Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments
Search

News for nerds, stuff that matters

Slashdot Log In

Log In

Create Account  |  Retrieve Password

An Alternative to Alternative Fuels and Vehicles

Posted by Zonk on Sun Jul 16, 2006 06:39 PM
from the when-you-have-to-use-gas dept.
Hardware Hacking Power Hardware Science
markmcb writes "While the world is working to solve energy and environmental issues with today's petroleum fuels, some vehicles simply don't have good alternatives, namely off-road platforms. For those not willing to give up their gas-guzzling habits, Matt Vea offers an innovative alternative. Using the OBDII interface in his Jeep, a laptop, and the infinite power of Excel, Matt conducts some performance tests and uses the results to tweak both his vehicle's engine and his personal driving habits for optimal fuel consumption both on and off road." Rigorous testing and good use of available technology; nice work.
+ -
story
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.

An Alternative to Alternative Fuels and Vehicles 50 Comments More /

 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More
Loading... please wait.

  • Best way to conserve energy: (Score:4, Informative)

    by Pink Tinkletini (978889) on Sunday July 16 2006, @06:42PM (#15729788) Homepage
    Move to the city [walkablestreets.com], man's natural habitat.
    • This is one of those fallacies that the city dwelling greenies would love to make everybody believe. Moving to the city doesn't reduce your energy consumption, it just shifts it. Sure, you may walk to the grocery store, but those groceries didn't grow in that store, they were shipped in. Your energy consuption is now being done by the supply chain that feeds the city, so the energy is being consumed by proxy on your behalf.

      In the grand scheme of things, you may believe that reducing a commute to work m

      • Re:Best way to conserve energy: (Score:5, Insightful)

        by cperciva (102828) on Sunday July 16 2006, @07:27PM (#15729908) Homepage
        Sure, you may walk to the grocery store, but those groceries didn't grow in that store, they were shipped in.

        It is much cheaper -- and more fuel efficient -- to transport 2 tons of food in a single shipment than it is to transport 2 tons of food in a thousand 2kg shipments inside separate vehicles. Yes, the food you buy from the grocery store had to be shipped there, but economies of scale apply to the pre-grocery-store shipping.

      • Sure, you may walk to the grocery store, but those groceries didn't grow in that store, they were shipped in. Your energy consuption is now being done by the supply chain that feeds the city, so the energy is being consumed by proxy on your behalf.

        Firstly, very few people actually live anywhere near food-growing land. Most people in industrialized countries live either in the suburbs, or in cities. Given those options, city life (including at least moderate use of public transportation and non-detatched hou
      • It's really trendy here on /. to whine about SUV's in terms of energy consumption, but, the fuel burned by an SUV pales beside what a semi full of goods headed into the city burns.

        The average SUV [wikipedia.org] weighs 4242 lbs and gets 19 MPG. Larger ones like the Escalade are rated at 13 MPG in the city [chicagotribune.com]. The cargo for your average grocery store trip is, let's say, 100 lbs. A tractor-trailer rig is somewhere around 25,000 pounds empty, gets 5-6 MPG [whyfiles.org] when loaded, and carries up to 40,000 lbs cargo [geocities.com]. Let's assume that the average is half that. If I did the math right, moving groceries by semi is then 57 times more efficient.

        As a kicker, truckers use 13% of fuel [geocities.com] purchased in the US versus 63% for cars and other light vehicles. So you're right about the "pale" part, but it appears to be the other way around.

      • Sure, you may walk to the grocery store, but those groceries didn't grow in that store, they were shipped in.

        Economy of scale: it costs less energy to ship in bulk than seperately. Plus, cities have shorter distances, so they'd be perfect for use of electric vehicles. Unload goods from an electric train at the freight terminal. Use an electric "milk float" type truck that can plug in to a ubiquitous charging station whenever parked and has regenerative braking to deliver the goods to customers. How t

        • Re:Best way to conserve energy: (Score:4, Insightful)

          by Bob Uhl (30977) <ruhl.4dv@net> on Monday July 17 2006, @10:42AM (#15731740) Homepage
          However I do agree with your suggestions for energy conservation. That's why I keep the A/C at 81*F in the summer and the heat at 68*F in the winter, have compact fluorescents everywhere in my house, and drive a small diesel powered car.

