Slashdot Mirror


42 Solar-Powered Cars Race in 31st Annual 'Solar Challenge' Race (engadget.com)

An anonymous reader quotes Engadget: It's a special moment in the history of clean energy: the 30th anniversary World Solar Challenge has begun. A total of 42 solar-powered cars (the largest field to date) left Darwin, Australia on October 8th to travel roughly 1,880 miles to Adelaide. The race officially lasts a week, but it's likely going to end considerably sooner for the front-runners -- the world record holders, Tokai University, took just under 30 hours in 2009...

This year, the race regulations are a clear sign of how rapidly solar technology is changing. Teams have to use a smaller solar collector than before: cars in the Challenger class can have no more than 43 square feet of solar cells versus nearly 65 square feet for the previous race, in 2015. That's half the area allowed on cars from the original 1987 race. In other words, technology is advanced enough now (both in solar cells and the underlying vehicle designs) that you don't need a sea of panels to keep a car running.

48 comments

  1. Next year in Finland by nicolaiplum · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I look forward to this race being run in Finland in October next year with the same winning criteria.

    Of course this is getting easier in late spring in a sunny desert. The success for real life usage will be when this works in a place with inclement weather and short days - like where most of the world's population lives for most of the year.

    --
    "For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled"
    1. Re:Next year in Finland by PopeRatzo · · Score: 4, Informative

      I look forward to this race being run in Finland in October next year with the same winning criteria.

      Uh-oh. I'm sensing a really stupid statement coming up..

      The success for real life usage will be when this works in a place with inclement weather and short days - like where most of the world's population lives for most of the year.

      And...there it is!

      Most of the world's population does not live "in a place with inclement weather and short days". Most of the world's population lives within 30 degrees of the equator. Finland is the anomaly, not Australia.

      http://www.slate.com/blogs/the...

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    2. Re:Next year in Finland by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I look forward to this race being run in Finland in October

      How about Nome in December? They should be good enough to run under starlight pretty soon. Leeching off the aurora is cheating...

    3. Re:Next year in Finland by dwywit · · Score: 1

      "xxxxxx is the anomaly, not Australia"

      Well *that's* a first.

      --
      They sentenced me to twenty years of boredom
    4. Re:Next year in Finland by DrXym · · Score: 1
      I can clear up your confusion by pointing out that this race isn't trying to prove "real life usage". These vehicles are glorified bicycle frames covered by an aerodynamic shell of panels. It's a race. Even so, the change in the rules demonstrate that solar panels have become much more efficient than even a few years ago which does have a knock on impact for the real world.

      Finland is hardly representative of much either. Even if Finland has crappy dark winters due to its latitude, it doesn't mean solar doesn't work in the summer months, or in other countries. A brief google suggests Finland's renewable policy is more focused on wind turbines, hydro and black liquor which apparently is a byproduct of the wood pulping industry that can be gasified.

    5. Re:Next year in Finland by AmiMoJo · · Score: 2

      You seem to be labouring under the assumption that the goal is to develop solar powered consumer vehicles. It's not, it's to develop ultra efficient solar generation and propulsion systems.

      Kinda like how Formula 1 cars are somewhat impractical every-day-commute vehicles (single seater, little storage, crappy gas mileage, extremely fragile) but some of the technology filters down to more practical cars.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    6. Re:Next year in Finland by tduff · · Score: 1

      And besides, it's a lot farther to Adelaide from Finland.

  2. It's not the 31st Annual Race by scdeimos · · Score: 4, Informative

    The World Solar Challenge is supposed to be a biennial race held in the "odd years" but they've missed a couple along the way. 2017 will actually be the 14th race.

  3. Those cars are fast by HangingChad · · Score: 2

    I'm amazed by the speed. 1,880 miles in 30 hours is an average of 62 mph. I don't think I could drive that far, that fast, in a conventional car. Those solar teams are amazing.

    --
    That's our life, the big wheel of shit. - The Fat Man, Blue Tango Salvage
    1. Re:Those cars are fast by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Do you live somewhere metric? 62mph isn't fast.

