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!

UBC Engineers Reach Mileage Of Over 3000 MPG

ScuttleMonkey posted more than 7 years ago | from the not-exactly-your-steel-cage-suv dept.


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.'"

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered


That begs the question (4, Funny)

Sentri (910293) | more than 7 years ago | (#15573942)

What is it in something useful like, say...

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 (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#15573959)

You have no idea what "begs the question" means, moron.

Re:That begs the question (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#15574042)

Hey, grammer nazi... FUCK YOU!

Re:That begs the question (1, Offtopic)

CRCulver (715279) | more than 7 years ago | (#15574078)

It's not a matter of grammar, it's a matter of lexicon. If you can't tell the difference, then for pete's sake pick up something like The Cambridge Encyclopedia of Language [amazon.com] , ed. David Crystal (Cambridge University Press, 1998).

I'm increasingly beginning to understand the sense in linguists' saying that basic linguistics should accompany maths and sciences in schools.

Single-occupancy, yes I concur. (4, Funny)

conner_bw (120497) | more than 7 years ago | (#15573946)

..but does it come in SUV?

Re:Single-occupancy, yes I concur. (3, Funny)

eclectro (227083) | more than 7 years ago | (#15574027)

..but does it come in SUV?

No, but it does come with a full aerodynamic body condom.

Re:Single-occupancy, yes I concur. (4, Funny)

Firehed (942385) | more than 7 years ago | (#15574066)

Hm... I'd have thought it was a piece of rope tied to an oversized skateboard. There's a one-gallon gas tank strapped to it solely for the purpose of being able to give it an MPG rating. By the looks of it, doing that will give you more control than what was designed, as you can at least ask the driver where you're headed first. I don't know how many of you have tried to drive looking out only the sunroof, but my gut reaction tells me that it's fairly tough. Though, I don't know how accurate of a description full-body condom is, seeing that you rarely see objects that look more accident-prone.

speed? (4, Interesting)

x2A (858210) | more than 7 years ago | (#15573953)

Wonder what speed it travels for it's optimal fuel consumtion

Re:speed? (2, Funny)

MrSquirrel (976630) | more than 7 years ago | (#15573958)

Additionally, how much of a tail wind did it have... and how many cans of beans did the driver eat?

Re:speed? (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#15573961)

"Wonder what speed it travels for it is optimal fuel consumtion" -- this doesn't make sense. Did you mean "its"?

Re:speed? (-1, Troll)

csplinter (734017) | more than 7 years ago | (#15574071)

shut up.

Re:speed? (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#15574088)

YOU fucking shut up. By replying to an AC who was just being a moron YOU lit up the thread for EVERYONE ELSE. Thanks, asshole.

Re:speed? Results (4, Informative)

saskboy (600063) | more than 7 years ago | (#15574000)

Competition results, warning PDF http://www.sae.org/students/sm2006results.pdf [sae.org]

Indiana and a HS there too came in with high MPG, as did Laval in Quebec province.

Re:speed? Results (0, Offtopic)

B3ryllium (571199) | more than 7 years ago | (#15574045)

*offtopic* Have you ever been to Rockglen? One of their residents (Tyler Lewis) is on Canadian Idol. Town of like 430 people, and he made it to the top 22. Freakyneat.

Re:speed? Results (2, Informative)

saskboy (600063) | more than 7 years ago | (#15574097)

Yep, several times, it was in the same school division, about 100km away, or less by grid roads.

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? (4, Informative)

xstonedogx (814876) | more than 7 years ago | (#15574008)

According to the rules [sae.org] they were required to have an average speed between 15 and 25 mph (24-40.23 km/hr). They drive six laps for a total of 9.6 miles (15.5km).

Re:speed? (1)

x2A (858210) | more than 7 years ago | (#15574124)

Wow, at that speed, it would take you nearly a week to get through the gallon!

Re:speed? (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#15574055)

From the official rules:

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.

Re:speed? (5, Informative)

mrcaseyj (902945) | more than 7 years ago | (#15574115)

They go something like 15mi/hr. They turn the engine on and get up some speed then turn it off and coast a while. They use Briggs and Stratton four stroke lawnmower engines with custom machined cylinder heads and such. Of course the cars are basically like bicycles with aerodynamic fairings on them.

Good lord, man... (5, Funny)

Chris Mattern (191822) | more than 7 years ago | (#15573956)

...you've invented the bicycle!