          Ha! I don't even bother running my AC (Saturday was 100F here in Denver); in the winter I keep the heater at 56 most of the day (raising it to 64 in the morning, 'cause 56 is miserable when getting out of the shower); I drive a 15-year-old car which gets 35 mpg. Oh, and I normally cycle to work (in fact, I recently completed a month without driving to the office).

          I'm like the Green Avenger or something. Only thing is they won't let me into the local environmentalist meetings since I always vote a Republican/Libertarian mixed ticket:-(

        • Re:Best way to conserve energy: (Score:4, Interesting)

          by Bob Uhl (30977) <ruhl.4dv@net> on Monday July 17 2006, @10:51AM (#15731811) Homepage
          "Everyone live like you're outdoors" addresses energy conservation in the same way that "Everyone stop having sex" addresses the AIDS crisis.

          I agree with what you wrote but not what you meant; both are excellent solutions. You complain that the outside temperatures where you live regularly exceed 100F, and that this can be deadly. Yes, it can--and yet somehow man has been living there for quite a long time. In fact, man has lived in a low-tech fashion just about everywhere from the Arctic to the equator. Now, one can't dress like a New Yorker in Arizona without modifying one's environment, true. But where is it written that one must follow Yankee fashions in the desert? Why not try dressing like a Berber or one of the Masai?

          Yes, a Colonial-style home is very poor in Arizona (or here in Denver). What about a thick-walled adobe? What about a yurt? We carry assumptions on housing from a country with lots of cold, wet winds--those assumptions don't hold when living where it's hot, dry and still. Rather than trying to live like Englishmen, Europeans or Yankees, why not try living like natives of our area?

          I'm not actually arguing for a duplication of aboriginal or primitive clothing and living arrangements; I'm arguing that we should study them and learn therefrom. For example, I really can't see many modern Americans living in cloth-walled dwellings, simply because solid homes are too deeply ingrained in our culture. But I can imagine more intelligently-designed homes becoming fashionable; I can even imagine more locally-appropriate clothing becoming the thing. Even now clothing styles vary between LA and Minnesota; why could they not vary still more?

  • Since such a large portion of SUV consumers are suburbians who go everywhere on well-paved roads and never use their vehicle's off-road capabilities, I think choosing a more economical car the next time around would be a better way to conserve fuel.

    • Re:Works for a limited audience (Score:5, Interesting)

      by johnlcallaway (165670) on Sunday July 16 2006, @06:52PM (#15729821)
      Or....if one finds that only a low-milage SUV is needed for one's recreational pasttimes, maybe finding another recreation would work best.

      Nice piece though, I must commend the author for at least trying to provide a non-biased look at what impacts fuel economy.

      • Re:Works for a limited audience (Score:4, Insightful)

        by Jeff Molby (906283) on Sunday July 16 2006, @07:11PM (#15729872)
        maybe finding another recreation would work best.
        Nah, you can't tell someone how to spend their free time and disposable income. It would be nice if we could convince some of them to do the math though. There's no way it makes sense to spend five extra digits (nevermind the mpg cost) on a vehicle just to haul a boat/atv/etc a handful of times per year. I'm sure you could rent something when you need it and save a few bucks. What they're really paying all that extra money for is the convenience of not having to call Hertz each month. With gas firmly at $3, I imagine that this pool of people is already shrinking. I'm sure it'll dry up pretty quickly when cruise by $4.
        • Rental contracts almost always specifically state that you may not take the vehicle off-road. While they are often willing to overlook things if you're on a dirt road that is maintained or at least well-used, if you do any damage to it, they may see it as damage while violating the contract, and hence insurance may not cover it.

