3,145 MPG car

Ace Pace · Post by **Ace Pace** » 2006-06-21 05:53am

The 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.

“We achieved this level of efficiency by optimizing many aspects of the vehicle design, including: aerodynamics, light-weight construction, a small displacement engine (54 cc), and conservative driving habits,” says Team Captain Kevin Li.

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.

UBC’s student team has taken first place four out of the six years it has competed, with 2006 marking the fourth straight victory. Last year the UBC team beat out 27 teams by reaching 1,600 miles per gallon (mpg).

Université Laval (Que.) took second place this year with a score of 1,823 mpg. Other teams represented University of Windsor, University of California, Los Angeles, UC Berkeley, Pennsylvania State University, and the Delhi College of Engineering.

Supermileage (http://www.supermileage.org) is an annual student competition that challenges students to design, build, and drive a single person vehicle (powered solely by a gasoline engine) to achieve the best fuel mileage possible. The vehicle must be powered by only an internal combustion engine, with no assistance from electric motors or human propulsion.

The UBC project is funded with support from TD Friends of the Environment Foundation, AirCare, the Walter Gage Memorial Fund, and the UBC Dept. of Mechanical Engineering.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2006-06-21 09:23am

I wonder what kind of a road gradient it can handle.

drachefly · Post by **drachefly** » 2006-06-21 09:40am

I wonder on what sort of road they tested it. It seems short enough that most drivers wouldn't even be able to see the thing.

And what speed it can achieve is also relevant. If they did that by going 15 mph color me only moderately impressed.

General Zod · Post by **General Zod** » 2006-06-21 09:47am

drachefly wrote:I wonder on what sort of road they tested it. It seems short enough that most drivers wouldn't even be able to see the thing.

Personally I'd be worried about getting squashed by anything larger than a Mini-Cooper while driving that thing.

Wyrm · Post by **Wyrm** » 2006-06-21 10:52am

Is it just me, or does that think look vaguely... phalic?

Yes, I did fail the Rorschach test.

The Dude · Post by **The Dude** » 2006-06-21 11:15am

drachefly wrote:I wonder on what sort of road they tested it. It seems short enough that most drivers wouldn't even be able to see the thing.

It's an extracurricular school competition, not a road vehicle prototype. It's driven on a test track.

And what speed it can achieve is also relevant. If they did that by going 15 mph color me only moderately impressed.

Their average speed during testing must be between 15 and 25 mph. 74 mL per 100km is fucking impressive regardless.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2006-06-21 11:35am

The Dude wrote:
drachefly wrote:I wonder on what sort of road they tested it. It seems short enough that most drivers wouldn't even be able to see the thing.
It's an extracurricular school competition, not a road vehicle prototype. It's driven on a test track.
And what speed it can achieve is also relevant. If they did that by going 15 mph color me only moderately impressed.
Their average speed during testing must be between 15 and 25 mph. 74 mL per 100km is fucking impressive regardless.

It's impressive in a sense, but honestly, projects like the Sunracer (solar-powered cars that had to race on public streets) are far more impressive because they don't rely on such absurdly artificial conditions as an ultra-low speed range on a perfectly smooth flat test track. The first time this thing came to a hill, it would be fucked.

Elheru Aran · Post by **Elheru Aran** » 2006-06-21 11:52am

However nice and useful that car is, it's pretty pointless until they can apply the same to a regular size 4-door family sedan or a minivan. Otherwise, all this is gonna be good for is making OPEC sweat one drop, and bringing up much subtle penis jokes...

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2006-06-21 12:01pm

The problem I have with a project like this is the low speed range and flat test track environment emphasize different problem areas than you would face in a real vehicle. For example, frictional rolling resistance is a really big deal for a car which is doing 15-25 mph on a flat test track, but it's almost insignificant for real vehicles whose primary problems involve repeatedly accelerating and stopping in city conditions, climbing hills, etc.