Chris Mattern

Re:Good lord, man... (2, Informative)

SirSlud (67381) | more than 7 years ago | (#15574033)

Amusing, sure, but it should be noted before it gets out of hand that all forms of human propulsion were against the rules.

That makes the inevitable fart jokes less witty too, just to be a pedantic hard-ass. :)

Re:Good lord, man... (2, Insightful)

jmv (93421) | more than 7 years ago | (#15574072)

Can *you* go 3,145 miles on a bicycle and drink only a gallon?

Re:Good lord, man... (2, Interesting)

MichaelSmith (789609) | more than 7 years ago | (#15574117)

Can *you* go 3,145 miles on a bicycle and drink only a gallon?

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).

What what happen in an accident? (1)

MarkByers (770551) | more than 7 years ago | (#15573962)

What what happen to it if it got hit by an SUV?

Re:What what happen in an accident? (4, Funny)

Sentri (910293) | more than 7 years ago | (#15573971)

In america: A Lawsuit

Re:What what happen in an accident? (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#15573997)

...by the SUV driver.

Re:What what happen in an accident? (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#15574039)

...and a witness for "pain and suffering" from having to view the accident.

This just in (0)

howman (170527) | more than 7 years ago | (#15573964)

Shortly after releasing all their diagrams and research onto the internet, Gas is seen at $4538.63 per Gallon in California.
Either way, high mileage cars, new sources of energy or shorter distances to travel, 300 miles will cost you the same tomorrow as it costs you today.
I used to pay $20 to fill up my '73 cutlas and it would cost me about $60 to travel about 600 km. Today I fill up my Jag and it still costs me $60 to travel 600 km. I guess the only way to get out from under the whole mess is to ride a pogo stick.

Re:This just in (3, Insightful)

chriscoolc (954268) | more than 7 years ago | (#15574086)

How does a comment like this get bumped up to a 3? Sheesh.

$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:This just in (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#15574089)

You could try trading in your Jaguar for something vaguely fuel efficient, like a Ford Escort. You know, just a thought...

Metric money? Or Imperial money. (1)

saskboy (600063) | more than 7 years ago | (#15573965)

One can only guess that the $5 quoted is metric, or Canadian $5.

Yes, I'm kidding. Why not throw in a USD or CDN after the $5 to let us know? Still with the Canadian Dollar at about $.90US, I think most people could afford the gas either way.

Re:Metric money? Or Imperial money. (1)

Dachannien (617929) | more than 7 years ago | (#15574093)

The 3145 mpg figure was probably Canadian, too.

That would be... let's see, carry the one... roughly 28 mpg American (22 city).

Re:Metric money? Or Imperial money. (1)

saskboy (600063) | more than 7 years ago | (#15574122)

And it didn't say if it was British or American Gallons too, right?

Gosh I can't wait until this measuring mixmash is over with and metric starts gaining by more than just inches on Imperial in the States.

Metric time however... the car could have gone from Victoria to Halifax in possibly 1.5 metric months.

Details? (3, Interesting)

Skynyrd (25155) | more than 7 years ago | (#15573966)

I read TFA, and it made no mention of speed, distance or any other aspect of the contest. The driver lies down, but how? On the stomache, or the back (with a periscope?). Were they inside to avoid being blown about (aboot?) by the wind?

I'm assuming they didn't drive it across Canada.


Re:Details? (2, Informative)

swmccracken (106576) | more than 7 years ago | (#15574031)

The official rules (from here [sae.org]) document states the distance is 15.5km/9.6mi, consisting of six laps around a specified oval test track. There's an minimum average speed requirement of 24 kmph/15 mph and a maximum average speed of 40.23kmph/25mph, so real world conditions this is not.

Re:Details? (1)

Jah-Wren Ryel (80510) | more than 7 years ago | (#15574035)

I read TFA, and it made no mention of speed, distance or any other aspect of the contest.

I saw this on TV a while back actually. I forget what show it was, but the host/narrator was really obnoxious. Anyway, the details are that the test conditions required them to go downhill ... in a hurricane, in order to achieve those results.

Mpg into Metric (4, Funny)

Jazzer_Techie (800432) | more than 7 years ago | (#15573972)

I'm not sure why English volume/distance measurement was (albeit correcly) switched to a distance/volume measurement in the metric conversion.

Whatever the case, it can't be a coincidence that this gets 1337 km/L.

Re:Mpg into Metric (1)

2short (466733) | more than 7 years ago | (#15574135)

Because Liters per 100 Km is how fuel consumption is typically quoted outside the US.

