
      Om, nomnomnom...
    2. Re:11% fuel efficiency improvement by Pentium100 · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Because it looks ugly. Also, the laws in my country limit the maximum speed to 130km/h, so I don't care that denting the car will make it faster - I can break the law already if I want (my not very aerodynamic car made in 1982 with 80kW gasoline engine running on LPG can go at around 165km/h (and going 35km/h over the limit would result in a huge fine)), I do not really need a faster car). Also, saving 11% money on fuel but having to buy a new car would not pay off unless you drive a lot.

    3. Re:11% fuel efficiency improvement by Charliemopps · · Score: 2

      It is a lot. Why car industry does not make cars like this?

      The people that would be interested in this already have very fuel efficient cars. Therefor the effect would be negligible on the types of vehicles they're buying. Where-as the effect would have the most dramatic effect on the SUV buyers... who clearly don't give a shit about efficiency. It's a Catch-22.

    4. Re:11% fuel efficiency improvement by mrchaotica · · Score: 2

      There's also the people who think they "need" an SUV but get upset about how much they have to pay for fuel. It's a stupid market, but that market exists.

      --

      "[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz

    5. Re:11% fuel efficiency improvement by ravenscar · · Score: 3, Informative

      I know I'm feeding the trolls, but I'll venture that English is not Max_W's first language. Don't be an asshole. Or, if that's too hard, just be an asshole by yourself. No need to trumpet it online.

    6. Re:11% fuel efficiency improvement by gurps_npc · · Score: 4, Informative
      Bull. It does not look ugly. It looks strange to you only because you have never seen it before. Let them start making it and all the young kids will say how cool it looks. (Look at what the silly things like in music!)

      As for your argument about 11%, you are a very ignorant. It is not about replacing your car, but about making the NEXT car you buy 11% more fuel efficient.

      --
      excitingthingstodo.blogspot.com
    7. Re:11% fuel efficiency improvement by rmdingler · · Score: 4, Insightful
      Tractor trailers would seemingly benefit the most.

      Given the trucking industry's current interest in aerodynamic additions that are not necessarily aesthetic,

      I would say that's your target market.

      --
      Happiness in intelligent people is the rarest thing I know.

      Ernest Hemingway

    8. Re:11% fuel efficiency improvement by Lord+Lemur · · Score: 2

      Easier, cheaper and a larger return, but it doesn't fail safe.

    9. Re:11% fuel efficiency improvement by usuallylost · · Score: 2

      If they can make this work at a reasonable cost the trucking industry is defiantly a place I’d expect to see it. After all fuel efficiency is one of the biggest factors in whether a trucking company makes money or not. I am not sure a dynamic system such as being described in the article makes that much sense for cars and trucks. Making some sort of prefabricated body panels that have some pattern permanent imprinted it in seems like it would be much cheaper and require less long term maintenance. Even if you only got a portion of the 11% improvement it could still equal millions of dollars a year to a large trucking company.

      As far as they sort of dynamic system described in the article I have to wonder if that wouldn’t be more appropriate to something like the aviation industry. Aircraft have a large enough cost that even if a system like that was $100,000 to put in the impact on the overall cost of the aircraft wouldn’t be that great. It is another industry, like trucking, where fuel costs are among their greatest expenses so an 11% improvement would be significant.

    10. Re:11% fuel efficiency improvement by Solandri · · Score: 2
      I can think of lots of reasons.
      • It's expensive. Stamping or rolling a sheet of metal into a flat shape or single-curved is quick and easy. Adding lots of little dimples takes time and adds cost. While I can't say how much cost, some or most of the fuel savings may be offset by additional energy consumed during manufacturing.
      • The mechanism for forming the dimples may not be cost-effective. A similar idea was tried with planes - NASA drilled lots of holes in the wing and attached suction tubes to keep the boundary layer attached, leading to laminar flow over the entire wing and better wing efficiency. That's the opposite of what you're doing here (the dimples disrupt laminar flow and cause the airflow to detach and become turbulent prematurely, which actually reduces drag because the air doesn't "stick" to the car as well). But the drawback may be the same - the weight and space of carrying all that sucking equipment completely offset any fuel and cost savings.
      • People don't like it. Auto manufacturers would love to eliminate the cost of the shiny clearcoat layer on top of the paint. But buyers love smooth and shiny - it sells new cars. So they don't.
      • It'd be a lot harder to clean. Dirt and other material like dead bugs and bird droppings would tend to collect and dry in the dimples. With a smooth surface, you can scrape these off. With dimples, the crud would collect inside, and you're going to take a lot more work to clean it out. Maybe enough for an owner to say "screw this, it ain't worth an 11% fuel savings." Deformable dimples may fare better, but the dried crud may prevent the dimple from completely flattening, leaving you with a similar problem.
      • It causes lots of reflections. Most of your car's body is flat panels so you only see reflected sunlight at certain angles. You deal with this by temporarily covering your view of the offending car withy our hand, until you've changed angles so there is no more glare. But put a lot of small curved surfaces on a car and they will reflect sunlight into your eyes from almost any angle. Are you prepared to drive on a road where every car is covered with lots of little glare dots from the sun? It would be less of a problem if cars were painted with flat paint, but see two bullets above.
      • Easier/more annoying to vandalize. Antisocial kids would run around popping these with a pin while your car was parked. You wouldn't notice it until you were up to speed and the dimple suction mechanism complained of reduced vacuum pressure, so the culprits are highly unlikely to be caught.

