UBC Engineers Reach Mileage Of Over 3000 MPG 625
The New Revelation writes "Physorg reports that engineers at UBC have developed a single occupancy vehicle that achieves a ridiculous 3145 MPG! From the article: '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 liters/100 km) -- equivalent of Vancouver to Halifax on a gallon (3.79 liters) of gas -- costing less than $5 at the pump.'"
That begs the question (Score:5, Funny)
rods per hogshead?
(for all those about to find out for me: google tells me that 3 145 miles per gallon = 63 403 200 rods per hogshead)
Re:That begs the question (Score:3, Funny)
Re:km per liter (Score:5, Funny)
This means that in Europe, this guys would be really 1337 hax0rs
Re:km per liter (Score:3, Funny)
Hand over your geek card imposter! Real geeks know it's
3.14159mpg = 1337 kpl
Re:km per liter (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:km per liter (Score:5, Insightful)
Oh, I'm feeling quite finger-pointy this morning, aren't I?
Re:km per liter (Score:3, Insightful)
I travel at 120km/h on the motorway. That's 75mph, not 74.564543mph.
It's been a few years since chem class, but isn't the first example one of accuracy, as you claim, and the second example one of precision?
Re:km per liter (Score:3, Insightful)
In related news (Score:5, Funny)
Re:That begs the question (Score:5, Funny)
Re:That begs the question (Score:3, Funny)
Your figure of 1,246,666 VW Beetles = 3145 miles gives 396.4 Beetles/mile.
Fuel efficiency of this vehicle in standard journalistic units is then
1246666 / (1/5.6x10^6) = 6.981x10^12 VWBeetles per bLOC. Unless I made a mistake.
Re:yuck (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:That begs the question (Score:5, Insightful)
It's like the word "disinterested" which specifically means that one is not invested in an issue in a monetary sense, as opposed to "uninterested" which basically means that one doesn't care. People using "disinterested" to mean "uninterested" are stripping the language of a word that has few synonyms, if any.
Re:That begs the question (Score:5, Interesting)
Well, the linguistic snobs have certainly applied for the job. Truthfully, they have a point: clear, precise language is an aid to clear, precise thought. All of those people you mentioned who can't recognize logical fallacies are unable to do so because no one ever taught them to make distinctions in thought -- and those distinctions are taught via language at an early age.
Saying "Language is as it is used" is fallacious because the speaker assumes that all language use is equally valid and helpful. But that's clearly false: just look at the good and bad posts on /., or compare Blair's speeches to Bush's. Better yet, try teaching chemistry to a bunch of high-schoolers and see which ones have the most trouble. The slow students will be the linguistically challenged, 9 times out of 10.
Good language helps the speaker clarify his thoughts, points the listener unambiguously in the direction of the speaker's thoughts, and is persuasive as a side-effect. New phrases, grammatical constructions, and meanings of old words that accomplish those goals can genuinely be said to be linguistic innovation. All of the rest is just linguistic flotsam.
So: "Language is as it is used *well*"
Re:That begs the question (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:That begs the question (Score:4, Insightful)
2. To say that a phrase is correct simply if enough people say so is problematic.
Do you really know that more than 50% of people use "question begging" incorrectly? Does it take a majority? How about if 30% of people use it wrong - is that enough to establish an alternate meaning? If so where are you going to draw the line? If I say "question begging" means "eating pineapple" who are you to say I'm wrong? That's what it means to me.
The point is that language only works in so far as it is communal. In that sense, allowing alternate meanings to phrases that already have specific meanings corrupts language. If we all know that X means X, then X has meaning. If, over time, we all decide that X really means Y, then X still has meaning and there's no confusion.
But if some people say X means X1 and others that it means X2 then we have issues. And if we know that when X was invented it meant X1, and all the people that really care about X a whole lot and study it know it means X1, and the only reason any one thinks it means X2 is that they didn't understand X1 - they it's foolish to say "X2 is also correct".
Your counter-example of "surf the net" is inapt. In the first place, this isn't a confusion of what "surf" means - it's a metaphor. To follow your logic we'd have to get rid of all metaphors from our language. But the fact is that metaphors work precisely because there's no ambiguity about what the word in question means. It's the same with any colloqialism. We all know what "beat a dead horse means", so there's no problem using it in a non-literal sense where there's no beating and no horse.