But why this team would express their efficiency as anything but "1337!", I cannot imagine.

Desaparecidos (5, Funny)

StikyPad (445176) | more than 7 years ago | (#15573983)

Strangely, the entire team is now missing [wikipedia.org]. Big oil had no comment.

does it have a trunk? (1, Flamebait)

Tecknowolf (730073) | more than 7 years ago | (#15573998)

I like the concept and all, but I want to see the rumor come true that an X-Prize contest be in creating a usable vehicle with superior gas mileage. I can't pick up a date or carry home groceries in those vehicles :)

No back seat. (5, Funny)

elgee (308600) | more than 7 years ago | (#15573989)

How can you get laid in it?

Re:No back seat. (5, Funny)

notanatheist (581086) | more than 7 years ago | (#15574060)

No, no. You lay in it.

Re:No back seat. (1)

bblboy54 (926265) | more than 7 years ago | (#15574128)

If its a convertible you're set. Since your already laying and there would be no roof, all that is needed is the female.... Which could be the larger issue seeing as how only geeks would have such a vehicle in the first few years of production.

Has anyone calculated... (2, Interesting)

PornMaster (749461) | more than 7 years ago | (#15573994)

There's got to be a way to calculate the maximum amount traveled per gallon of gasoline cumbusted by looking at the maximum theoretical energy released by that process, and given a minimum reasonable drag/friction, and the requirement to initially get a minimum reasonable mass up to a speed reasonable to calculate the MPG.

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... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#15574056)

Theoretically, the best possible energy consumption is very close to zero. If your device had zero friction and started at the top of a hill, it could go anywhere below the top of the hill with no added energy. Zero friction may not be actually achievable, but with sufficient cleverness you could do really well. Imagine your vehicle operates in vaccuum tubes on superconducting rails or somesuch and had a 99.99% efficient regenerative braking/battery system.

Re:Has anyone calculated... (1)

DrFalkyn (102068) | more than 7 years ago | (#15574091)

Automobiles have to fight against wind drag and rolling friction, for which there are theoretical miniumums, so the minimum energy consuption is alot greater than zero even assuming no/little acceleration.

Any Canadians shocked? (2, Funny)

cwalk (899502) | more than 7 years ago | (#15574004)

I am not surprised that the top two teams were from Canada. Maybe it's just me, but when I think of fuel efficiency, I tend not to think of the US.

More teases today? (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#15574005)

First a CPU that can go 500 Ghz?
Then a car that can go 3145 MPG?
What's next, a lawyer for your hair?

I'll believe it when I'm driving down the road lying down and the computer's trying to kill me 2001 Kubrick style.

Scientists and reporters live in Cartoon World.

This is almost useless (2, Insightful)

drgroove (631550) | more than 7 years ago | (#15574006)

While an interesting study for academia, how does this help an automobile industry where the average car is a four door sedan? What technologies used in this exercise translate to real cars? Building the body out of light weight materials definitely cuts down on fuel usage, but is it impact resistant in a crash? If contests are going to be sponsored for improving fuel efficiency, they should be targeted towards the cars that most of us drive, not theoretical, completely impractical academic-mobiles that will have absolutely no use on the road.

Re:This is almost useless (5, Insightful)

kfg (145172) | more than 7 years ago | (#15574059)

Building the body out of light weight materials definitely cuts down on fuel usage, but is it impact resistant in a crash?

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.


Re:This is almost useless (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#15574070)

Way to think inside the box, man.

Re:This is almost useless (2, Insightful)

jmv (93421) | more than 7 years ago | (#15574085)

Considering that a lot of people (not everyone of course) drive to work alone in their car, stuck in traffic at 20-40 km/h, you could imagine a sort of "lightweight commute vehicle" that could be useful. I guess it would be half-way between a car and a bicycle (yes, tons of people ride a bike to work, especially in Asia), close to a motor bike I guess.

Re:This is almost useless (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#15574096)

Huh...like a motorized bicycle. That's genius! But we can't just call it that, let's shorten it to "motorized cycle"...no wait, motorcycle!

Re:This is almost useless (1)

bobscealy (830639) | more than 7 years ago | (#15574108)

After reading the article and the supermilage webpage I was unable to find any statement of thier intention to help the automobile industry. Its a competition dude, it doesnt have to have any relevance to the vehicles that Joe Average drives to work in.
You want to improve fuel efficiency in a four door car? Fit it with a much smaller motor, cam it to have a narrower power band and make sure you always drive in that power band. Give it a teardrop shape. Remove external mirrors, and place covers over the wheel wells. Fit narrow, low rolling resistance tyres. Cut down on internal features like a stereo, carpet, and unnescesary niceties. In the end you have a car that is great on fuel that about 10 people will buy. People are quite happy to sacrifice fuel economy for the features that they have become acustomed to.