    2. Re:Those cars are fast by viperidaenz · · Score: 1

      They never have to stop to refuel and the speed limits are between 68 and 81 mph (more 81 than 68) for pretty much the whole way.

      10 years ago most of the highway they use had no speed limit at all.

    3. Re:Those cars are fast by tinkerton · · Score: 1

      It's a valid observation. In common circumstances the average speed is a lot slower than the maximum speed over a long stretch. I'm pretty sure that the situation here is optimal in this race in that there are as few interruptions as possible. I wonder if they have to stop for traffic lights.
      I also think that just to squeeze out a bit more speed the drivers are pretty good too.

    4. Re:Those cars are fast by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ... most of the highway they use had no speed limit ...

      In 1994, the world's first, true 'cannonball run' didn't go well.

    5. Re:Those cars are fast by aphelion_rock · · Score: 4, Informative

      Do you live somewhere metric? 62mph isn't fast.

      3,000kms in 30 hours = 100km/h. Sustained speeds of 100km/h powered purely by solar energy is fast, really fast and a big improvement from the race beginning.
      67 km/h (42 mph) was the average speed on the first race in 1987. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
      Apart from Northern Territory, the maximum speed limit is 110km/h on major highways in Australia with most roads being 100km/h.

      This race is driving big improvements in electric vehicle technology, just what we need if we are going to exit fossil fuels any time soon.

    6. Re:Those cars are fast by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I agree with you about these cars being fast, considering the technology available to the uni students involved.

      You need to be aware, though, that Open Speed Limits (aka derestricted roads) were abolished in the Northern Territory back in 2006 after recording several dickheads at speeds of 295km/h. Parts of the NT still have 130km/h zones, though, which outstrips the 110km/h zones on some (not all) highways in other states and territories of Australia.

    7. Re:Those cars are fast by Hentes · · Score: 1

      They do stop for the night which I believe isn't added to the total time.

    8. Re:Those cars are fast by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      First? You realize the movie from the early 80's was damn near a documentary. The ambulance used in the film was even one of the actual race vehicles. It was a modified van made out to look like an ambulance.

    9. Re:Those cars are fast by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Years ago Northern Territory had no speed limit too, not sure if it still does.

      South Australia most roads they will take are 110kmh so an average of 100kmph, going though towns and a lot slower when in Adelaide is about right.

    10. Re:Those cars are fast by dwywit · · Score: 1

      "I wonder if they have to stop for traffic lights."

      There's not a lot of traffic lights out there.

      --
      They sentenced me to twenty years of boredom
  4. Loosest definition of 'car' by Jarik+C-Bol · · Score: 2

    While impressive, these things more resemble aerodynamically shrouded electric tricycles than they do conventional automobiles. Not for the claustrophobic, the driver is practically wearing the vehicle more than riding in it. While, they do show the advancements in materials science and solar technology, The vast improvements in times probably has more to do with the vehicles getting much lighter, probably via carbon fiber and lithium batteries these days, vs much heavier materials 31 years ago, which probably has more effect on the range and speed than the power generation getting much better.

    --
    I've decided to Diversify my Holdings. I've divided my cash between my left and right pockets, instead of all in one.
    1. Re:Loosest definition of 'car' by Dutch+Gun · · Score: 2

      I was thinking the same thing. But there are apparently three classes of vehicles. Only the top speed racers are solar-powered cycles. The cruiser class, for instance, has vehicles that look like this:

      https://www.worldsolarchalleng...

      Not exactly mainstream, but it's most definitely a "car".

      --
      Irony: Agile development has too much intertia to be abandoned now.
    2. Re:Loosest definition of 'car' by I75BJC · · Score: 1

      It looks like a big tricycle, actually. I couldn't find a description of it having 4 wheels and meeting the definition of a car.

    3. Re:Loosest definition of 'car' by blindseer · · Score: 1

      The reason they are built as "tricycles" is it greatly simplifies the suspension and drive train. Having only three wheels is now banned in many of the races like this is because of a very bad accident when a solar car lost one of it's wheels while on an overpass. The car skidded out of control into the sidewall of the bridge, tossing the windscreen to the road below and injuring the driver. I'm not aware of any solar car race, or similar competition, that will allow a three wheeled vehicle since.

