Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Students Build 2752 MPG Hypermiling Vehicle

timothy posted more than 4 years ago | from the seattle-to-vegas-and-back dept.

Power 233

MikeChino sends along this awe-inspiring excerpt: "Think claims of electric vehicles that get over 200 MPG are impressive? Try this on for size: a group of mechanical engineering students at Cal Poly have developed a vehicle that can get up to 2752.3 MPG — and it doesn't even use batteries. The Cal Poly Supermileage Team's wondercar, dubbed the Black Widow, has been under construction since 2005. The 96 pound car has three wheels, a drag coefficient of 0.12, a top speed of 30 MPH, and a modified 3 horsepower Honda 50cc four-stroke engine. It originally clocked in at 861 MPG and has been continuously tweaked to achieve the mileage we see today." It's not quite as street-worthy, though, as Volkswagen's 235 MPG One-Liter concept. Updated 20:01 GMT: The Cal Poly car's earlier incarnation achieved 861 MPG, not MPH; corrected above.

cancel ×

233 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

clocked in at 861 MPH (2, Insightful)

itomato (91092) | more than 4 years ago | (#31212092)

Really?

Pfft.

Not even proofsniffed.

Re:clocked in at 861 MPH (4, Funny)

MWoody (222806) | more than 4 years ago | (#31212150)

Yeah, I could make a car that went 861 MPH and got 2k+ MPG if I dropped it out of a plane, too.

Re:clocked in at 861 MPH (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31212500)

Funny, but I think you'd find that terminal velocity would limit your ability to achieve this claim.

Re:clocked in at 861 MPH (1)

KDR_11k (778916) | more than 4 years ago | (#31212666)

Okay, then let's drop it from orbit.

Re:clocked in at 861 MPH (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31212766)

No, lets /NUKE/ it from orbit. It's the only way to be sure.

Re:clocked in at 861 MPH (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31213336)

> Okay, then let's drop it from orbit.

It's actually quite hard to "drop" something from an orbit. It tends to just orbit with you. You could throw it out backwards, but it would probably just settle into a lower orbit.

Re:clocked in at 861 MPH (1)

mysidia (191772) | more than 4 years ago | (#31213540)

That's even better.... the more times it orbits, the higher its average MPG will be, since it's not consuming any fuel to orbit, its fuel mileage is essentially infinite, that is, until its orbit decays and comes crashing to earth.

Still, it could be a few million miles of travel before that happens.

It must kill the resale value though. "This car has 5 million miles on it" (miles it was travelling in orbit around planet earth)

Then again, it may get some collectors' value.

Re:clocked in at 861 MPH (1)

ComaVN (325750) | more than 4 years ago | (#31213560)

it would probably just settle into a lower orbit.

If my understanding of orbital mechanics is correct, it would settle in a more excentric orbit, as long as the perigee isn't inside the earth's atmosphere, but it would swing right back to the point where you threw it.

To get it into a proper lower orbit you need to apply a force at least twice.

Re:clocked in at 861 MPH (1)

mysidia (191772) | more than 4 years ago | (#31213520)

Except you have to count fuel used by the plane to reach that height in the calculation, so it's not 2k MPG :)

Re:clocked in at 861 MPH (1)

Sockatume (732728) | more than 4 years ago | (#31212430)

You misunderstand, they started with the Thrust SSC and then stripped it back a bit. Their next project will use the SR-71 as a starting design on the same principle.

Re:clocked in at 861 MPH (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31212626)

The SR-71 wouldn't be stripped back. It gets more efficient the faster it goes.

and (1)

fireylord (1074571) | more than 4 years ago | (#31212736)

is this a good time to say whooshas? :)

861 MPH (-1, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31212094)

Very impressive! They should work on setting land speed records too.

861 MPH...wow. (-1, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31212096)

861 MPH...3 horsepower Honda 50cc four-stroke engine...guess my lawnmower can really cook.

The supercar version was better (0, Troll)

jandrese (485) | more than 4 years ago | (#31212108)

Daww, I'd be far more interested in a car that can get up to:

...It originally clocked in at 861 MPH ...

Instead of something that putters around at 30mph and bores its driver to death before running out of fuel.