Re:This is almost useless (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#15574118)

How dare you not play along with the make-a-difference morons.


Re:This is almost useless (1)

roman_mir (125474) | more than 7 years ago | (#15574119)

how does this help an automobile industry where the average car is a four door sedan? - it doesn't. It's just a competition, no more useful than the world cup or the stanely cup, but less annoying.

Re:This is almost useless (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#15574136)

Well, I admit I may be feeding a troll..

It's primarily a teaching tool, and secondarilly a resume' builder. Just like the SAE Formula 1 competition, or the Concrete Canoe that civil engineers compete in is. There is no better way to teach engineering design, or any design for that matter than to make a team of students DO it. Also, as opposed to the average design class offering, you have a real honest to god product that a potential future employer can look at. Even cooler if you win a competition with it :)

hige mileage vehicles are not impossible (5, Interesting)

pixelite (20946) | more than 7 years ago | (#15574007)

At least they wouldn't be if the oil companies didn't havev their way.

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 book, published in 1900, "Gas Engine Construction". This book was reprinted by Lindsay in 1986, ISBN 0-917914-46-5.

An article received from AAA has additional information.

4. There are many U.S. Patents granted for vaporizing gasoline. Some are: NASA Patent 3,640,256, General Electric Co. Patent 3,926,150, Robinson Patent 4,003,969, Harpman Patent 4,023,538, Butler Patent 4,068,638 and Totten Patent 4,106,457. Pete, "The Tree Man", was researching the Fish carburetor while staying in my home during the early 80's. He later sent me a 6 page list with more than 240 U.S. Patent numbers for vaporizing gasoline, other fuels and water.

5. During the mid 70's, physicist Don Novak traveled all over the U.S. lecturing and teaching in his seminars how to achieve 100 MPG. He also testified, October 15, 1979, before a Wichita, KS, Congressional Committee on "Reinventing the Automobile". I have known Don for many years. Once he brought to my home, in the late 70's, two carburetors; one got more than 200 MPG and the other more than 100 MPG. I contacted a local politician, who lives in my town, and was on the Virginia Energy Subcommittee. I tried to have this politician meet Don and see the carburetors. The politician was not interested.

Chevron Oil, 1986, offers to purchase large quantities of carburetors from a manufacturer. A West Virginia man, in 1990, achieves 58 mpg with an 8 cylinder 1968 Chrysler that used to get 12 mpg.

6. In the London, England, Daily Telegraph, 10/20/83, on page 9, there is an advertisement for a production Pugeot Diesel that gets 52.3 MPG in urban driving. The model 205 Diesel gets 72 mpg at 56 mph.) In the Washington Post, 9/19/83, page 37(?) is the 1983 U.S. EPA fuel economy list of various vehicles. The Pugeot USA models get between 21 and 27 MPG. The Washington Times, 8/9/91, published an article, "Gas saving engines hit streets in fall.". This article is about two engines, the Mitsubishi MVV engine, and the Honda VTEC-E. According to the company spokesmen, the Mitsubishi will get up to 50 MPG; the Honda, up to 88 MPG. I visited a local Honda dealer and got a brochure on the production automobile with the VTEC-E engine, the specified MPG, as I recall, was 53 MPG. I know of no produced Honda that gets 88 MPG. I have no information on the production Mitsubishi MVV engine. I wonder if there is something that happens to fuel economy when an automobile is transported to the USA. Is it possible that these engines "un-tweak" themselves during transit? In 2002 an English newspaper article reported a 104-mpg Toyota and 94-mpg VW/Audi vehicles. In 2003 another English newspaper tested a 75-mpg Toyota diesel. Do you wonder why these vehicles are not available in the USA? You might ask your Member of Congress for an explanation.