Count Dooku · Post by **Count Dooku** » 2006-06-21 12:22pm

Darth Wong wrote:The problem I have with a project like this is the low speed range and flat test track environment emphasize different problem areas than you would face in a real vehicle. For example, frictional rolling resistance is a really big deal for a car which is doing 15-25 mph on a flat test track, but it's almost insignificant for real vehicles whose primary problems involve repeatedly accelerating and stopping in city conditions, climbing hills, etc.

I think that's a given, and I'm assuming that the idea behind projects like this isn't to produce a production worthy car, it's to test new concepts that might be applicable in the next generation of cars.

The Dude · Post by **The Dude** » 2006-06-21 12:30pm

Count Dooku wrote:I think that's a given, and I'm assuming that the idea behind projects like this isn't to produce a production worthy car, it's to test new concepts that might be applicable in the next generation of cars.

The primary idea is to get undergraduates some experience in design and implementation. Next is to get good press for the schools and sponsors. Genuinely practical innovations are rare and not really expected.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2006-06-21 12:41pm

Count Dooku wrote:
Darth Wong wrote:The problem I have with a project like this is the low speed range and flat test track environment emphasize different problem areas than you would face in a real vehicle. For example, frictional rolling resistance is a really big deal for a car which is doing 15-25 mph on a flat test track, but it's almost insignificant for real vehicles whose primary problems involve repeatedly accelerating and stopping in city conditions, climbing hills, etc.
I think that's a given, and I'm assuming that the idea behind projects like this isn't to produce a production worthy car, it's to test new concepts that might be applicable in the next generation of cars.

I see that my point about applicability completely escaped you.

Pick · Post by **Pick** » 2006-06-21 01:35pm

This hits me as a guilt-tripping competition. They want to look impressive, while being able to pull a figure out of their ass that makes SUV drivers weep in shame.

It's a good idea, if gas-guzzlers actually had a heart.

Enola Straight · Post by **Enola Straight** » 2006-06-21 05:59pm

IIRC, the procedure is as follows:

Pick a day with as little wind as possible, a smooth and flat section of parking lot, and a short and lightweight child as the driver.

Rig the steering wheel to go around in a 25 to 30 foot radius and start the tiny, ultra-efficient engine and slowly accelerate to 25 mph, kill the engine and coast to 10, pop the clutch and accelerate again and repeat until your thimble sized gas tank is empty.

spikenigma · Post by **spikenigma** » 2006-06-23 03:53am

qutie nice, I'm still waiting for my 373 miles per charge solectra sunrise though

nasor · Post by **nasor** » 2006-06-23 02:29pm

spikenigma wrote:qutie nice, I'm still waiting for my 373 miles per charge solectra sunrise though

I'm kind of curious about how well it actually performs - it says that the batteries can provide 30 kw (about 40 horsepower), which is generally not considered acceptable for a car. That's down in the lower range of motorcycle engines.

spikenigma · Post by **spikenigma** » 2006-06-23 03:57pm

nasor wrote: I'm kind of curious about how well it actually performs - it says that the batteries can provide 30 kw (about 40 horsepower), which is generally not considered acceptable for a car. That's down in the lower range of motorcycle engines.

well it's quite lightweight and did an average 55mph from Boston to New York with one passanger and luggage

it more than likely augments the battery using regenerative breaking (brakes which recharge the batteries)

who knows?, neither you or I will ever get to see one

nasor · Post by **nasor** » 2006-06-23 04:34pm

spikenigma wrote: well it's quite lightweight and did an average 55mph from Boston to New York with one passanger and luggage

it more than likely augments the battery using regenerative breaking (brakes which recharge the batteries)

who knows?, neither you or I will ever get to see one

Hmm...it couldn't have been very light. The press release said they went for 4 hours at 28 kw on NiMH batteries, so they would have used around 400 megajoules. The best energy density anyone has been able to get from a NiMH battery is around 200 kj/kg, so you would be looking at about 1800 kilos in batteries alone. For comparison, that's about the same as the entire mass of a Ford Crown Victoria - and you haven't even built a car around your 1800 kg of batteries yet!