Re:The supercar version was better (1)

kae_verens (523642) | more than 4 years ago | (#31212910)

the speed limit for the centre of Dublin, Ireland, is slower than that - 30KPH.

so the car may be slow for most people, but would be ideal for Dubliners.

Re:The supercar version was better (2)

commodore64_love (1445365) | more than 4 years ago | (#31213502)

>>>Instead of something that putters around at 30mph and bores its driver to death

Well to each his own. My Honda Insight may be "boring" when I'm driving it only 55 (the Pres. Carter speed limit), but being able to drive to work and back on only $2.00 is a pretty good deal. (It averages over 90 MPG for me.) Even if I speed along at 80mph, it still gets a decent 60 MPG, so no complaints either way.

We need more cars like this, not less, and if I had the opportunity I'd buy this Caltech car (after it's made roadworthy) or the Volkswagen 240 MPG car or the Volkswagen 88 MPG Lupo 3L. I enjoy saving money, and I don't need a Ford Living Room SUV just to go to hell..... er, I mean work and back.

BTW where is that Volkswagen 240 MPG car? They were supposed to make a production model for 2010, but still no sign of it. :-|

Re:The supercar version was better (1)

commodore64_love (1445365) | more than 4 years ago | (#31213546)

P.S. For comparison this prototype car is 3 hp and 50 cc. My Honda is 70hp and the VW Lupo is 60hp - at approximately 1000 cc each.

861 MPH!!!!!!! (2, Interesting)

Black Gold Alchemist (1747136) | more than 4 years ago | (#31212112)

It originally clocked in at 861 MPH and has been continuously tweaked to achieve the mileage we see today.

Not only eco-friendly, it leaves some fighter aircraft in the dust! How do they prevent the sonic boom?

Re:861 MPH!!!!!!! (2, Funny)

Mitchell314 (1576581) | more than 4 years ago | (#31212136)

Drive in a vacuum, duh. Do it anyways so there's less air friction.

Re:861 MPH!!!!!!! (1)

Black Gold Alchemist (1747136) | more than 4 years ago | (#31212244)

Even bricks are aerodynamic in a vacuum - that really sucks if you worked so hard making your car aerodynamic.

Re:861 MPH!!!!!!! (4, Insightful)

xquark (649804) | more than 4 years ago | (#31212342)

quote from the rtfa: "It originally clocked in at 861 MPG and has been continuously tweaked to achieve the mileage we see today."

Re:861 MPH!!!!!!! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31213384)

Thank you captain obvious for your insight into things we already know

A top speed of 30mph (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31212124)

...and it just went from cool to useless.

So what? (4, Insightful)

JSBiff (87824) | more than 4 years ago | (#31212158)

I'm not that impressed. I mean, while the figure mentioned seems impressive, how is this 'research' helpful? I mean, we already have *known* for a very long time that if you made a super small, lightweight vehicle with excellent aerodynamics, very low top-speed, and very low torque/accelleration, you can get much more mileage than the typical car. But, nobody wants a vehicle like that. People want vehicles very much like what they already have. . . enough mass around them to provide protections in an accident, enough space and power to haul 4 - 8 people plus cargo/luggage, and decent speed and accelleration - I think most of us have had driving experiences where we really needed to accellerate *right now* in order to avoid getting run over by a truck or bus or whatever.

I honestly think these 'toy car' concepts, while they might be great learning exercises for engineering students, aren't very impressive. I'd be much more impressed by the 80-100 MPG 4-door sedan.

Re:So what? (1)

Brian Gordon (987471) | more than 4 years ago | (#31212236)

Pushing the limits of engine efficiency is certainly productive research...

Re:So what? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31212524)

I don't think they did anything as far as engine efficiency is concerned. They used a plain Honda engine.

Re:So what? (1)

Sepodati (746220) | more than 4 years ago | (#31212322)

I can see research like this being useful for autonomous individual-family cars that take the place of trains for cross country trips. You don't have to go that fast if you can continuously move and control traffic... Although faster than 30 mph would be good. Who knows if things like this will ever be built, though.