But if there's uncertaintly about what a phrase means, than you can't use it as effectively for anything. Everytime I say "begging the question" in an online argument I cringe because I know some people (30%? 50%? 70%?) are going to misunderstand me because they don't know what I'm saying. In my philosophy classes or talking with philosophy professors I use the term without ambiguity, but thanks to people who don't know what it means (aided and abetted by people who don't think carefully about language and meaning) the phrase is less useful both for those who know what it means and those who get it wrong.
-stormin
Comment removed (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Single-occupancy, yes I concur. (Score:4, Funny)
No, but it does come with a full aerodynamic body condom.
Re:Single-occupancy, yes I concur. (Score:5, Funny)
Re:As a Hummer driver... (Score:3, Insightful)
The vehicle in that picture is a HMMWV-type like the Army (and Ahnold) uses, not one of these 'H2' luxury tanks. I've always had the (unfounded) understanding that there's a big difference. Certainly there is if the HMMWV in question is the armored sort.
The GP suggested that image searching would show that H2s are not as "accident-friendly" as some would say. After trying various keywords on GIS, I'm finding perh
speed? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:speed? (Score:3, Funny)
Re:speed? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:speed? Results (Score:5, Informative)
Indiana and a HS there too came in with high MPG, as did Laval in Quebec province.
Re:speed? Results (Score:3, Informative)
If I'd had this 3000MPG vehicle to get there, assuming it works on gravel and hills, I could have gone there and back every time I ever have, on just 1 litre of gasoline.
Re:speed? Results (Score:5, Informative)
Re:speed? Results (Score:3, Informative)
Until then, they basically dawdled along and anything more than a few degrees of upslope would bring them to a crawl.
I guess what I'm saying, is that we've spent the ensuing years aiming for faster, stronger and more powerful engines.
Ever since the commercial truckers realized that efficiency = more money, that's the way the market head
Re:speed? Results (Score:3, Funny)
And by my you mean by.
Ugh - By head's hurting.
Re:speed? (Score:5, Informative)
Re:speed? (Score:5, Insightful)
Also, why such a severe restriction on the engine? According to the rules they must use a specific 4-cylinder engine produced by Briggs & Stratton. Seems to cramp creativity a bit (although I guess it gives them a sponser).
Re:speed? (Score:4, Insightful)
One: As you said, it's advertising for one of their biggest sponsers, Briggs & Stratton.
Two: Limiting all teams to a standard engine focuses the contest on designing a super efficient body. It gives a somewhat scientific control to the "experiment" of the race you could say.
Three: It may (possibly) be a deterrent for the teams to not cop out and buy a super duper-efficient experimental engine from some no-name company and call it as their own.
Re:speed? (Score:4, Insightful)
And what's wrong with that? If a team wins using some start-up company's new experimental engine, the company with the engine gets advertising and investment, and the team gets a win. Not to mention the team winners will likely have a great shot at getting a job with that company.
-Rick
Re:speed? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:speed? (Score:5, Insightful)
Seriously this is research, they are pushing the limits as far in one direction as they possibly can with the assumption that if you research at the extreme then you'll learn things that can be applied to more mundane situations.
What next? IBM issue a press release about new transistors based on nanotubes that go 1000X faster and you complain that because there won't be a processor available based on them available any time soon that they are wasting their time?
Watching Karma burn in 5, 4, 3, 2
Re:speed? (Score:5, Interesting)
Look, any time you optimize for a single parameter of performance, you're going to get something weird. But it allows you to push that single aspect of performance and measure it independent of everything else. That way you know what compromises you're making in that area when you make a more realistic design.
Personally I'm amazed a vehicle can carry a person and get over 3000 MPG. It really puts the status quo into perspective.
Re:speed? (Score:5, Informative)
40.1 Minimum and Maximum Speed Requirement
The performance run will consist of each vehicle running six laps around a 2.6 km (1.6 mile) oval test track. The vehicle must achieve a minimum six lap average speed of 24 km/hr (15 mph). This means that each vehicle will be required to travel a total distance of 15.5 km (9.6 miles) in a maximum of 38.4 minutes. The vehicle must not exceed a single lap average speed of 25mph (40.23km). This means a vehicle must take longer than 3 minutes 50 seconds to complete each lap. Vehicles must be capable of ascending a 1 percent grade and descending a 7 percent grade.
40.2 Slow Speed Penalty
If the minimum average speed of 24 km/hr (15 mph) is not maintained, a penalty will be assessed by subtracting from the km/liter (mpg) achieved, 4.25 km/liter (10 mpg) per second of time that the minimum average speed requirement is not met. For instance, if 39 minutes was the elapsed time for six laps, the minimum allowable time, without
©2004 SAE International 20 2005 Supermileage
penalty (38.4 minutes) was exceeded by 36 seconds. The actual mileage achieved would be reduced by 153.1 km/liter (360 mpg).