7. The U.S. Government supported (Grant No. DTNH22-91-Z-06014) a study of automobile fuel economy by the National Academy of Sciences. This study, "Automotive Fuel Economy--How Far Should We Go?" (ISBN 0-309-04530-4), was used by the staff of my then Congressman George Allen, to refute documentation proving that an automobile had exceeded 376 MPG. Nowhere in this "fuel economy study" is there any reference to the work of Shell Oil Co. or any other reference that could refute the conclusion of this report. The report concluded, Page 4, that a subcompact car might achieve between 39 and 44 MPG by model year 2006. Many committee meetings were held from May 15, 1991 to December 14, 1991, prior to the April 1992 publication of this report. Prior to publication of this report, I previously sent documentation to several participants of these meetings. The documentation proved that automobile fuel economies of between 49 and 376 MPG were achieved. None of the participants responded to my letters. Documentation was sent to: Jerry R. Curry, Administrator, National Highway Safety Administration, on 3/16/91; Senator Richard H. Bryan, on 3/7/91; Congressman Philip R. Sharp, on 2/18/91; Steve Plotkin, Office of Technology Assessment, U.S. Congress, on 4/4/91; Charles Mendler, Energy Conservation Collation, on 11/2/90; Fred Smith, Competitive Enterprise Institute, on 4/16/91; Brian O'Neill, Insurance Institute for Highway Safety, on 10/31/93; Clarence Ditlow, Executive Director, Center for Auto Safety, on 1/6/92. Previous documentation was also sent to members of organizations participating in these meetings, they are: John Koenig, Product planning Manager, Toyota Motor Co., on 3/18/91; Peter Clausen, Union of Concerned Scientist, on 10/28/90; John Morrill, American Council for Energy Efficiency, on 10/4/90. None of these people responded to my letters. I know that at least one of my letters was received. The Union of Concerned Scientist keeps trying to get me to support their organization.

8. An article "Automakers Move Toward New Generation Of Greener Vehicles" was published in "Chemical & Engineering News", August 1, 1994. This article is about "The Partnership for a New Generation of Vehicles", a partnership between the U.S. Government and the auto industry that has a goal of an 80 MPG automobile by 2002. In 1992 a government-funded study concluded that a subcompact car might get between 39 and 44 MPG by model year 2006 (See #7 above). In 1994 the goal is 80 MPG by 2002. Is it possible that someone read the Shell Oil book? Or could someone have actually read my February 13, 1992 letter, and 95 pages of documentation, sent to then Candidate Clinton. I wrote, September 8, 1994, to Deborah L. Illman, the author of the article, and to the editor, Michael Heylin of Chemical & Engineering News, on September 11, 1994 . No response was received from them. On September 11, 1994, I also wrote to Mary L. Good, Under Secretary for Technology, (USA) Department of Commerce. I received a response from Ms. Good. It was an undated, unaddressed, form letter. I guess the fact that a vehicle could get 376 MPG or burn water for fuel would not be a politically correct finding. How could someone explain to the American people that it was necessary to send more than 600,000 of our citizens to the Mid-east to defend oil wells if this information was public knowledge?

9. Hybrid Diesel/Electric automobiles (A Diesel/Electric locomotive uses the same principle.) The Manassas Journal Messenger, April 4, 1981, has an article about a MG sports car converted by San Diego State University. The car gets 110 MPG. The Steven R. Reed Automobile Manufacturing Corp., Newport Beach, CA, issued a press release dated February 14, 1983. This release announces the February 23, 1983 showing of the 200 MPG, two-passenger, II Millennium Cruiser at the Ambassador Hotel. The press release also states that the company will file "...a major class-action lawsuit involving a considerable number of giant American corporations within the automotive and petroleum industries, plus numerous branches and agencies of the U.S. Government responsible for regulating these companies." Don Novak informed me that when none of the major news media attended the Millennium show, the company drove the car to CBS Television, Los Angeles, and parked it on the lawn. No one came out of the building to inspect the car. Don also stated that the president of the Steven R. Reed Corp. has been in hiding for some years.

10. Mother Earth News, November/December 1977, has an article "Can This Transmission Really Double Your Car's Mileage?". This article is about a Ford Granada modified by Vincent Carman of Portland, Oregon. In simplification, Mr. Carman removed the transmission and drive shaft from the car and bolted a hydraulic motor to the differential. He then bolted a hydraulic pump to the engine to pressurize a storage tank. The storage tank is also pressurized when the car brakes or slows down. The article states that the U.S. Post Office is interested in a whole fleet of vehicles using this principle. In 1990, after reading an article in "Federal Times", I contacted Mr. Robert St.Francis, U.S. Postal Service, who was searching for alternative fuels for use by the Post Office. Mr. St.Francis said that he had never heard of Mr. Carman. I wrote two letters, October 18 & 21, 1990, to Mr. St.Francis concerning Mr. Carman's vehicle. I received no response. Another article in Mother Earth News, March/April 1976,8(?), titled "This Car Travels 75 Miles on a Single Gallon Of Gas", is about a project by the Minneapolis Minnesota's Hennepin Vocational Technical Center that converted a Volkswagen to a system similar to that of Mr. Carman. The idea for the conversion came from a 1920 magazine article. The car, with a Bradley GT body and a 16 horsepower Tecumseh engine (The original VW engine was too powerful), achieved more than 75 MPG at 70 MPH. Could we combine the technology of Tom Ogle, 200 MPG, and the hydraulic drive cars and have a 400 MPG 4,600 pound car? On a recent Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) website, they write of achievements and patents concerning a hydraulic drive truck. This site does not mention the more than 28-year old achievements of others.

