[Graeme]

UBC Engineers Create Vehicle that Travels from Vancouver to Halifax on a Gallon of Gas

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'T')he futuristic-looking, single-occupancy vehicle won top prize at a recent international competition, marking the UBC team’s fourth win in as many years.

The Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE) Supermileage Competition took place June 9 in Marshall, Michigan. Forty teams from Canada, the U.S. and India competed in designing and building the most fuel-efficient vehicle.

The UBC design, which required the driver to lie down while navigating it, achieved 3,145 miles per US gallon (0.074 litres/100 km) -- equivalent of Vancouver to Halifax on a gallon (3.79 litres) of gas -- costing less than $5 at the pump.

[Wildwell]

We've been through all this before. There's nothing remarkable about kiddie go-karts that are absolutely useless for anything but mock tests... A full size family car is precluded from such efficiency by the basic laws of physics. Even claims that EVs getting 120mpg are bogus if the losses are taken into account when the electricity is generated through fossil fuels.

The only commercial mini single occupancy car was a financial disaster - the Sinclair C5.

[Graeme]

The point is that it is possible to design a car that can achieve very high mileage per gallon. This would allow more efficient use of gasoline after peak in world oil production, and more time for alternatives to be developed. But at the moment this is not happening with the major car companies. . .

[whereagles]

Sir Clive Sinclair will be vindicated, hear me!

[Wildwell]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Graeme', 'T')he point is that it is possible to design a car that can achieve very high mileage per gallon. This would allow more efficient use of gasoline after peak in world oil production, and more time for alternatives to be developed. But at the moment this is not happening with the major car companies. . .

[Mesuge]

The psychology aspect is quite important but on the factual side you are not correct. It's not a technical problem to have 280mpg EV under $20k in coupe styling with large trunk.. Think about Loremo etc.. Now, to recharge it's 10kWh battery pack is well in capacity of todays home renewable appliances be it solar/wind/small hydro..

Well, that would be the Jules Verne world where people make rational choices based on science, unfortunately we don't have this in reality, most of the population is clueless about even the basic energy related stuff.

And we all know you don't have to commute to work in the post PO world unless your are the uber elite or a doctor etc.. So, it all boils down where do you live. In the US bible belt to have an ultraefficient electic car after PO would be a moving giant target for the hill billies on a mission. On the other hand if you live in the paradise like Scandinavia or Switzerland where people are not complete retards you can go ahead, they have electric future, in fact public charging network growing as we speak..

[ohanian]

I propose a new fuel efficiency challenge.


Here are the rules.

1) Build a car that runs on petrol/gasoline or diesel.

2) The car must carry 5 adults at all times. Each adult must weight more than 60 kilograms (130 pounds).

3) The car must carry two big suitcases in the trunk. Both suitcase must weigh more than 10 kilograms (22 pounds) each.

4) The car must race from New York to LA.

5) The car must travel at an average speed greater than 30 miles per hour.

May the most fuel efficient car win!

Note there are two catagory of winners.

A) gasoline fuel efficiency prize
B) diesel fuel efficiency prize

[gg3]

Once again the predictable cycle between a sign of hope and a sign of someone suffering an excess of cynicism, though this time ending (so far) on a practical note.

Obviously these multi-thousand MPG vehicles are only intended as technology demonstrations, not as practical vehicles. The point however is to show what's possible at the extreme edge, and take some of the lessons learned back to the practical world.

Ohanian's Challenge sounds like a good idea (and that would even be a good name for it). To that I would add more categories.

1) Full-size: Five adults and luggage, as described.

1.1) Compact: Four adults and proportionally smaller quantity of luggage. Realistically this will always be a major market category, as typified by the success of the original VW Beetle, the Dodge Dart, and so on.

2) Utility: Two adults and a minimum of one cubic yard of carrying capacity measured above a flat floor, with a standard weight of cargo representing tools and/or materials carried by trades-workers.

3) Commuter: Two adults and three cubic feet of luggage space, carrying a standard weight representative of office-worker materiel, i.e. briefcase and laptop case for each person.