Re:So what? (1)

TheThiefMaster (992038) | more than 4 years ago | (#31212466)

I think most of us have had driving experiences where we really needed to accellerate *right now* in order to avoid getting run over by a truck or bus or whatever

Most of us don't pull out in front of a truck or bus in the first place.

Re:So what? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31212544)

Right, because that's the only way it can happen.

Ass.

Re:So what? (4, Insightful)

zippthorne (748122) | more than 4 years ago | (#31212686)

Of course, it's a lot easier to pull out in front of a truck when you're sitting in a recumbent position with your eyes no more than two and a half feet off the road.

Which brings me to a pet peeve of mine: poorly thought out landscaping on street-corner properties. I know you think your ugly bush looks cool and all, and the tree next to it really hides the street sign you placed them around, but street signs are there for a reason, and blocking drivers' view of oncoming traffic is just plain mean. Stop doing it.

Re:So what? (1)

Alwin Henseler (640539) | more than 4 years ago | (#31212534)

(..) enough mass around them to provide protections in an accident, enough space and power to haul 4 - 8 people plus cargo/luggage, and decent speed and accelleration - I think most of us have had driving experiences where we really needed to accellerate *right now* in order to avoid getting run over by a truck or bus or whatever.

Mass doesn't protect you in an accident. Material (perferably light-weight) that can be deformed (around a strong inner cage), and converts energy in heat when deformed, does. As do seatbelts, airbags, and windshields that shatter into tiny pieces. More mass OTOH means more energy that must be absorbed, more stress on the brake system, more force that the tires need to transfer to the road, and more damage to the other car (which might just happen to be the one you're in). Less mass improves you power/acceleration ratio, and is easier to bring to a halt. Or, given the same constraints as a heavier vehicle, smaller/lighter breaks, engine, transmission system and tires to archieve the same effect.

People want vehicles very much like what they already have. . .

Not really... if you look at market developments it appears people want smaller, lighter, more energy-efficient & eco-friendly cars. What would really sell (a cheap, all-electric vehicle that goes to your holiday destination & back on a single charge) is totally unlike what most people have today.

You can go faster using pedal power (3, Insightful)

Colin Smith (2679) | more than 4 years ago | (#31212608)

I find it ironic that you can get a fairly standard HPV (http://www.recumbents.com/home/) that'll let you go faster than 30mph just using pedal power.

 

Re:So what? (1)

KDR_11k (778916) | more than 4 years ago | (#31212690)

Not only that, in the linked VW article someone brought up a concept car that did over 3000 MPG so it doesn't even hold the record in that regard. At first I thought this one might be slightly more practical but it seems to be a similarly tiny design.

Re:So what? (1)

91degrees (207121) | more than 4 years ago | (#31212746)

What are the best aerodynamics? How can we make a vehicle smaller and lighter? Assuming we've optimised the aerodynamics and weight, how can we make the engine even more efficient? We'll get some useful research from this, a lot of which will scale up even to make a truck more fuel efficient.

Re:So what? (1)

Raptoer (984438) | more than 4 years ago | (#31213556)

You're missing the point though, Cal Poly isn't a research university. This isn't research, and these student's didn't do it for some research grant and probably won't publish a paper about it or anything. They did it for the hell of it.

861 mph, eh? (0, Redundant)

jimicus (737525) | more than 4 years ago | (#31212164)

It originally clocked in at 861 MPH

So they're going for the world land speed record as well as the fuel economy record? Impressive stuff.

96 pounds (1)

Sarten-X (1102295) | more than 4 years ago | (#31212166)

Is the 96-pound figure without fuel? I wonder how much it weight fully loaded.

Re:96 pounds (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31212246)

add 4 americans, their McDonalds meals, diet cokes and 50 pounds of garbage then you are over 2000 pounds

Re:96 pounds (1)

iammani (1392285) | more than 4 years ago | (#31212330)

Gasoline density is ~ 3.4 pounds/gallon. So assuming you want a full fuel range of 2752 Miles, you need a gallon of gas, which is 3.4 pounds. Now 100-pound figure doesnt seem any less impressive than 96 pounds, does it?

Now if were to count humans, they unfortunately on average weight 180 pounds/person.

Re:96 pounds (1)

addaon (41825) | more than 4 years ago | (#31212398)

Gas density is around 6 lbs/gallon, not 3.4 lbs/gallon.