          I've occasionally rented SUVs when going out to the desert for recreational purposes, but when I do, we're pretty well stuck in one spot. If you want to do something like follow th
            • Well, if you only use its off-roading or tow capacity on rare occasions, then you probably don't need a high quality vehicle. Get a beater. (I'm using Chevy as an example, but this applies for any brand.) Instead of a $45,000 2006 Chevy Suburban, get a $20,000 2006 Chevy Impala and a $2,000 1985 Suburban. The old Suburban won't be as nice as a brand new model, but there are $23,000 reasons to prefer it. Just use it when you need it.

            • Re:Works for a limited audience (Score:4, Informative)

              by Undertaker43017 (586306) on Monday July 17 2006, @07:46AM (#15730624)
              Try finding a rental company that have SUV's or trucks with hitches, none of them do. I unfortunately had to try and find one, when my transmission went. U-Haul is one of the few, if you have a class I-III type trailer, if you have a fifth wheel, forget it, their pickups are all 1/2 tons and no fifth wheel.

              Rental companies aren't interesting in helping out recreational types, they put too much wear on a vehicle to be worth it for them.
      • How can you say that someone should find better recreation just because YOU don't feel that it's worth the cost? I really wish that it was not necessary to use up so much of our limited resources to do what I enjoy, but I'm not about to give up all of my hobbies just because they are not good for the oil crisis.

        Myself, I take part in many of these fuel consuming activities. My favorite activity is skydiving, talk about waisting fossil fuels for fun, we burn gallons of jet fuel per person everytime we go up

    • Re:Works for a limited audience (Score:5, Insightful)

      by fm6 (162816) on Sunday July 16 2006, @07:11PM (#15729868) Homepage Journal
      Said suburbians buy SUVs as steel security blankets — being in a big vehicle that's high off the ground gives them a sense of safety. That's an illusion [cbsnews.com], of course, but American carmakers have always relied on illusions to sell their products.
      • I aleays thought they bought those cars so that there would be no survivors when they hit the smaller cars. It cheaper to pay off a dead guy then to pay for a lifetime of medical care and juries tend to give higher awards to injured people. Nobody is going to wheel a dead guy into the court to elicit sympathy but an injured child is a sure bet.

        Those SUV are great for making sure the other car gets completely destroyed and the occupants killed.
        • Those SUV are great for making sure the other car gets completely destroyed and the occupants killed.

          So, those people who choose air travel expect to cash in on their life insurance plans (as opposed to their medical insurance) in the event of mechanical failure?

          And those people who drive cars instead of motorcycles expect to destroy and kill the drivers of those motorcycles they hit?

          How'd you get insightful from a troll/flamebait?

        • Your vehicle has a higher rollover rating, and it also won't fare as well in an impact with a stationary object or barrier.

          F-350 versus Camry in a crash, there's no question that you win. F-350 versus Camry in a high speed emergency maneuver, and there's a good chance you'll flip a few times. The Camry almost certainly will not flip. If you both run into a concrete wall at the same speed, the occupants of the Camry are likely to fare better. It has superior crumple zones to absorb the impact, while t

      • Re:Works for a limited audience (Score:4, Insightful)

        by MustardMan (52102) on Sunday July 16 2006, @07:23PM (#15729895)
        uh, how about an old station wagon? you can pick up a domestic wagon on the cheap that easily hauls 4 comfortably and has more cargo capacity than a tiny cr-v.
          • Ford Taurus comes to mind. V6 mid-size sedan plus a big trunk. Does better than 22 MPG!

            But it's not as cool.
            • It gets even better milage if you get it with the TDI (diesel) engine. Added bonus: it can run biodiesel!

              My wife and I have a Jetta Wagon TDI (because you can't get a passat with a manual transmission) and *love* it. 40+ mpg and we burn biodiesel whenever we can. Luckily we live near Piedmont Biofuels [biofuels.coop]. We get an average of ~44 mpg but hit about 50-51 on road trips.