40.3 Maximum Speed Penalty
If the maximum lap average speed of 40.23 km/hr (25 mph) is exceeded, a penalty will be assessed by subtracting from the km/liter (mpg) achieved, 4.25 km/liter (10 mpg) per second of time that the maximum average lap speed requirement is not met. For instance, if the third lap was completed in 3 minutes 12 seconds, the minimum allowable time, without penalty (3 minutes 50 seconds) was exceeded by 38 seconds. The actual mileage achieved would be reduced by km/liter (380 mpg).
40.4 Start
Prior to the performance run, an official fuel tank (supplied) will be filled, weighed and installed on the vehicle. The start of the performance run will begin with the vehicle being placed on the track starting line. The vehicle engine is then started, either by the driver or his pit crew. Timing for the minimum speed requirement starts when the vehicle crosses the starting line. Vehicles cannot be push started. Transmission design must be such that the engine can be disconnected from the driving wheels so as to allow the vehicle to be stationary with the engine running.
40.5 Finish
Upon completion of the six lap performance run, 15.5 km (9.6 miles), the timers will record the elapsed time; the fuel tank will be removed and weighed. The kilometer per liter (miles per gallon) calculation for the vehicle will then be computed, dividing the 15.5 km (9.6 mile) distance by the amount of fuel used. If the maximum allowable elapsed time has been exceeded, the penalty will be computed and subtracted from the kilometer per liter (miles per gallon) calculation.
ICE quirk (Score:5, Interesting)
The engine isn't running at its most efficient conversion of gas to energy unless it's operating within its most efficient point in its powerband - a HP plateau between certain RPM markers. Check it out on a dyno. So yes, it would be more efficient to accelerate harder from a stop with the RPMs within the powerband, coast, then rinse-n-repeat.
It's called Pulse-n-Glide by the Prius marathoners [calcars.org], and also on Wikipedia [wikipedia.org].
Constant speed isn't the most efficient way to use a internal combustion engine (ICE), although it certainly is the easiest.
Re:ICE quirk (Score:5, Insightful)
The traditional technique (planning ahead and avoiding sudden changes in speed) brings not only decent fuel ecenomy, but also increased safety and ride comfort.
Re:speed? (Score:5, Informative)
Re:speed? (Score:3, Informative)
"Slalom Section: Vehicle must traverse 30.5 meters (100 feet) slalom section in less than 15 seconds."
They're using a lawnmower engine that can do up to 3600 RPM, 4 cycle. (4 cylinders then?)
Also, section 40.1:
"Minimum and Maximum Speed Requirement
The performance run will consist of each vehicle running six laps around a 2.6 km (1.6 mile) oval test track. The vehicle must achieve a minimum six lap average speed of 24 km/hr (15 mph)."
So there you have it. It has to go at least as fast as som
Re:speed? (Score:3, Informative)
"4 cycle" means 4-stroke, not 4 cylinder.
If it's the engine i'm thinking off (briggs+stratton typical thing) then it's a single cylinder 4 stroke.
Re:speed? (Score:3, Informative)
No, 4 cycle means 4-stoke ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/4-stroke [wikipedia.org]) engine, as opposed to a 2-stroke engine. EPA laws now forbid new 2-stroke vehicles from using the 2-stroke (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2-stroke [wikipedia.org]) type engine (you usually see 2-strokes in things like chainsaws and dirtbikes - you have to mix oil in with the gas). The thing is that 4-stroke designs are much more environmentally friendly than 2-stroke
Re:speed? (Score:3, Informative)
Are you sure? Two-strokes are less fuel efficient than a four-stroke of similar size, though they produce significantly more power than a four-stroke of similar size. A 250cc two-stroke engine sucks a lot more gasoline (and the oil mixed with it) than a 250cc four-stroke, though the two-stroke makes a lot more power. The main advantages of a two-stroke is that they produce lots of power in a small package. Another nice thing is that they don't require an oil sump, which allows
Re:speed? (Score:5, Informative)
Basically they took a Makita 54cc (3.3 cubic inches) engine off a chainsaw (capable of doing 12,000 rpm) and hooked it up to a chain/belt and used that.
Re:speed? (Score:3, Informative)
Good lord, man... (Score:5, Funny)
Chris Mattern
Re:Good lord, man... (Score:3, Informative)
That makes the inevitable fart jokes less witty too, just to be a pedantic hard-ass.