Re:96 pounds (1)

iammani (1392285) | more than 4 years ago | (#31212456)

Ahh thanks for the correction. I guess i screwed up converting from metric :). In metric its 740 kg/cu.m

Re:96 pounds (2, Insightful)

Sarten-X (1102295) | more than 4 years ago | (#31212418)

...Wow. That was a dumb question. Thanks for the answer, though.

Re:96 pounds (1)

maxume (22995) | more than 4 years ago | (#31212490)

The entertaining part was that you got a stupid answer.

(yes yes, the reasoning from the answer is fine)

That's some amazing speed! (0, Redundant)

leroybrown (136516) | more than 4 years ago | (#31212190)

"It originally clocked in at 861 MPH"

WOW!!! That's some seriously astonishing speed at 2,752 miles per gallon! My 30 minute commute just dropped to just under 2 minutes! Take the top off and I won't even have to bother drying my hair after I get out of the shower. The constant windburn would probably result in some ointments, but it's probably worth it. Even if it only holds one gallon of gas, I'd only have to fill up every 2 months! Take _that_ big oil, I'm sold!

not getting it here (2, Interesting)

khallow (566160) | more than 4 years ago | (#31212198)

Think claims of electric vehicles that get over 200 MPG are impressive?

How about infinite miles per gallon? Electric cars don't consume gas.

Re:not getting it here (1)

Black Gold Alchemist (1747136) | more than 4 years ago | (#31212366)

They're factoring in CO2 emissions from average grid power. That means you mostly get MPG figures greater than 100. However, if you have solar or wind charging, then it is virtually infinite (you have to take in to account EROEI). You also have to take into account the energy cost of the batteries, and the issue of battery wear-out. If you charge from nuclear, you get a million MPG or more - of uranium fuel.

Re:not getting it here (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31213678)

If electric cars don't consume gas wouldn't it be 0 miles per gallon?

Re:not getting it here (1)

bwnunnally (1744458) | more than 4 years ago | (#31213802)

No, they go miles, but consume 0 gallons. So Miles/gallons = Some/0 hence infinity.

hypermiling is useless.y v (5, Interesting)

drinkypoo (153816) | more than 4 years ago | (#31212218)

Hypermiling is interesting, but totally useless. It's not even that interesting from an engineering standpoint because it's the answer to a question that nobody has asked: "How do I get amazing mileage in a way that is completely and totally infeasible to actually implement?" Now, if they were doing aeronautic hypermiling, that would be interesting, because the vehicles in question need not interfere with other vehicles. But hypermiling techniques involve acceleration and coasting, and every vehicle would need its own road to take advantage of them without screwing up everyone else's mileage and decreasing everyone's safety. Even typical hybrid drivers create a road hazard by paying too much attention to their MPG readout; not due to their inattention to the road, but because they are slowing down excessively while going up hills, causing drivers behind them to have to leave their powerband and downshift to a less-efficient gear ratio to maintain it. Every time I see a Prius I pass it at the earliest opportunity so as not to be stuck behind it and have to suffer their inconsideration, often consuming additional fuel in the process. A hybrid might get better mileage, but as they are typically driven, they cause worse mileage; and they provably consume more energy over the course of their lifetime than a comparable vehicle with a small diesel engine and no batteries which gets the same or even superior mileage.

Re:hypermiling is useless.y v (1)

Quantumstate (1295210) | more than 4 years ago | (#31212478)

It makes no sense to drive a prius like that. The whole point of having a hybrid is that you can regenerate the energy usually lost in braking and driving inefficiently by putting the energy back into the batteries. The hybrid helps with higher efficiency on hills by allowing a constant speed which running the engine at optimum power by adding the extra power needed with the electric motor so the engine can run at its most efficient more of the time. Yes, you can get higher efficiency by driving differently but the differene is smaller in a hybrid than a normal car so the drivers shouldn't need to bother as much.

Re:hypermiling is useless.y v (1)

BikeHelmet (1437881) | more than 4 years ago | (#31212774)

You're both correct. That's the problem. The drivers need to be taught - clearly some haven't been.