11. The St. Paul Pioneer News, August 22, 1990, has an article about a group that 11 years previously modified a Dodge half-ton pickup furnished by a local dealer. This modified truck got more than 35 MPG. Test stopped on this modification when a member of the group was told that he would receive a pair of cement boots if testing continued.

12. Hydrogen fuel. There are many U.S. and foreign patents for extracting hydrogen and oxygen gasses from water for use as a fuel. Some Patents are: July 2, 1935, Garrett, # 2,006,676; April 3, 1945, Klein, # 2,373,032; February 25, 1975, Chambrin, French Patent Request # 75 06619; July 6, 1976, Papineau, # 3,967,589 (This is a patent for an electrical power generator that burns water); 1976, Horvath, # 3,980,053. This statement is on the Horvath patent, "This invention relates to internal combustion engines. More particularly it is concerned with a fuel supply apparatus by means of which an internal combustion engine can be run on a fuel comprised of hydrogen and oxygen gasses generated on demand by electrolysis of water".; June 28, 1983, Meyer, # 4,389,981. Mr. Meyer has at least eight other patents relating to hydrogen and oxygen gasses extracted from water for fuel. Awake magazine 4/6/1980 has two small articles concerning Hydrogen fuel for aircraft. According to one article an optimistic date for this use is 1985.

A. Popular Science, about 1978,9(?), published an article "Hydrogen bus- could also heat its own garage". This article is about the work of Dr. Helmut Buchner of Mercedes-Benz. He is quoted "We are ready now. We could save our city of Stuttgart over one million gallons of petroleum fuel a year by converting its fleet of 300 urban busses to run on hydrogen. Heating--and air conditioning--would be free spin-offs, consuming no extra energy.".

B. Popular Science, March 1978(?), published an article "Hydrogen -demonstrates fuel of the future". This article is about the work of Dr. Billings, Billings Energy Corp., Provo, Utah. and others. The article states that a home, all the appliances, and vehicles, can be run on hydrogen. Dr. Billings converted a Cadillac Seville for duel fuel use. This Cadillac, burning hydrogen, was in President Carter's inaugural parade. I had a photograph of Dr. Billings drinking the exhaust, water, from one of his engines.

C. A Japanese inventor, with more than 2000 prior patents, plans to run automobile engine on water. Gulf Oil advertisement in Discover magazine, Feb.19??, concerning Hydrogen fuel. Note the statements concerning Hydrogen energy content in the advertisement and an article in the same magazine issue. Ballard Power Systems has demonstrated Hydrogen fuel cell technology for vehicles since 1997. Patents for decomposing water into hydrogen and oxygen for use as fuel are not new. See the Boisen Patent 1,380,183 granted in 1921 and a 106-year old patent for another process to extract fuel gas from water. A Google search for Aquafuel will list many sites for processes to extract a fuel from water.

D. Do you remember the NASA 1998 Moon probe that was looking for water? The plan was to separate some water into oxygen and hydrogen. The hydrogen would be used as fuel. Yet in 2004, the government is developing a fuel cell that will extract hydrogen from diesel fuel carried by navy ships. Does this make any sense when the ship is floating in a mixture of 66% hydrogen? Why not use the method that NASA was going to use to extract hydrogen from Moon water? You might ask your Member of Congress for an explanation. My members of Congress will not respond.

E. A company, AEC Technology, has developed a process to extract hydrogen from water that requires no input of power. This company has partnered with UTC Fuel Cell that will use this process to run devices. One device, per the web site, will have a reciprocating engine, similar to the one in your car, generating electricity for your home. UTC Fuel Cell has furnished fuel cells to NASA since the 60's.