Re:Good lord, man... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Good lord, man... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Good lord, man... (Score:3, Interesting)
Because I ride a bicycle to work I can accuse people who run the same distance of "wasting energy". Perhaps in the future radical motorists will direct the same accusation at me when they do the 10km commute on 1Kj (or whatever).
Re:Good lord, man... (Score:3, Informative)
Well, that or you plan your route such that you can purchase more bananas every so often along your trip, and then you pick them up as you need them. :)
As far as covering 3,145 miles on a bicycle goes... well, I know that a bicycle will go that far without falling apart, though you're likely to require new inner tubes, tires, and brake pads by that point.
Details? (Score:4, Interesting)
I'm assuming they didn't drive it across Canada.
Sheesh.
Re:Details? (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Details? (Score:4, Informative)
Try reading harder next time -- TFA contains a link to the official website [supermileage.org] for those ambitious clickers who want to find out more than just a summary. From the home page, you can click to read the official 2006 rules [sae.org] and also look to the right for a link to the team websites. [sae.org] The UBC site [mech.ubc.ca] contains many pictures [mech.ubc.ca] including a nice one of how the driver lies down [mech.ubc.ca] and also tech specs [mech.ubc.ca] on the vehicle.
Any other questions?
Mpg into Metric (Score:5, Funny)
Whatever the case, it can't be a coincidence that this gets 1337 km/L.
Desaparecidos (Score:5, Funny)
Only ? (Score:5, Interesting)
Shell Oils Fuel Economy Race (Score:4, Interesting)
For the UBC to be at a paltry third of the efficiency of European cars is not terribly impressive in itself, unless the burdens placed by the rules are substantially more severe.
On a side-note, it occured to me some time back that very often, students living in a University city need something a little more solid than a bicycle and a lot cheaper to maintain than a full car. These vehicles would sorta fit into this category. The idea I have is for nearly-disposable cars, where it has sufficient fuel and oil to last a year or more of typical student usage. The student rents it for an academic year for next to nothing, needs to perform zero maintenance for the whole time, and then returns it. This eliminates any fuel price issues, the risk of running out of fuel when going to lectures or dates, etc.
Minis filled this role OK, but they're a pain to maintain and are relatively expensive on fuel. The biggest drawbacks are that the fuel efficient cars are incapable of carrying any significant weight (so forget carrying the books for a day - those would weigh more than the car!) and that you can't exactly carpool with them. The lack of creash resistance is a non-issue, as minis have a habit of exploding on impact. I'd swear that the scriptwriters for the A-Team must have owned minis.
No back seat. (Score:5, Funny)
Re:No back seat. (Score:5, Funny)
Has anyone calculated... (Score:3, Interesting)
I'm not particularly capable of determining the inputs, nor do I know the calculation to apply, but it'd be interesting to see what an ideal might be, to measure percent efficiency attained.
Re:Has anyone calculated... (Score:5, Funny)
Ummmm...this wouldn't have anything to do with your "handle" being "PornMaster", would it?
hige mileage vehicles are not impossible (Score:5, Interesting)
1. Some folks at Shell Oil Co. wrote "Fuel Economy of the Gasoline Engine" (ISBN 0-470-99132-1); it was published by John Wiley & Sons, New York, in 1977. On page 42 Shell Oil quotes the President of General Motors, he, in 1929, predicted 80 MPG by 1939. Between pages 221 and 223 Shell writes of their achievements: 49.73 MPG around 1939; 149.95 MPG with a 1947 Studebaker in 1949; 244.35 MPG with a 1959 Fiat 600 in 1968; 376.59 MPG with a 1959 Opel in 1973. The Library of Congress (LOC), in September 1990, did not have a copy of this book. It was missing from the files. I bought my copy from Maryland Book Exchange around 1980 after a professor informed me that it was used as an engineering text at the University of West Virginia.]
VPI published a paper, March 1979, concerning maximum achievable fuel economy. This paper has several charts illustrating achievable and impossible fuel economy. About 1980 I contacted the author concerning conflicts between the paper and documented achieved "impossible" mpg. The author said, "I will get back to you.". I am still waiting for his response.
2. The book "Secrets of the 200 MPG Carburetor" is by Allan Wallace and was available, about 198(?), from Premier Distributing, 1775 Broadway, NY, NY, 10019. Page 18 has photocopies of three 1936 tests by the Ford Motor Co. (Canada) of the Pogue carburetor (U.S. Patent # 2,026,798). The worst case test achieved about 171 MP(US)G. I can not provide any other publishing information because the book is among the material stolen from me in 1986. My copy of page 18 is very poor.] (3/08/04. I am grateful to Lee Winslett for a copy of this book and the article from Colliers.)