              I'm also on the tall side, 6'2". Driving and riding in the driver's passenger is fine, but the back seats are a bit cramped for tall people. The

  • Somewhat obvious conclusions (Score:4, Insightful)

    by lixee (863589) on Sunday July 16 2006, @06:50PM (#15729814)
    While the experiment in itself deserves a hat off, what he concluded isn't really a surprise.
    Changing driving habits introduce a profound effect on fuel savings for any vehicle. In brief, the following tips collectively save gas in the long run.

    * slower acceleration
    * reduced top speed
    * proper tire inflation
    * using cruise control
    * proper vehicle lubrication
    * correct transmission gears
    * using air conditioning only when necessary
    * reducing aerodynamic drag
    * removing excess weight
    Duh!
    • This dude http://sitemaker.umich.edu/mhross [umich.edu] has a report titled "Fuel efficiency and the Physics of Automobiles." You have to wade through a lot of formulas and SI units for otherwise familiar quantities, but I have put those formulas into an Excel sheet, and they are amazingly predictive of steady-state highway gas mileage.

      The fundamental assumption is that just about all gas-engined cars run the same thermodynamic cycle and about the same compression ratio these days, so the non-ideal Otto cycle runs a

  • Look.. back in the early 80's my uncle, a doctor, used to keep an SUV for cases when emergencies demanded he trundle off through snow bound michigan streets to see critical patients, but in today's age more than half the vehicles on the road come with all wheel drive and traction control, and luxury sedans now have the option of adjustable suspensions to increase ground clearance. He has one of these now and it serves him better.

    Further, fewer than 1% of SUV owners actually take their cars offroad. Most people now buy these things for their own vanity and nothing else.

    Meanwhile, while they guzzle fuel at 3mpg, they drive the price of this increasingly limited and taxed resource to the point where there are news reports of the working poor having to pawn off household objects merely to make it into work.

    At this point this activity is approaching immorality. I know of few other activities (besides lobbying) which actively make other people poorer for no reason.
    • Meanwhile, while they guzzle fuel at 3mpg

      Say what? Maybe if they've got a 1400hp 600ci V8 in them. Granted it's still not great but many of the new mid and large SUV's are now getting 20mpg or better now. Yes it's not great, but it's a far cry from your over-exaggerated 3mpg crap.
    • I know you're morally superior to everyone else because of your vehicle choice. But...

      Further, fewer than 1% of SUV owners actually take their cars offroad.

      How many drive them on snowy roads? Everyone who owns one and lives where it snows, I bet.
      How many people need to tow something? Not a huge percentage, but they won't be doing it in a honda civic.
      How many people have a couple of kids and have to fit a car seat? A lot. Sure they could drive a minivan, but the mileage isn't too much different in a lot
      • How many drive them on snowy roads? Everyone who owns one and lives where it snows, I bet.
        How many people need to tow something? Not a huge percentage, but they won't be doing it in a honda civic.
        How many people have a couple of kids and have to fit a car seat? A lot. Sure they could drive a minivan, but the mileage isn't too much different in a lot of cases.

        did you read my post at all?
        all wheel drive and adjustable suspensions handle snow, when we moved from detroit to atlanta we towed trailers beind *surp

      • Re:It's approaching immorality at this point... (Score:5, Informative)

        by More Trouble (211162) on Sunday July 16 2006, @08:27PM (#15730121)
        How many drive them on snowy roads? Everyone who owns one and lives where it snows, I bet.

        I always get a charge when it snows here, and the SUV drivers in the no-season tires think that all you need is the latest Ford behemoth. I drive a '92 Mazda Miata. Yes, a tiny little roadster, but with snow tires. Until the snow is higher than the undercarriage, a Miata with good snow tires can't be stopped. Driving past SUVs in the snow is a blast, but I do feel bad when I see them flipped over.

        :w
        • Did your senator vote to help those people get cheaper gas by allowing oil drilling in ANWR?

          Why should he... ?

          Cheaper gasoline.