      And those are just off the top of my head. That's not to say they're legit - maybe they won't turn out to be that big a problem in practice. But if you can't think of any reason why this hasn't already been done yet other than "it's an auto industry conspiracy!", then you haven't really put a lot of thought into it.

    11. Re:11% fuel efficiency improvement by Wing_Zero · · Score: 2

      They have the Autobon, A speed limit free road, and they constantly reach speeds of 95+. In America meanwhile, have you ever seen a SmartCar going down the freeway? Looks odd when it weaves in and out of traffic, but it has a power/weight ratio that rivals some sedans. (made by Mercedes BTW, a European car company)

    12. Re:11% fuel efficiency improvement by Pentium100 · · Score: 2

      But I didn't pay $20k to keep my current car from now on, so if it breaks down without the possibility of repair I still can buy some other used car and save money.

      Now, safety features are important, but from what I have seen, modern cars are too soft - hitting another car at 40-50km/h can completely destroy your car, but when I hit some other car at around 40km/h, my car could be straightened out (though it needed a new headlamp, radiator and bonnet). Though the soft modern cars most likely are safer at very high speeds. But driving even a 2005 car (not very new obviously) on a gravel road leaves it full of dents (I guess driving it a few times on that road will cause it to start using less fuel).

      Also, my current car does not have software in it (really, the car was made in 1982 and all controls are mechanical), so it is easier to repair (that and everything is easier to access - I do not need to remove a wheel to replace a lightbulb). So this may be worth to me the higher cost of fuel (then again, LPG is not that expensive compared to gasoline).

      But we were talking about the fuel efficiency and how more efficient car saves money for everyone. Just like having your own solar power - while the power may be free from now on, I may have to pay enough money for the panels, installation etc to keep using grid power for 20 years. And the solar power will need periodic battery replacements, so the power is not completely free after installing.

    13. Re:11% fuel efficiency improvement by pixelpusher220 · · Score: 2

      my idea is normal mirrors with small moveable cameras at the ends. Fold mirror in and now low drag and camera. If the camera fails then just fold it out again.

      --
      People in cars cause accidents....accidents in cars cause people :-D
  3. Speed holes! by Coolhand2120 · · Score: 2

    From the Simpsons
    Car salesman: "These are speed holes, they make the car go faster"
    Krusty: "Oh yeah, speed holes"
    http://www.mercedescla.org/for...

    1. Re:Speed holes! by creepynut · · Score: 2

      That's actually Homer after having attended Krusty's clown college (episode: Homie the Clown).

  4. Re:Your next supercar. by rsborg · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Your next supercar will be ugly as hitting your father with a sweaty sock, but really efficient because, as we all know, people buy supercars for their efficiency.

    Let's turn it around - *some* or "a lot* of people who buy super cars (especially of the electric variety) buy cars for their efficiency (speed/mileage).

    Notes:
    a) not all or nothing - a big enough niche where you dominate (and erect defenses from encroachment) will provide a solid business model and sustainable profits.
    b) speed requires efficiency, unless you plan on putting rocket fuel into your afterburner.
    c) I always thought dimples were sexy on a girl, why not a car?

    --
    Make sure everyone's vote counts: Verified Voting
  5. Answer: possibly by Trogre · · Score: 2

    After so many "Your next car" posts on Slashdot presenting anti-features like MS Windows, brain control or remote disabling systems, finally here's a story with a feature that might actually benefit being added to a car.

    Well done.

    --
    "Nine times out of ten, starting a fire is not the best way to solve the problem." - my wife
  6. Re:Why not permanent? by queazocotal · · Score: 4, Informative

    I'm unsure - but suspect that if they were there permanently - with the profile done right, stamped out of the steel - they may improve stiffness, and reduce weight.
    Stamping such a pattern would be 'interesting', and prone to lots of wear in the dies though.
    For composite, in principle, it could almost be free.