Collier's magazine, in 1929, published an article "300 Miles to the gallon.
3. Argosy Magazine, August 1977, has a five-page article (Text copy here.) about Tom Ogle and the media witnessed test of the "Oglemobile". Tom Ogle, on that test run, achieved more than 100 MPG in a 4,600 pound 1970 Ford Galaxie. When I attempted to find a copy of that Argosy Magazine, it was missing from LOC files in 1980. Argosy ceased publication, I was informed, a short time after the Ogle article was published. I could not find a copy of that Argosy issue at any library within 200 miles of my home. An Editor at the company that purchased Argosy found and mailed a copy to me. While attempting to verify statements in the article, I spoke with Doug Lenzini (SP?) with the EL Paso Times. Mr. Lenzini informed me that he knew Tom Ogle, and the Oglemobile achieved more than 200 MPG. When I contacted the El Paso NBC affiliate that filmed the test run described in the Argosy article, I was informed that the person who had filmed the test had left the station and taken all the records with him.]
A. The Ogle U.S. Patent, #4,177,779, has this statement "I have been able to obtain extremely high gas mileages with the system of the present invention installed on a V-8 engine of a conventional 1971 American made automobile. In fact, mileage rates in excess of one hundred miles per gallon have been achieved with the present invention." According to the Argosy article, a Shell Oil Co. representative asked Ogle what he would do if someone offered him $25 Million for the system. Ogle responded "I would not be interested" He later said, "I've always wanted to be rich, and I suspect I will be when this system gets into distribution. But I'm not going to have my system bought up and put on the shelf. I'm going to see this thing through--that I promise." According to an article in The Washington Post Parade Magazine, March 4, 1984, Tom Ogle died of a drug and alcohol overdose in 1981. Other articles concerning Tom Ogle can be found in the El Paso Journal, January 16, 1980, and also, The Hamilton Spectator, June 24, 1978.
B. The Oglemobile, in simplification, ran on fumes extracted from a heated tank in the trunk (See the Ogle patent.) A very simple method of extracting gasoline fumes is described in a
Re:Snopes.com (Score:5, Insightful)
Not a direct hit but close enough.
http://www.snopes.com/autos/business/carburetor.a
There are too many automobile companies.
There are too many motorcycle companies.
There are too many lawnmower companies.
There are too many gasoline engine makers... in the world... for your story to be credible.
In addition, I offer other anti-super fuel efficiency arguments:
Is it plausable that this technology was supressed during World War II, when the outcome of major battles depended on gasoline more than once and there was massive rationing in the states (ration coupons for gasoline, etc.)
Is it plausible that perhaps companies composing a fraction of 1% of the economy could suppress this information from the rest of the economy which would make so much money off it (every major trucking company, every taxi company, every delivery company, etc.).
I think the other companies have too much to looossee* for them to let such an invention be supressed.
---
* I have given up trying to oppose the increasingly popular misuse of "loose" as "lose" so now I will join with them.. but of course I am way behind on having the proper number of extra letters by the new contemporary spelling of loooose so I'll be putting in even more extra o's to catch up.
The Patently improbable (Score:5, Insightful)
This guy has the common misconception that having a US patent is evidence that your invention actually works. Or even exists.
A US patent simply means that you were able to confuse an undertrained patents clerk.
Re:hige mileage vehicles are not impossible (Score:5, Interesting)
That is probably the Yaris. I have one and it does go a long long way. It is also pretty fast with a top speed of 110 mph and good handling.
I generally fill up around once a month, which is nice with diesek prices in France around 1.1 euros per liter (close to $7/gallon - gas/petrol costs more). I generally get around 550 miles on a seven point five gallon tank... most driving on country roads with some motorway driving to 80 mph. Journeys usually around 30-50 miles. If I drove a bit more frugally I could probably get over 100 mpg. I do very few short journeys though - generally walk or take my bicycle.
Re:hige mileage vehicles are not impossible (Score:5, Insightful)
Same thing could be said of Israeli tanks and planes. They were attacked many times, and they didnt drag out the 200MPG carburetors either.
So let's just retire the 200MPG stories, okay?