Re:hypermiling is useless.y v (1)

kaizokuace (1082079) | more than 4 years ago | (#31213100)

Well the other big factor to getting awesome gas mileage isnt just driving habits and technique. Aerodynamics play a large part that no one wants to accept in industry. Namely because cars with low CoD are ridiculous looking. If we wanna get easy mileage bumps aero is the way to go for now. Just gotta get it past the marketing departments.

Re:hypermiling is useless.y v (1)

LoverOfJoy (820058) | more than 4 years ago | (#31212654)

Maybe if the hypermiling could occur on a train track it could have a use...

Re:hypermiling is useless.y v (3, Informative)

bzipitidoo (647217) | more than 4 years ago | (#31213206)

Troll!

There's plenty more to hypermiling than driving technique. Aerodynamics, weight reduction, use of lightweight oils, making sure tires aren't underinflated, and keeping the engined tuned and clean. Quite a few of those things increase safety as well as fuel economy.

You speak as if hypermiling is totally selfish. Some of the techniques are rude and dangerous-- drafting leaps to mind. But many driving techniques can save everyone gas. Coasting up to a red light definitely saves everyone gas, both for the coaster and those behind. Going as slow as the speed limit (imagine that!) saves gas compared to going 10 plus mph over. Funny how you pick on hypermilers for alleged inattentiveness while overlooking cell phone users. Bashing on hypermiling in general because you can't stand sharing the road with a few hybrid drivers who might not even be doing any real hypermiling makes about as much sense as hating all uses of cellphones.

But picking on drivers is too far down the food chain. Where's your outrage over bad road routing and design? Bad stoplight timing, too many stoplights, too many stop signs, too many intersections? Terrible urban planning and building location? I'll give you a few examples. A southbound street that was the shortest way out of an area with approximately 10000 people used to connect to an east-west highway until the highway was changed into a tollway. Now that street only connects to the westbound service road, and to go east, people have to drive 1 mile west to a U-turn. There is no shorter way. Those tollroad planners screwed a lot of people. Another is the typical street interchange. At regular intersections, the lights are set up so 2 opposing left turn lanes (assume driving on the right) can go at the same time. But at a stoplighted interchange, the opposite directions are separated by a highway, making it impossible to do that neat little left turn trick. So instead they often make the interchange a 4 cycler, allowing only one direction to go at a time. Or they double stop the left turners. Do we have to put up with this? No! The interchange could be better designed. For instance, if the position of the highway and the service roads was swapped, so the fast lane is the right lane and the slow lane with the exits is the left lane, then we could do the double left turn just like at an intersection of 2 streets. As for suburban sprawl, the typical strip mall and miscellaneous group of independent stores is so hostile to pedestrian travel that people actually drive from store to store within the same strip mall. Because, you know, who wants to cross 4 or 6 lanes of traffic to get to that coffee shop on the other side of the street even though it's less than 100 feet away?

And where's the outrage over the crap the automakers have done? They haven't hesitated to save themselves a few pennies though it costs fuel economy. They'll even waste gas for the sake of appearances, such as the useless grill opening that is much wider than the radiator and condenser. Sure scoops a lot more air into that giant forward facing steel drag chute known as the engine compartment. One of the biggest is the classic automatic tranny with torque converter. 20% hit to fuel economy so you don't have to shift gears. A top gear that isn't high enough, so that you can roar around slower cars without having to downshift. But you know what? We can have an automatic that doesn't need a torque converter. Another gigantic one is instant starting and stopping of engines so cars don't burn gas while sitting at a red light or in a drive through. We could have had that by now if anyone cared for it.

Wow! (0, Redundant)

93 Escort Wagon (326346) | more than 4 years ago | (#31212248)

A top speed of 30mph, yet able to reach 861mph - there's some seriously exotic quantum behaviors they've managed to induce!

Re:Wow! (1)

f0dder (570496) | more than 4 years ago | (#31212788)

They're claiming to have a 12 inch cock but it only fucks 1 inch at a time.

They say others did better (4, Informative)

mukund (163654) | more than 4 years ago | (#31212306)

Not to steal their thunder (and this mpg result is old news), but according to their own blog [blogspot.com] , Universite Laval got 2757 mpg in that race. And Mater Dei High School hold the record with 2,843.4 mpg [materdeiwildcats.com] .