F. Approximately ten years ago, I received a video tape from a company in Florida making Aquafuel. This tape, among other things, showed 4 people in a closed room breathing the exhaust from a generator burning Aquafuel. A recent goggle search for Aquafuel returned 812 "hits".

13. Completely sealed reciprocating engines. I visited the patent office years ago, when they still had the open stacks of "shoe boxes". While there, I read the application files for the Papp patent, #3,670,494. Papp applied for a patent on his engine, and the patent office, after consultation with the old Atomic Energy Commission, refused to give him a patent because his device could not possibly work. Papp responded with test results, photographs and depositions from, I think, 16 people. Papp said that maybe the patent office didn't know how his device worked, and that they also didn't know how the atomic bomb worked, but used it anyway. This statement is on his patent "...2. To provide a two cycle reciprocating engine which does not use fuel intake valves or exhaust valves, does not require an air supply and does not emit gasses. 3. To provide a precharged engine of the character stated in item 2 capable of generating power for a period of from 2,000 to over 10,000 hours continuously or until mechanical breakdown without the addition of fuel injection of air or discharge of gasses..."

Papp has a similar Patent 4,428,193 granted in 1984.
Britt, August 31, 1976, has a patent, # 3,977,191, for a similar sealed engine. In the patent application file, Britt accuses the Patent Office of deliberately delaying his application to give a major manufacturer time to file on top of him.
14. Permanent Magnet Motor. Howard Johnson was granted U.S. Patent # 4,151,431, for a motor that is powered only by permanent magnets. An interesting thing about the first page of this patent is the chart of a magnetic field VS electromechanical coupling. The chart is from U.S. Patent # 4,151,432 which has nothing to do with the Johnson patent. Science and Mechanics, Spring 1980, published an article " Amazing Magnet-Powered Motor" about the Johnson patent. The article tells of his difficulties in having the device patented. The patent problem was solved when Johnson took working models of his device to the patent office. The magazine Science 83, May, published an article ridiculing perpetual motion machines, one of them was the Johnson motor. The Science article purports to quote from the prior Science and Mechanics article about Johnson. Because had both articles, I compared them, then called the author of the Science 83 article. When I stated that the information that he quoted was not in the prior article, he hung up saying "I will not be interrogated by you.". The editor of Science 83 also declined to speak with me. Others have informed me that there are three other permanent magnet motor patents. A Japanese electrical generator, driven by a magnet assisted motor, has an efficiency of more than 300%. Do you think the electric power companies would be happy if this device were common knowledge?

15. The Moray device. Tom Moray, in the late 20s, had a device that could sit on a kitchen table and produce 50,000 Watts of power from a field that surrounds the earth. The operation of this device was endorsed by many people. Moray's son, John, after the only copy of his father's book was stolen, wrote a book "The Sea of Energy in which the Earth Floats". See the statement concerning a meeting between Moray and a Soviet Agent in General Electric office after closing hours.) The book is about his father's work. During the early 80s, I visited many congressional offices in an unsuccessful attempt to have any Member of Congress do something about the technology hidden from the American people. When I visited Congressman Ron Paul's office, a staffer said to me "I have something that you should read, come to my residence on Saturday." This staffer gave me a letter to Congressman Paul from Tom Bearden, and the 40-page document attached to the letter. The document is a book that Mr. Bearden has written. In this book, Mr. Bearden states that the Moray device could produce 1.5 megawatts of power. Also that the Russians had adapted the Moray device to power a weapon. The weapon statement is supported by a drawing from "Aviation Week and Space Technology", July 28, 1980. Do you think that the local Power Company could justify a price increase if the power came from a field around the earth? This book was also missing from the LOC in 1990.]

Tom Bearden, with others, obtained U.S. Patent 6,362,718 for an Electric generator with no moving parts. Michael Faraday's findings, in 1831, do not agree with current school teachings concerning generation of electricity.

16. The Energy Machine of Joe Newman. I have spoken with Joe many times over several years. He has recently published the seventh edition of "The Energy Machine of Joseph Newman" (ISBN 0-9613855-7-7) The book is available from: Joseph Westly Newman, Route 1, Box 52, Lucedale, Mississippi, 39452, Phone # (601)-947-7174. I have no doubts that his machine works as he describes it. To learn of the problems that this man has had with "The Establishment" read his book. Joe filed suit against the U.S. Patent office because they would not grant him a patent. According to Joe's book, pages 274 to 279, the Court appointed a Special Master, Mr. William E. Schuyler, a former Commissioner of the U.S. Patent Office, to advise the Court. The findings of the Special Master were that Mr. Newman had invented a machine that had more output than input. The Court refused to accept the findings. I urge you to read this 471-page book. This machine is not "bogus" as stated by others. On February 5, 1996, I was one of several hundred people, in Mobile, AL, to see the Newman Energy Machine in operation. The machine was pumping water while running a power meter, similar to the one on your house, backwards.