Re:hige mileage vehicles are not impossible (Score:5, Insightful)
It doesn't matter much if your carburetor burns fumes because the fumes are just molecules of gasoline. There are only a certain number of molecules of gasoline in a gallon. Each molecule of gas releases a certain amount of energy when it is burned whether it's in fumes or liquid. Thus running on fumes doesn't make your gallon of gas last any longer if you want to get the same power out. Actually vaporizing the gas into fumes does increase its energy content slightly, but not much. It may allow the fuel to be burned a little more completely, but again, regular engines do pretty well already.
There are several ways to know that our engines haven't been detuned. One is to put a car on a dynonometer and measure it's power output and fuel consumption at the same time. Another is to determine the aerodynamic drag and rolling resistance, and use that along with the gas mileage to determine the efficiency. Aeronautical engineers do extensive calculations and tests to extract efficiency from their aircraft. They would surely know if their engines weren't doing their best or car engines were doing much less than aircraft engines.
Car engines convert gasoline energy to crankshaft energy with something like 25% efficiency. That only leaves about a possible four fold increase in gas mileage even if these carburetors and engines could achieve 100% efficiency. Not that four times better gas mileage wouldn't be great, but any claim of a larger increase based only on engine or carburetor improvements is immediately suspect. What's more, the laws of thermodynamics limit piston engines to much less than 100% efficiency.
Many of the above super mileage claims are probably scams. Some are mistakes. Some are misinterpretations or misquotes. Many are probably impractical circumstances like ultra light, ultra low drag, low power vehicles under constant, low speed, flat ground conditions.
There are too many engineers that could and would EASILY expose a cover up if one existed. Not just a few engineers like have been cited above but LOTS of them. In fact most engineers could easily uncover such a conspiracy. Every town would have multiple engineers that could and would uncover such a conspiracy. So what's a better explanation for these ultra mileage claims? That they are impractical, mistakes, scams, and such, or most of the engineers in the world have been duped by the oil companies? There are plenty of real conspiracies in the world. This one is pretty easy to dismiss.
Solar cars do the same thing with no fuel at all! (Score:4, Insightful)
Its time these challenges insert ergonomic requirements into their competitions. Start with requiring the cabin to have a certain size, with reasonble seats,leg room, and storage. In this way they can start tackling the real issues with fuel consumption.
Re:Solar cars do the same thing with no fuel at al (Score:3, Interesting)
http://www.ultimatecarpage.com/frame.php?file=car
Re:Solar cars do the same thing with no fuel at al (Score:3, Insightful)
This is a sport. I do not believe it needs a point. Blame slashdot if you thought it was anything other than a fun game of engineering challenges.
Sounds scary (Score:3, Informative)
This is a big deal (Score:5, Interesting)
When you look at the race results [sae.org] a few things stand out:
This is a simple matter.. (Score:3, Insightful)
This headline is wishful thinking. I suddenly got reminded of the "500 ghz chip" news story from earlier this week. Most people started drooling over that headline thinking a new CPU speed barrier has been reached, when in actuality the speed referred to a single switching transistor running at ridiculously controlled conditions.
Of course, the 100 mile per gallon carb lives in every last romantic one of us.
Everyone is concerned about the crash rating? (Score:3, Funny)
With that in mind, I suggest that this ultralight vehicle be produced, but instead of a tiny 54cc engine, it should have about 500 hp. Also, it should have a bitchin' loud sound system, and old school bag phone, no seatbelt, and a shelf to hold your #5 combo. Maybe a coozy for your beer too.
Shell Eco Challenge in Europe (Score:3, Interesting)
http://www.shell.com/home/Framework?siteId=eco-ma
The winning entry ran on biofuel (Ethanol) and achieved 2885 km/liter, which should correspond to about 6800 miles/gallon:
(Warning: PDF file)
http://www.shell.com/static/eco-marathon-en/downl
Terje
Fun with SI units (Score:3, Funny)
You have 0.074 liters/100 km which is:
0.074dm3 / 100km = 0.000074m3 / 100000m = 0.00000000074m2 = 0.74mm2
So the correct unit is 0.74 square millimeters!
If you imagine a 100 km long pipe filled with 0.074 liters, the area of the cross section would be 0.74 square millimeters.
Re:Fun with SI units (Score:3, Funny)
0.074dm3 / 100km = 0.000074m3 / 100000m = 0.00000000074m2 = 740um2
'Official' response (Score:5, Informative)
I'm a member of the team (Charlie Yao) and thought I'd give some clarifications to what seems to be common questions.