Re:They say others did better (4, Insightful)

phantomfive (622387) | more than 4 years ago | (#31212358)

Not to mention on the very same page as TFA there is a link to a French car that got 8923 miles per gallon. [inhabitat.com] But this team managed to get a front page story for their car. Kudos to them and their superior story submission skills.

Re:They say others did better (1)

Alwin Henseler (640539) | more than 4 years ago | (#31212662)

At the gas station-

"Fill 'r up, please!"
"1/10 of a gallon, as usual, ma'am?"
"Yes, thank you."

AMAZING!! 2752.3 MPG at 861 MPH (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31212312)

A modified 3 horsepower Honda 50cc four-stroke engine that can do 2752.3 MPG at 861 MPH would be damn impressive if it were true.

practical application? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31212320)

How does this technology scale?

What would the mileage be if it would be scaled up to a small family car with 100MPH top speed?

Miles per useless (1)

Kenoli (934612) | more than 4 years ago | (#31212336)

Maybe someone would care if the vehicle had some practical applications.

Prior art (4, Funny)

gmuslera (3436) | more than 4 years ago | (#31212378)

This car [wikipedia.org] used to do even more mpg, but wasnt very fast.

2752 MPG ? (1)

Tiger4 (840741) | more than 4 years ago | (#31212386)

The gas would evaporate from the tank faster than that! I think someone needs to check their figures. Unit conversion FTW??

Re:2752 MPG ? (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31213378)

My analysis indicates that it is theoretically infeasible.

The Calorific value of Gasoline is 45 MJ / kg.

Burning a gallon of Gas would yield us 45 MJ/kg * 0.77 kg/l * 3.76 liters = 118 MJ

Assuming an 4 Stroke Engine efficiency of 25% [ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermal_efficiency] , the total useful mechanical work that can be created is 29.5 MJ

Neglecting Drag, work done = Frictional Force * Distance. Using 29.5 MJ as the work done, we can calculate the frictional force to be 6.7 N.

For a 96lb car, the coefficient of rolling friction required to achieve 6.7N of frictional force is 0.015.

For the whole thing to hang together, the surface coefficient of rolling friction needs to be smaller than 0.015.

The coefficient of rolling friction for concrete roads 1.0!!!

Re:2752 MPG ? (1)

mosb1000 (710161) | more than 4 years ago | (#31213634)

Rolling friction is dependent on wheels first and foremost (based on their size, shape, thickness, how inelastic they are, how efficient the bearing is), not so much the road surface. It certainly is possible to achieve a very low rolling friction, especially in a lightweight vehicle.

Looks better than I thought. (1)

Hurricane78 (562437) | more than 4 years ago | (#31212422)

You know. Most of those things look really, REALLY uncool. This one, with a bit of work, comes close to a batmobile. Not bad at all.

Of course, let’s see how it does as a 4-person+dog car going at 80 mph in a crash situation.
It’s always much easier do do all this at low speeds and loads.
My guess: 2752 mpg / 5 seats / (80 mph / 30 mph) = 206.4 mpg. ^^

Re:Looks better than I thought. (1)

zippthorne (748122) | more than 4 years ago | (#31212820)

It's always easier to do at low speeds because F_drag = c*A*v^2 Cut the speed in half, and you cut the {work/mile} by three quarters. Of course, at some point you have to start cutting switchbacks and tunnels everywhere because your (properly sized for the desired speed) power plant can't climb moderate inclines, but you'd be really efficient!

Re:Looks better than I thought. (1)

mosb1000 (710161) | more than 4 years ago | (#31213670)

Drag increases with the square of speed, so your equation should be:

2752 mpg / 5 seats / (80 mph / 30 mph) * (80 mph / 30 mph) = 77.4 mpg

Amazing stats! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31212432)

> have developed a vehicle that can get up to 2752.3 MPG
> It originally clocked in at 861 MPH

Then the LSD wore off ...

MPH? (-1, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31212450)

"It originally clocked in at 861 MPH and has been continuously tweaked to achieve the mileage we see today."