All of the above would have to demonstrate capabilities under city, highway, and mixed driving, where average speeds are 40 mph and above for the highway and 25 mph in the city.

4) Local/micro: Two adults and three cubic feet of luggage space, but operated at speeds of 20 to 30 miles per hour only, as typical of local driving. Minimum range of 20 miles between refueling or recharging stops.

5) Subcategory B, all of the above: Vehicles of each type above, fueled by liquid fuels derived from closed-cycle agricultural processes, i.e. biofuels. These would include alcohols and biodiesel fuels.


Here I should mention that category 3 has already achieved three-digit mileage with great success: a VW prototype that got something like 314 mpg. in mixed driving, including on the German autobahns at speeds of up to 80 miles per hour (equivalent in KM/Hr.). Fully practical for two adults and small quantity of goods such as briefcases and shopping bags. That car could be put into production if VW were so inclined.

For category 1.1 we have the VW Lupo at just a hair over 100 mpg., carrying four adults plus their stuff. Also there are good contenders in this category by other established European makers including Citroen.

And let's not forget, BMW achieved 75 - 80 mpg. in the 50s with their two-seater Isetta, and Messerschmitt achieved 80 - 90 mpg in the same era with their two-seater Kabinenroller ("cabin-scooter").

With today's technology there is no reason that mileage in the low to mid three digits couldn't readily be achieved in production vehicles.

And we haven't even scratched the surface of what could be done with electric propulsion, which topic I will defer to Toecutter, who has significant knowledge and expertise in this field.

(Now I suppose someone will follow this post with a rant about the evils of anything on more than two wheels with a motor and a top speed over 20 miles per hour. You can judge the practical issues for yourself...)

[CARVER]

I think that most of the time people use the 5+ seater, large trunk, offroader, to transport just themselves on almost completely flat roads. In that case the go kart would do just fine. A problem however, is that you don't want to drive them on roads with large trucks and other big heavy vehicles. You would need seperate lanes for go-karts, just like we have with bike lanes, that would take a lot of effort.

Of course driving go karts is way too much fun, I think introducing it would increase my energy consumption. So for now, let's go for switching to bikes and public transportation.

[Windmills]

How do we make the roads themselves more fuel efficient? Right now, we're using asphalt, which is made straight from oil. Is there some other material to which we could switch?

I've been reading how the price of asphalt has been increasing and that various road projects are being scaled back, postponed, or abandoned. What good will it be to have any kind of vehicle if all of roads are full of potholes?

Perhaps there should be another category for fuel economy on a grated dirt road. That might be the road of the future.

[emersonbiggins]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Windmills', 'W')hat good will it be to have any kind of vehicle if all of roads are full of potholes?

[emersonbiggins]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('ohanian', '[')size=200]I propose a new fuel efficiency challenge.[/size]

[Wildwell]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Mesuge', 'T')he psychology aspect is quite important but on the factual side you are not correct. It's not a technical problem to have 280mpg EV under $20k in coupe styling with large trunk.. Think about Loremo etc.. Now, to recharge it's 10kWh battery pack is well in capacity of todays home renewable appliances be it solar/wind/small hydro..

Well, that would be the Jules Verne world where people make rational choices based on science, unfortunately we don't have this in reality, most of the population is clueless about even the basic energy related stuff.

And we all know you don't have to commute to work in the post PO world unless your are the uber elite or a doctor etc.. So, it all boils down where do you live. In the US bible belt to have an ultraefficient electic car after PO would be a moving giant target for the hill billies on a mission. On the other hand if you live in the paradise like Scandinavia or Switzerland where people are not complete retards you can go ahead, they have electric future, in fact public charging network growing as we speak..

[Graeme]

A lot can be learned by building an experimental car. And with the creativity shown in this thread, we can go a long way towards providing a soft landing after peak oil. Alternative fuels, lighter body material (e.g. carbon composites), better engine design, maybe more efficient components that can be added on to existing vehicles: these are just some suggestions off the top of my head from an earth scientist (ie I'm not an engineer!).