Methodology of competition:
Basically, you're given a topped off fuel bottle and you run 6 laps around the track (with other vehicles running simultaneously). Afterwards, they remove the fuel bottle and measure the amount you consumed (by weight). Do some math, you get your efficiency.
Speed requirements:
The rules state between 15-25MPH. In practice, with 6 laps, you're given a time frame in which to complete it. If you go out of this time frame, you're penalized heavily. The max time is 38.4 minutes. The min single lap time is 3min 50s. Obviously, we care more about the former.
Driver orientation and details:
The driver lies down on his back, feet first. He still has his head tilted up so he can see... imagine standing and looking at your feet. Only drivers of a max height can fit since our vehicle is specifically designed for one. The minimum weight of the driver is 130lbs and ballast is added otherwise.
Litres/100km:
On typical vehicles, quoting km/l gives unwieldy numbers (so I hear, I'm neutral) so instead they use litres per 100km. For us, the reverse applies... 1337km/l vs. 0.074 litres/100km. And yeah, it was amusing to get 1337 performance. FYI, you can do multiple runs on the track (one team got in 8 while we got in 4) and our mileage varied from about 2900-3145 MPG. They take your best result.
Safety and practicallity:
No, it is not safe on the road... not with typical road vehicles. It is relative of course since those who choose the more fuel concious cars get screwed by SUVs. If everyone drove small cars, it wouldn't seem as dangerous would it? There actually has been an incident in the past where a student has been killed while testing on a highway. I believe it was in Ontario and maybe by U of T but I'm not certain. As for practicallity, no, it's not... but neither is any car designed for performace. Look at an F1 car and tell me where you're going to fit your family.
Info missing from TFA:
1) Not everyone is as inquisitive as
2) We have to keep some of our secrets away from our competitors
I'll check back to this thread every so often and try to reply to the best of my ability. I'd just like to add that perhaps the biggest value is educational. There's been a lot of innovation especially since we don't have the largest budget. Teams that have to travel substantially shorter distances to the competition have trailers for their vehicle, tools and extra cars for their members. We travel in one minivan and literally duct tape the car to the roof. If we can't find some more sponsors for a trailer... maybe we should get some from 3M. Also, there are teams overseas that get 3-4times our mileage... basically professional teams with relatively unlimited resources. They also generally don't have engine requirements.
Either way, it's been a great ride. It's eery to be on
Cheers,
C
P.S. Unfotunately the team pic didn't work out in my favour. I was using my shirt to hide oil stains from working on the car but it looks like I really need to go to the washroom
Unrealistic (but impressive) (Score:3, Interesting)
Impressive technology, nonetheless. I would like to see a similar competition where certain torque requirements were met, to carry a certain weight up a certain grade, during parts of the competition. As the mileage differences between small cars and trucks/SUV's attests, potential power comes at a great cost in mileage, even when that power isn't being utilized.
This is why hybrids can do well; they switch to a mode with less power (batteries/electric) for casual driving, and flip to a more expensive means (gas), when more power is required. The UBC unit sounds a bit similar but on a much less powerful scale; the gas engine comes on now and then when a bit of power is required, and then it flips to its other mode, inertia, for as long as it can.
That's nothing ! (Score:5, Interesting)
See the latest Shell Eco-Marathon results:
http://www.shell.com/static/eco-marathon-en/downl
And please note the column "Best test / Meilleur essai" is in the kilometers/litre.
Thus the winners result 2885 km/litre eguals about 6834 miles/gallon !
(Gallon=3,79 litre, mile=1,6km)
Rules: http://www.shell.com/static/eco-marathon-en/downl
How about 9023 MPG?? (Score:3, Informative)
My university took part this year with very limited money, only undergraduate students working on the project and they achieved around 1200 MPG. Minimum speed for the competition is set at 30 Km/h. The external design is very similar to the one depicted.
Not that impressive. In the european competition they would have finished at the 20+ position.
I can top this... (Score:3, Insightful)
I love geeky technology too (Score:4, Insightful)
Every year American auto makers fund for a pittance several of these types of competitions. The results are always the same: some college kids design a vehicle that weighs practically nothing, runs on solar or such, and is totally impractical. Usually little more than a bicycle or go-cart. This has been going on much the same for decades.
And every time the results are the same:
1) US automakers get their names associated with some supposedly high-tech, innovative, and efficient technology as part of a low cost PR campaign in the form of a tiny grant to students.
2) The media is obligated to cover it as part feel good fluff: see, we're still leading the world in useless technology despite everything being made overseas! Aren't our students bright?!