          My reasoning is simple: if you do the same thing you did before, but more efficiently, it has to be good.

          I agree. As long as "more efficiently" takes time, money, happiness, and everything else into account. For example, spending $1000 to save $100 worth of energy isn't "more efficient". It's also not more efficient to spend $100 to save $100 worth of energy if it also makes you
    • It's kind of unfair to say (hyperbolically, even) that these cars get 3mpg. Due to a lot of innovation in engines, the efficiency of some of these SUVs is comparable to older, much smaller cars. A couple years ago, my brother decided to buy a Toyota Harrier (sorry, I can't remember the US name for that--Lexus letters-and-numbers--it's the Lexus SUV with the clear taillights). I gave him the standard liberal anti-SUV lecture. He pulled the mpg stats on the Harrier and on my older Camry and emailed them to
    • I know of few other activities (besides lobbying) which actively make other people poorer for no reason.

      One word my friend: lotteries

      -Eric

      • modding other people down because you dont like what they say smacks of fascism

        Either you don't quite know what "fascism" means, or you think that some government agency is modding down comments you like. Neither of those positions is any more lucid than you would appear to think the modders' opinions are.

        You combat uninformed contrary opinions (in mod format or otherwise) by making unassailable, rational, non-whiny points. If you can't rise to that standard, then perhaps moaning about the mods is the
          • but then again only your opinion

            Your opinion: The slashdot mods are a vast right wing conspiracy

            My opinion: Weak posts deserve what they get, and even the largely left-leaning slashdot audience calls BS when they see a nonsensical comment or one that makes their philosophical camp look bad.

            I'd say the mod system (including its meta-mechanism) work extremely well, considering the local demographic.

            I don't consider you an authority on this at all

            Since when does anyone need to be considered (esp
  • Why is this on slashdot exactly? This guy just tuned his car and followed some tips we've known about improving gas mileage for years. This isn't a new alternative to alternative fuels and vehicles, this is stuff car guys have been doing ever since the first ECUs were put into cars (and before that they'd have to change a mechanical system to tune the car.) Normally it's to improve performance but it can be used to improve gas mileage also.

  • Alternative Fuel Offroad Vehicles (Score:5, Interesting)

    by 7of7 (956694) on Sunday July 16 2006, @07:02PM (#15729845) Journal
    As far as I can tell any means of electric vehicle would be an absolutely kickass offroad vehicle. The extreme torque and smootheness of electric motors are ideal for rock crawlers and other similar 4wd vehicles. It doesn't really matter where you get the electricity from. Heck, imagine one truck carries a giant fuel cell and tows the rock crawlers to the hills while powering them up too. Hybrid would be cool too, but you'd still have the gas/diesel engine to deal with.
    • We know. I'm an offroader and an electrical engine would be great. Unfortunately they don't hold enough charge and aren't reliable enough. Try dumping one in water a few times and see what happens. :) But yeah, the torque would be perfect.

  • aeordynamics, mass, and speed (Score:5, Insightful)

    by fermion (181285) * on Sunday July 16 2006, @07:24PM (#15729902) Homepage Journal
    This is a good and interesting analysis, and really demonstrates the physics that most people do not understand. For example, not everything can be blamed on the vehicle. The vehicle is what it is, and the vehicle by itself is not necessarily good or bad. Rather, it is the application of the vehicle that is good or bad. Now the american manufacturers have a good bit of bad on their side as they built many vehicles that do not perform well at high speeds or in the city, but the owners have to take some responsibility and not just whine all the time about how high gas is.

    For instance, when driving one has to impart some amount of KE into the car. KE is mv^2. What this means is that a car going 85mph has twice twice the KE as a car going 60mph . Now, if a car is light, like a roadster at 2200 lbs, one could go 85 and not gain any more than a Pilot going 60. And yet every day I see these huge cars going 90 mph, while I am going 70, and all these people complaining about gas consumption? It makes no sense. If they were truly concerned, they would go slower than me!