      That does not mean the cars won't still be a tricycle style design, there are still advantages to having three points of contact on the road instead of four. What they will do is put the rear two wheels side by side. This avoids the complexity and weight of a differential axle, or the (potentially unsafe) compromise of a single driven wheel. Having independently driven wheels is expensive, heavy, and also potentially unsafe. Why would two motors be unsafe? Imagine a controller failure or wiring mistake where each wheel is driven in opposite directions.

      I recall an electric race car that was required to have four wheels but wanted a narrow front for aerodynamic reasons. This was solved by putting the two front steering wheels in the center line of the vehicle, one behind the other.

      I agree that these vehicles don't always meet the definition of a car. If they do, such as having four wheels to comply with laws or race regulations, then they still push the limits of that definition.

      --
      I am armed because I am free. I am free because I am armed.
    4. Re:Loosest definition of 'car' by Doctor+Memory · · Score: 1

      This team actually claims their car is a "solar utility vehicle". Even has a charging outlet for a cell phone.

      --
      Just junk food for thought...
    5. Re:Loosest definition of 'car' by torkus · · Score: 2

      Weight only matters for acceleration (and deceleration) and has very little impact on steady speed energy requirements. There's a minor consideration around increased rolling resistance due to weight but that can be addressed by minor changes to the wheels.

      In addition, if the cars are allowed batteries at all, then you recoup much of your energy if you have to slow down (car 'analogy': this is why hybrids get so much better fuel mileage in stop-and-go driving). So that further negates any weight penalties. Yes, you build for as light as practical as it does have some bonus and this *is* a competition after all...but it's minor.

      Greatly increased solar cell efficiency, advances in electric motors and the drive circuitry, as well as continued refinement if aerodynamics (which becomes increasingly important as speeds exceed 100km/h) are what's making these cars so much better.

      --
      You can get rich if you own a politician, but you have to be rich to buy one in the first place.
    6. Re:Loosest definition of 'car' by torkus · · Score: 1

      In the US (well, New York as every state is idiotically different in their traffic laws), they meet the definition of a motorcycle. 2 or 3 wheels is a motorcycle. 4+ is a car (or truck or etc.)

      With that said, I see no reason why one accident with a 3-wheel vehicle in a highly monitored competition would cause them to be more restrictive than normal traffic laws.

      --
      You can get rich if you own a politician, but you have to be rich to buy one in the first place.
    7. Re:Loosest definition of 'car' by blindseer · · Score: 1

      Why would one accident cause a rule change in a highly monitored competition? The answer is in the question, because a lot of people are watching.

      One goal of the competition is to get people on board with electric vehicles (solar power is one way to induce a limit on the electrical energy consumption) and having drivers getting injured is bad PR. Just generally people getting injured is bad PR when you have college students competing, doesn't matter if that competition is a spelling bee or football game.

      A three wheeled vehicle is provably unstable if the "wrong" wheel is lost. It's just human nature to want to fix a known weakness, especially when the solution has such a small cost. I've seen these vehicles up close, including the one that was wrecked, and these are not safe vehicles. Requiring them to have four wheels removes a now provably unsafe failure mode in vehicles that are already not great on safety. There were other close calls that induced rule changes, what happened here though was an injured driver and total loss of the vehicle. Not making a rule change afterward would have been a major PR failure, it would put the future of the competition at risk of having competitors no longer willing to enter. Running the non-zero risk of a similar accident happening again would be an ambulance chasing lawyer's dream.

      --
      I am armed because I am free. I am free because I am armed.
  5. A Section of Solar panels to Augment Batteries? by Zombie+Ryushu · · Score: 1

    I wonder if cars like the Tesla could use Solar panels on their roof to absorb Solar power to gradually recharge their batteries as they drive to make the battery last longer, and go further on long trips?