Actually, unless I'm misreading something or did a calculation wrong, this press release does not seem plausible to me. A 2000+ kg vehicle powered by a 30 kw engine?

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2006-06-23 05:23pm

There is absolutely no way that you need 28 kW to cruise at constant velocity for 4 hours, especially in a vehicle that was presumably designed for low drag and friction.

Feil · Post by **Feil** » 2006-06-24 12:50am

I can go 15-25 miles per hour on my bicicle, and nothing but a regular-sized breakfast, lunch, and dinner...

It's a cool idea, and an impressive feat of engineering, but I don't find it an impressive vehicle.

spikenigma · Post by **spikenigma** » 2006-06-24 03:13am

nasor wrote: Hmm...it couldn't have been very light. The press release said they went for 4 hours at 28 kw on NiMH batteries, so they would have used around 400 megajoules. The best energy density anyone has been able to get from a NiMH battery is around 200 kj/kg, so you would be looking at about 1800 kilos in batteries alone. For comparison, that's about the same as the entire mass of a Ford Crown Victoria - and you haven't even built a car around your 1800 kg of batteries yet!

the article wrote: ....Proprietary rechargeable Ovonic NiMH batteries are based on new hydrogen storage principles and materials invented and developed by ECD and Ovonic Battery

apprently, they are not just run of the mill batteries

Actually, unless I'm misreading something or did a calculation wrong, this press release does not seem plausible to me. A 2000+ kg vehicle powered by a 30 kw engine?

I think you are because I don't think they mentioned the weight of the car in the article, alse from other research I've got some stats

* the weight of the car as 770kg
* the payload as 310 kg
* thge gross vehicle weight as 1080 kg (and not 2000kg)

http://www.transportation.anl.gov/pdfs/C/24.pdf

Ovonic batteries have already been used and proven in many other applications including electric school busses and vehicles

http://www.ovonic.com/sol_srv/3_4_batte ... case_a.htm

spikenigma · Post by **spikenigma** » 2006-06-24 03:15am

Darth Wong wrote:There is absolutely no way that you need 28 kW to cruise at constant velocity for 4 hours, especially in a vehicle that was presumably designed for low drag and friction.

are you saying you need greater power or lesser?

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2006-06-24 07:11am

spikenigma wrote:
Darth Wong wrote:There is absolutely no way that you need 28 kW to cruise at constant velocity for 4 hours, especially in a vehicle that was presumably designed for low drag and friction.
are you saying you need greater power or lesser?

Less. 28 kW is an obscenely high cruising power consumption figure for a high-efficiency car. 28 kW is roughly 38 horsepower, and there are plenty of ordinary production cars which will come in below 30 horsepower to cruise at 60 mph.

If that car really needed 38 horsepower to cruise at 55 mph, it must have had the aerodynamics of a brick, especially considering that it's a special high-efficiency testbed rather than an ordinary production vehicle.

Lost Soal · Post by **Lost Soal** » 2006-06-24 09:10am

The whole thing is a joke and missleading.
At an annual compitition in Europe organised by shell, a team has won it with a figure of over 10,000mpg. Further, in addition to the unreallistic test conditions, the winning teams don't win because of super efficient engine designs, but because they are exceptionally good at coasting. For 90+% of the duration, the engine won't even be running.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2006-06-24 09:29am

Lost Soal wrote:The whole thing is a joke and missleading.
At an annual compitition in Europe organised by shell, a team has won it with a figure of over 10,000mpg. Further, in addition to the unreallistic test conditions, the winning teams don't win because of super efficient engine designs, but because they are exceptionally good at coasting. For 90+% of the duration, the engine won't even be running.

That's what I was saying before; the test conditions are so unrealistic that any notion of applying these techniques to the real world is utterly laughable.

What they should do with these fuel-economy competitions is specify a certain weight of driver, and force teams to add ballast if their driver is too light. Then they should create a test track that has a stop sign and hills, to more realistically simulate actual driving. Penalize any driver who doesn't come to a complete stop at the stop sign.