    I really applaud this guy. He really tried to maximize a solution using reasonable constraints. If everyone did the same, instead of whining that they are being crunched by the price of gas, we would be in a much better place.

    His recommendations are good. Accelerate slowly, especially if you have a massive car. Any physics or engineering person knows how much this helps in energy expenditure. Keep tires inflated well, and if you car came with improper tires, buy new one. You SUV is not a car, and should not drive like one. Don't drive fast, especially if you make frequent stops. The energy profile will be against you. This is why hybrids are do good for the city. Do not drive fast period. Not only does it waste gas, but if imperils all other drivers.

    The day that I see most SUVs in the right two lanes, going 5-10 miles under the speed limit, is the day I believe that gas prices are too high. Right now gas prices are just inconvenient.

    • Re:aeordynamics, mass, and speed (Score:4, Interesting)

      by e2d2 (115622) on Sunday July 16 2006, @08:10PM (#15730057)
      Yes but also don't forget the variable PAS or people are stupid.

      On a side rant, everyone bitches about the SUVs, like somehow the SUV has caused gas prices to rise dramatically, while ignoring the obvious growing population, ignoring social aspects of the middle east and south america, and ignoring the cartels that control said oil and the companies unwilling to allow prices to drop. And it's always the guy in the humvee the guy in the humvee! Where the F is this guy? I hear about him all the time but I never actually see him! Apparently he is the one causing all of the problems. It's not those GOOD PEOPLE(tm) in their more eco-conscious cars burning the same gas. It's those other people, yeah that's it!

      Want to cut gas consumption in half? Start by clearing up the traffic people sit in every day. There, billions saved. It's a start.

    • Let's say you drive 15,000 miles in a year. If your average speed is 55 mph, that's 272 hours in a car. If your average speed is 75 mph, that's 200 hours in a car.

      Like it or not, most people would gladly pay an extra 30% in annual fuel costs in return for an extra 72 hours of free time.

  • an alternative (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Goldsmith (561202) on Monday July 17 2006, @10:12AM (#15731511)
    you're kidding, right?

    An alternative to off road vehicles? How about a horse?
    • Tell the truth and get -1, Troll'ed. It must be Slashdot! (Or to another poster: Fashdot)

      BTW, nuclear additionally suffers from 'peak uranium' which occured in 1980s. The 440 plants in the world are kept going, in part, by the decommissioning of nuclear weapons.

    • Re:Peak Oil and Grasping at Straws (Score:4, Interesting)

      by Zaphod2016 (971897) on Sunday July 16 2006, @09:38PM (#15730326) Homepage

      At this point can we just admit we are all screwed?!

      What a cowardly thing to say. I for one am not about to give up.

      Ethanol - Not going to happen. Best case EROEI of just 34% compared to 3000% for light sweet crude???!! Ethanol is not going to happen

      Wrong. In fact, I am currently trying to open a E85 station in Florida to coincide with the multiple new ethanol producers scheduled to open up shop in 2008. Yes, ethanol does not offer a cheaper price than gasoline in all areas right now, but if you live in WI or MN you could be using E85 and saving 10-25% of your car's fuel costs right now.

      Florida is one of the USA's major sources of sugar cane, a crop that can produce nearly TWICE as much ethanol per acre than corn, which is currently our main source. In fact, most economists attribute the recent surge in ethanol prices to a jump in demand. Once our capacity has caught up with current demand, the price of ethanol will drop again. Mark my words: within the next 5 years American biofuels will be significantly cheaper than foreign petrol, and once this paradigm has shifted, the mass exodus to E85 is only a matter of time. Add hybrid technology to an E85 vehicle, and suddenly you can double the output of ethanol, and reduce petrol use even further.

      It is not *we* who are screwed, it is *you* who is screwed. You have allowed frusteration to lapse into cynicism. The change *is* coming, believe me. These things always take longer than we would like them to, but the economic reality is obvious to all: oil's days are numbered.

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners. Comments are owned by the Poster. The Rest © 1997-2009 Geeknet, Inc.