Damn, that's a lot of speed

seattle to vegas (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31212472)

So, Seattle to Las Vegas is about 1200 miles. If it can go 861 MPH, that's a little less than 3 hours travel time. All without even using a full gallon of gas! That's pretty damn impressive!

Re:seattle to vegas (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31212536)

Should've mentioned, that's Seattle to Vegas and back.

sex with a cOck (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31212548)

OpenBSD leader Theo with process and confirmed that *BSD of business and goals. It's when philoso4hies must [klerck.org]? Corporate I know it sux0rs, problem stems

yeah but? (1)

stokessd (89903) | more than 4 years ago | (#31212550)

Can it haul my giant bass boat?

Bubba

Not impressive (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31212566)

I'm not impressed. My university has a student association called Remmi-team [remmi-team.com] that does hypermiling . They have been active since 1976. Their current vehicle Remmi 7 [remmi-team.com] has a record 3306 km/l (~7776 mpg).

Re:Not impressive (1)

mosb1000 (710161) | more than 4 years ago | (#31213716)

But this car is one that the driver sits in, the other cars have the driver laying on their back. This car seems a little more practical to me for that reason.

Mail carriers (2, Interesting)

carbuck (1728596) | more than 4 years ago | (#31212584)

This might be useful for mail carriers, meter maids, farm vehicles, etc. Might also be useful for someone exploring a remote area where a gas pump might not be readily available

Can this even hold 1 Gal of fuel? (1)

140Mandak262Jamuna (970587) | more than 4 years ago | (#31212596)

Or is it so optimized that they use an eye dropper to feed this thing seven drops of gasoline and extrapolate how far it would have traveled if it really had a gallon of fuel? I mean if you have to stop every mile to refuel, they might easily build a rubber band powered vehicle that gives infinite miles per gallon.

Re:Can this even hold 1 Gal of fuel? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31212978)

This has already been answered in the above discussion. RTFC

Lost the goal (0)

javelinco (652113) | more than 4 years ago | (#31212634)

The goal is to have a street capable car that people would gladly purchase and drive, not produce a bicycle that gets good gas mileage that bike riders wouldn't use. Does this proof of concept even get us closer to the real goal? It doesn't seem like it does.

But whats it get for (1)

rossdee (243626) | more than 4 years ago | (#31212660)

city driving?

Re:But whats it get for (1)

Drathos (1092) | more than 4 years ago | (#31213492)

Run over?

Electric Vehicles? (0, Redundant)

Rockoon (1252108) | more than 4 years ago | (#31212698)

Think claims of electric vehicles that get over 200 MPG are impressive?

The last thing that I am, is impressed, by someone who doesnt know that electric vehicles dont use a liquid fuel of any kind.

Re:Electric Vehicles? (1)

KahabutDieDrake (1515139) | more than 4 years ago | (#31213150)

One must begin to wonder about the absolutely awe inspiring ability of some people to miss the point.

Re:Electric Vehicles? (1)

Rockoon (1252108) | more than 4 years ago | (#31213358)

I got the point. They get insane gas efficiency with a toy vehicle. What I dont get is how they get away with such an incredible misunderstanding of the basics within their "look at us" article.

Next up, the Moyes Litespeed 4-S gets over 1 trillion miles per gallon.

scooter (1)

Faux_Pseudo (141152) | more than 4 years ago | (#31212852)

3 horse power 50cc honda build with a top speed of about 30 MPH? That sounds like the engin they use on their scooters. I have 4 of them and they run for ever. Without any modifications or hypermileing they will get between 70 and 100 mpg.

Rather pointless (4, Informative)

Solandri (704621) | more than 4 years ago | (#31212862)

MPG is backwards. It tells you how much further you can go on a single gallon, not how much less fuel it'll take to cover a fixed distance. In practical terms, the latter is much more relevant to how people drive. If you buy a car which gets twice the MPG, you do not suddenly start driving twice as far every day. Your miles driven each day will probably remain fixed, so fuel saved is based on the inverse of MPG.