    1. Re:A Section of Solar panels to Augment Batteries? by aphelion_rock · · Score: 1

      The biggest battery in the Tesla vehicles is 90kW/h, with 200 watts of solar panels on the roof of a vehicle left out in the sun all day might generate 1kW/h, or about 1%. Not enough to make a big difference. If electric cars were lighter and used less power it may make more difference.

    2. Re:A Section of Solar panels to Augment Batteries? by drinkypoo · · Score: 2

      Torque Pro estimates the power needed to keep my 1998 Audi A8 cruising down the road at 8-12HP. 8 HP is 6kw. You'd be hard-pressed to get 1kW on your car in the best case. That's not worthless, but until it's a lot easier and cheaper to accomplish, you can expect virtually all automotive solar use to be of the "solar sunroof" variety, which can run the blower fan and maybe keep a normal battery trickle charged. Panasonic has announced a 180W solar glass roof; I'm guessing the panel on top of my (admittedly now quite old) A8 is about 10W. They step the voltage down to around 3V before it even leaves the sunroof, which it does via spring-loaded contacts which close when it does. Panasonic wants the entire roof of your car just to get 180W, which really is quite useless for anything more than just running the climate controls. Still, you might actually be able to run the heat pump and the blower on that, if you are willing to run them both slowly. It could be a substantial improvement over running the blower alone, which is itself a big improvement over nothing; if you combine it with solar coated glass, which every car really ought to have by now, it makes a massive improvement in parked car temperatures. Even on stupidly hot, completely sunny days, my car never gets above about 120. If you had an electrically-driven heat pump, you might be able to keep that down to something comfortable.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    3. Re:A Section of Solar panels to Augment Batteries? by Khyber · · Score: 1

      "You'd be hard-pressed to get 1kW on your car in the best case"

      Typical solar cells as-is produce 200 watts in about 1 square meter. There's about 5 square meters of roof space on a Tesla and another 3 square meters of hood space and another 2 square meters of trunk space. Plenty of space to give yourself 2kWh every hour. Let's assume 10AM-4PM as our typical brightest sun range. 6 hours * 2kWh = 12kWh over that period of time, or a bout 12.5-ish%.

      I could put even more solar than that on my 98 Taurus, which hilariously enough is LARGER than my 2002 Ford Explorer.

      --
      Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
    4. Re:A Section of Solar panels to Augment Batteries? by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      Typical solar cells as-is produce 200 watts in about 1 square meter.

      Your car is not made out of typical solar cells, and putting typical solar cells on it would make it look like a lego car. Your car is not oriented correctly to catch the sun, either. The panels will still work, but you will pay a noticeable performance penalty. When it's cheap and easy to put some kind of PV layer on your car that doesn't impact crashworthiness or pedestrian safety, then you will see it happen.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    5. Re:A Section of Solar panels to Augment Batteries? by DrXym · · Score: 1

      I think it would make more sense to embed solar panels in the access roads of car parks and above the parking spots themselves.

    6. Re:A Section of Solar panels to Augment Batteries? by Khyber · · Score: 1

      "Your car is not made out of typical solar cells, and putting typical solar cells on it would make it look like a lego car."

      Uhh, yea, no. You do know we live in the age of modular body components, yes? There are four companies I know of which produce aftermarket solar cell body panels, one's literally 18 miles down the road from me. They match the original contours and everything, with NO penalty. Oh, and I forgot the extra capacity of solar on the door panels, so let's add another kW total potential, there.

      "When it's cheap and easy to put some kind of PV layer on your car that doesn't impact crashworthiness or pedestrian safety, then you will see it happen."

      As fucking often as you're on Slashdot I'd have sworn you'd have at least remembered Nanosolar with it's spray-on PV tech.

      --
      Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
  6. Flat country, weight unimportant by aberglas · · Score: 1

    I think it is the aerodynamics that count.

    Looking at the car, it has a fairly blunt windscreen and a pointy back. Which is exactly the opposite of modern fashion in cars with their blunt backs and very flat windscreens that make the car so hot you need air con on even moderately hot days, let alone the desert.