  7. Re:I guess the dimples are ok by JaredOfEuropa · · Score: 2

    I read "morphine dimples" at first. Then I got disappointed.

    --
    If construction was anything like programming, an incorrectly fitted lock would bring down the entire building...
  8. Re:Why not permanent? by Przemo-c · · Score: 2

    Probably dynamic so it can accomodate different air speed

  9. Re:Why not permanent? by oneandoneis2 · · Score: 4, Informative

    From TFA: "If a golf ball were to fly fast enough, it would be better off with a smooth skin."

    The dimples make things better at low speeds, and worse at high speeds.

    --
    So.. it has come to this
  10. Re:Your next supercar. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    "People buy super cars because they consider them to be cool (and they have nothing better to spend their money on)."

    True

    "New technology is cool."

    Not true. Some new technology is cool, but not all. Relevant case in point is the engines used in supercars, where you will often see naturally aspirated V8s, V10s etc used not because they are the latest, most efficient tech, but because they sound great, and people expect a supercar to sound awesome, efficiency is secondary.

    "If this is cool new tech, a super car seems like a logical place to start."

    Logic has little to do with supercars. Bugatti lost over $6million dollars on every Veyron sold; if it was about logic, they wouldn't make them.

    "Also note that efficiency isn't necessarily solely fuel economy, but can also affect top speed."

    True, but again, supercars aren't all about ultimate performance, they are more objets d'art than anything else. You wouldn't want a slow supercar, but they are supposed to look great, sound great, and feel great, as well as perform great. They are mostly driven around cities at 30MPH, not trying to set speed records, they just need credible performance to sit amongst their peers.

  11. Re:Cars are fast enough already by drinkypoo · · Score: 3, Insightful

    What really needs to be focused on is a method to stop them dead in their tracks whenever they are in striking distance of slower moving objects such as pedestrians and bicyclists.

    That's dumb. Pedestrians and bicyclists don't have the same requirements as automobiles, we should focus on keeping them separated. It's not as though they need to share the same space, except where no thought has been given to them.

    --
    "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  12. Re:Your next supercar. by maroberts · · Score: 2

    The claimed 0-60 time for a Tesla S is 4.2 seconds, which compares better or at least favourably with many supercars. The Roadster was even better at 3.7 seconds.
    Max speed is electronically limited at around 125/130mph,

    Similar the apocryphal Bill Gates quote, I could say that no one would want to go faster, but having experienced 165mph on roads, I know different....

    --

    Donte Alistair Anderson Roberts - hi son!
    Karma: Chameleon

  13. Re:Cars are fast enough already by mark_reh · · Score: 2

    The laws of physics are symmetric and apply equally to the people in the car and outside the car. The last thing you want is to stop a car dead at any speed.

    OK, so the car has airbags to protect the occupants. Do you really want all the air bags going off every time a car is within striking distance (whatever that means) of a pedestrian or bicycle? There is no airbag between your brain and the inside of your skull. THAT is the real problem that needs to be solved.

    I'd say what really needs to be focused on is educating people not to walk in front of cars.

  14. Re:If dimples have this big an effect by ravenscar · · Score: 2

    I would guess that most aircraft travel at a speed where the dimples are detrimental rather than beneficial. The article notes that, if golf balls traveled fast enough, they would be better off with smooth skin. Probably, 400-550 mph is above the threshold of "fast enough".

  15. This seems unnecessarily complicated. by Primate+Pete · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Why not just press dimples into the plastic/fibreglas/metal panels of the car? No expensive technology needed, and "good enough" dimples can just be made part of the parts molds/presses.

    On a second topic, I would be investigating this if I owned a racing team because anything that decreases the fuel consumption of my car improves overall race performance. Skipping a single refueling stop is a big deal. Since the teams are already making custom cars, the cost of adding dimples should be negligible compared to the overall cost of the vehicle. Not quite something for nothing, but close.

  16. Why "morphing" by argStyopa · · Score: 2

    I mean, what is the advantage of a complex vacuum system and the flexible (ie fail-able) skin?

    Just put dimples on the cars. In a single generation, it would go from "looking weird" to normal.

    --
    -Styopa
  17. More Aerodynamic than Dimples by tekrat · · Score: 2

    Is the Elio -- 84MPG with no hybrid nonsense!
    http://www.eliomotors.com/

    --
    If telephones are outlawed, then only outlaws will have telephones.