3) Said automakers recruit off the various campuses engineers who then proceed to design SUV having absolutely nothing to do with afore mentioned efficient technology.
4) US makers continue declining.
S.O.S.
Wouldn't it be great if these students for once asked "how about granting us money to make something f'ing useful or hiring us to build what we made for a change?"
The scoop... (Score:5, Informative)
Having driven before I can say that they pick the smallest guy on the team (must ballast up to 150lbs I think) and cram him in. No air flow, hot, loud, and no fun - definitely no DVD player. You burn to get you speed up, then coast. You can run as many times as you want and take the best run, you just have to wait for your rotation.
As mentioned by previous posters, Briggs is a sponsor so teams are requires to use a Briggs&Stratton engine. Most teams only use the case (required), replace the shell bearings with balls, de stroke it and sleeve it to a smaller displacement (we used a Honda piston & rod), make a new head with overhead valves (the Briggs is an L head). During are first years we used a modified stock ignition and aftermarket carb but by my senior year we had a pretty sweet ECU with fuel injection (we re-calibrated a GM ECU). Most drive trains at the time were chains to a pillow block with a centrifugal clutch. The total engine/chassis weighed like 80lbs.
Re:What what happen in an accident? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:What what happen in an accident? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:What what happen in an accident? (Score:4, Funny)
Good Point (Score:5, Funny)
"Jesus, what the hell am I driving? What if I collided with a building?"
Suffice to say, my new car is 6 stories high and covered in concrete.
Ok, before you sticklers pounce on this guy... (Score:4, Funny)
Frontal - from the front
Re:This is almost useless (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:This is almost useless (Score:5, Insightful)
If this [competition] was in fact 'theoretical science' - you have a point. But it's not.
[rant]
Every time an article like this is posted to slashdot, somebody asks what are the practical applications? And, invariably, a karma whore will drag out the tired old chestnut quoted above, knowing he'll get modded up. But sometimes, it's a valid question and deserves a real answer - not a chestnut.
[/rant]
This competition wasn't an experiment to see what can be done to raise gas mileage. From a scientific point of view, it's the equivalent of the guys who attach jet engines to their cars. It's cool and all - but it isn't research and it doesn't prove anything. The scientific method is all but uninvolved. The students took extremely well known and well proven principles and 'turned them up to 11'. The result, given the years this competition has taken place and years of concept cars, was utterly unsurprising. It's the high tech equivalent of mixing baking powder and vinegar together - it'll work every time.
The original poster is correct, this is an ivory tower exercise - not a practical one. The results of this competition tell us nothing that wasn't already known, and contributes zip point to the development of real world vehicles.
No, it shows something important (Score:3, Insightful)
True, it isn't research.
But it does point something out worth considering: The barriers to fuel efficiency aren't technological.
Consider a lone person communting into the city in a Cadillac Escalade. You are moving a 200 lb payload in a 7100 lb vehicle; 7300 lb is being moved in and out of the city. The same person commuting in a Toy
Re:This is almost useless (Score:3, Insightful)
Sure, they're learning these things in a specialized context. Just like how homework problems in math or programming class are always very specific problems that never quite mat
Re:This is almost useless (Score:5, Insightful)
Ever see film of an F1/Indy car hitting a wall at 200 mph and the driver walking away?
As it happens the light stuff is also the strong, safe stuff. Doesn't rust either.
Steel is used for economy of manufacturing ( it can be stamped to shape and robotically welded), not because it's the best material for the job.
KFG
Re:This is almost useless (Score:3, Insightful)
I'd like to point out though that if you collide with something mobile, your mass determines how much the collision makes your velocity change versus their velocity. Massive objects can hit light objects and just bull on through, so passengers would be subjected to much less stress than passengers in the light object. In the massive vehicle, your velocity might change from 50 mph forward to 30 mph forward, wherea
Re:This is almost useless (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:This just in (Score:3, Insightful)
$60 in 2006 dollars is less money than $60 in any previous year since the 70's, so even if you regard your '73 ride as equivalent to your Jaaaaaaagwiiiire, you're still way ahead.
Re:Metric money? Or Imperial money. (Score:3, Interesting)
See "Future Truck" program (Score:3, Interesting)
These take stock vehicles and modify them. The 2004 competition used a Ford Explorer as the baseline and the vehicles competed on vehicle safety, fuel efficiency, emissions, off-road performance and towing performance performance (2,000lb trailer on 7% grade). The winning team reached 25mpg (yeah, still crappy but a 33% improvement), passed all the tests, and the emissions were below the Ultra Low Emissions V