    1. Re:Flat country, weight unimportant by Dutch+Gun · · Score: 1

      Check out this entry, which is pretty close to a perfect airfoil shape:

      https://www.worldsolarchalleng...

      You'll notice how they describe other entries as prioritizing solar-receiving area versus aerodynamics. I'm curious to see how their entry performs, since they're focusing on prioritizing aerodynamics.

      Of course, modern cars have to actually be practical, squeezing into parking spaces, carrying an engine (or batteries), a trunks for hauling cargo, and seating for four passengers (typically). I don't say that to dismiss the achievements here, as I don't think anyone is pretending these are normal, roadworthy cars (or if they are, they're completely missing the point). It's just a way of seeing where the theoretical state-of-the-art in solar-powered vehicles currently exist. And it's probably a lot of fun to build and race these vehicles.

      --
      Irony: Agile development has too much intertia to be abandoned now.
    2. Re:Flat country, weight unimportant by jecowa · · Score: 1

      modern fashion in cars with their blunt backs and very flat windscreens that make the car so hot you need air con on even moderately hot days, let alone the desert.

      This is exaggeration, right? I don't think air friction causes much heat unless you're breaking the sound barrier.

      --
      my opportunity to freely express myself with the potential persecution and hangings and such
    3. Re:Flat country, weight unimportant by aberglas · · Score: 1

      Not air friction, the Sun. And it is not just the flux angle, as the glass reflects less IR at a steep angle. Ever wondered how we lived without air conditioning all those years? It was because of sensible design.

    4. Re:Flat country, weight unimportant by jecowa · · Score: 1

      Oh, I see. Windshields aren't as vertical as they used to be, so more sunlight gets shines in.

      --
      my opportunity to freely express myself with the potential persecution and hangings and such
  7. "nearly" 65 square feet == 6 square metres by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Based on my own calculations, I'm going to guess that the old regulation value is actually 6 square metres, while the new one is 4 square metres.

    To put that into slightly more concrete terms, the highest output-per-unit solar panels I can easily find are 2 square metres, so that's the equivalent of two solar panels instead of three.

  8. Not going to buy one anytime soon ..... by AlanObject · · Score: 1

    Maybe its just me being spoiled but I think it is a bit of a stretch to call many of those vehicle contraptions "cars."

    Still it is a great demonstration of engineering prowess. No question there.

    1. Re:Not going to buy one anytime soon ..... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Look at a F1, Sprint, dragster, funny car, monster truck, or one of the NASCAR things.
      How close are they to a daily use car?
      All of these are specialized to be used for that specific intended purpose, and do it very well, but would be pretty stupid to use as a daily ride.

  9. Re:MODERATORS ARE STILL CENSORING POSTS... apk by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Funny

    I'm APK and so is my wife,
    To really fake apk you need to use more bold and more arrows, 5/10 poor effort.

  10. Free R&D by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Want free R&D? Start up some nonsensical event (race) and make up the rules such that all the IP rights go to you!

  11. Can't seem access this article correctly. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The whole article is shifted to the right with no obvious way to scroll to it. I can read it in google cache text only but cant seem to find anything to delete in the element inspector to make it right.

  12. Impersonating me? Weak by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    See subject: Whoever you are attempting to impersonate me just proves I've REALLY gotten to you (thanks)!

    AssFux Ash-Fox? He's a weasel who ALWAYS starts w/ me (he's 'butthurt' I've busted him up on tech issues is all that is) - in fact, I'd bet you are HE doing this impersonating me.

    * HOWEVER (in a way) - I am with you on something though - there is a TON of bogus downmoderation but as the saying goes? "When all your opposition has is censorship you've obviously won"

    &

    I am highly against the LOON(s) who shot all those folks up in Vegas - I think it's somekind of falseflag OR an attempt @ further dividing our nation up ala the KING of bogus evil in that capacity, George Soros paying off groups like BLM & Antifa to do so - but GUNS DON'T KILL PEOPLE - people do. NO reason to ban guns!

    APK

    P.S.=> Provoking weasel reactions like yours is all the satisfaction anyone needs seeing as you try to "impersonate" me loser... apk