A consequence of this is that MPG exaggerates the benefit of highly fuel-efficient vehicles. 2752 MPG sounds like a lot. But switching from a 25 MPG vehicle to a 50 MPG vehicle saves you more gas than switching from a 50 MPG vehicle to a 2752 MPG vehicle. To cover a distance of 50 miles, the 25 MPG vehicle would consume 2 gallons. The 50 MPG vehicle would consume 1 gallon, for a savings of 1 gallon. The 2752 MPG vehicle would consume 0.018 gallons, for a savings of 0.982 gallons. This is less improvement than the switch from 25 MPG to 50 MPG. Because MPG is inverted, a 10 MPG improvement on a 25 MPG vehicle saves a lot more fuel than a 10 MPG improvement on a 2000 MPG vehicle.

Consequently, the most important thing for reducing overall fuel consumption is to get people out of gas guzzlers and into more fuel efficient vehicles. Stuff like hypermiling vehicles getting >2000 MPG are interesting from an engineering and design standpoint, but they serve little practical use. Even if you could develop a real car which got 2000 MPG, getting a single SUV driver to switch to a Prius would save 3.5x as much fuel as getting a single Prius driver to switch to this new ultra-high MPG vehicle.

This is why most of the rest of the world measures fuel efficiency in liters/100 km. It makes the amount of fuel your car will use for a typical drive pretty obvious, and makes it dirt simple to compare how much fuel you'll save switching to a different vehicle (just subtract the two numbers):
SUV = 16 liters/100 km
sedan = 9.4 liters/100 km
Prius = 4.7 liters/100 km
vehicle in article = 0.085 liters/100 km

Re:Rather pointless (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31213494)

This post is riddled with logical error, if you can complete ~3k miles on one gallon of fuel vs 50 miles, you've increased your mileage by 60x, ie you'd need 60 gallons to do the same thing in a 50mpg car. Going from a 25 mpg car to a 50 mpg car allows you to travel 2x the distance per gallon. Give up on the dramatic illogical arguments.

Re:Rather pointless (1)

Gaffod (939100) | more than 4 years ago | (#31213710)

Hey there partner, have I [wikipedia.org] got a function [wolframalpha.com] for you! [wolfram.com]

861 MPH! (1)

athlon02 (201713) | more than 4 years ago | (#31212866)

I think I like the 861 MPH better... "If my calculations are correct, when this baby gets up to 861 MPH, you're going to see some serious stuff" ... CRASH! KABOOM!

engineering: the practical application of science (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31212900)

Hypermilling is for kids...get a bicycle if you're concerned about your mpg...

2009 tour de france:
2100+ miles, 25 mph average without hypermilling and no fossil/electric fuel source + you get your heart healthy exercise! WOW!!!

Re:engineering: the practical application of scien (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31213324)

But then you get the cancer in your balls.

Not record-worthy (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31213042)

In 1986 engineering students at the University of Saskatchewan built a vehicle which went 4724 MPG [usask.ca] . Amazing how in 24 years we have managed to get 80% less efficient.

UC Davis got 3313 mpg in 1992 (3, Informative)

techmuse (160085) | more than 4 years ago | (#31213130)

In 1992, UC Davis students working under Professor Andy Frank achieved 3313 mpg with its SideFX and Shamu. The school later developed some of the first hybrid car technology, among other things.

http://books.google.com/books?id=OeMDAAAAMBAJ&pg=PA10&lpg=PA10&dq=uc+davis+side+fx&source=bl&ots=yNnL_bcwLY&sig=hhexAD2-JnRF_cp2YeJRXn20AVI&hl=en&ei=DVCAS-GrI4zgswOL7-SHBA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=9&ved=0CB8Q6AEwCA#v=onepage&q=uc%20davis%20side%20fx&f=false [google.com]

Re:UC Davis got 3313 mpg in 1992 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31213708)

I'm not impressed. My university has a student association called Remmi-team [remmi-team.com] that does hypermiling . They have been active since 1976. Their current vehicle Remmi 7 [remmi-team.com] has a record 3306 km/l (~7776 mpg).

I'd rather bicycle. (3, Informative)

nrlightfoot (607666) | more than 4 years ago | (#31213382)

These things average about 15 mph and top out at 30. I have better performance than that on my bike (at least when I'm in shape) I would be willing to bet I could very easily out accelerate this thing on my bike as well.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?