17. Cold Fusion. Despite the rejection of some in the USA, cold fusion is a going operation in other places. The monthly magazine "New Energy News", P.O. Box 58639, Salt Lake City, UT 84158-8639, has information on many successful results in cold fusion. The magazine also has information on "free energy devices".

18. "The Energy Non-Crisis", published in 1980 by Worth Publishing Co., P.O. Box, 1243,Wheatridge, CO 80033, is written by Chaplain Lindsey Williams. (This is only one of the books he has written) Chaplain Williams was on the Alaska Pipeline during the construction and got so fed-up with the deliberate lies of the media, he came back to tour the "lower 48", and tell the truth. According to Chaplain Williams, Gull Island has a pool of oil as big as, and maybe bigger, than Purdhoe Bay. Our Government ordered ARCO "...to seal the documents, withdraw the rig, cap the well, and not release the information about the Gull Island find." A video tape of a speech that Chaplain Williams gave to a group at Salt Lake City, about 1980, is possibly available from: The National Center For Constitutional Studies, 1-800-388-4512. Chaplain Williams stated in a recent two-hour broadcast there is enough oil in Alaska to last the U.S.A. 200-years. The broadcast is on the Republic Broadcasting Network site http://mp3.rbnlive.com/Rick/0508/20050824_Wed_Rick .m3u [rbnlive.com]. Additional book information is here. You can read parts of his book on this site http://www.sweetliberty.org/issues/environment/ene rgy/ [sweetliberty.org].

I sent the Williams tape and a lot of other information to a previous Secretary of Energy. The response received, after a second letter, was essentially, no response. I also wrote to Dr. Bodman, our current (2005) Secretary of Energy. A response was received. If you wonder how your state legislators receive information see this document. I wrote to the authors of the document, no response.

I hope that this information will raise questions as to why we are dependent on foreign oil. All our government has to do, to take more money from our pockets, is to have an energy crisis or raise the cost of energy. The only financial interest that I have in any of above devices is that of a concerned consumer who is tired of the deliberate lies and cover-ups.

Byron Wine byronw1@msn.com

May 24, 1996. (Modified August 30, 2005)

The following is not related to energy. However, you might be interested in findings concerning the Federal Reserve System (FED). The FED is not a part of the U.S. government. Your telephone book, as does a prior C&P telephone book, will list the FED in the business section, not the government section. For a legal opinion see Lewis v. United States. For information concerning the operation of the FED see Congressman McFadden's 1934 remarks. Articles by Skousen, 1980, and Larson, 1982, provide further information.

I am grateful for an email bringing to my attention the "Act of 1871". This document requires very careful study.

An organization "Fund to Restore an Educated Electorate" (FREE) published a listing of congressional, military and corporate members of the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) and Trilateral Commission (TC). I wonder if it is possible that the people and corporate members listed might be responsible for our "energy problem".

Re:hige mileage vehicles are not impossible (1)

Planesdragon (210349) | more than 7 years ago | (#15574044)

At least they wouldn't be if the oil companies didn't havev their way.

Wow, I didn't think that people trolled journals.

Just in case you're missing the point, though -- there have been several points in the past century where, if it was possible just to achieve a two-fold increase in fuel economy without significant sacrafice (let alone the ten-fold of the magic carb.), it would have been done. One of those points is today.

Re:hige mileage vehicles are not impossible (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#15574102)

you're name isn't Fox Mulder is it?

Re:Snopes.com (5, Insightful)

Maxo-Texas (864189) | more than 7 years ago | (#15574105)

Not a direct hit but close enough.

http://www.snopes.com/autos/business/carburetor.as p [snopes.com]

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.

Re:hige mileage vehicles are not impossible (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#15574131)

Standard internal combustion engines are about 25% to 30% efficient. 75% of the energy is wasted as heat going into the coolant or out the tailpipe. Someone needs to figure out how to convert the waste heat into useful work.

Solar cars do the same thing with no fuel at all! (3, Insightful)

rufusdufus (450462) | more than 7 years ago | (#15574014)

This vehicle looks just as unrealistic as the solar cars they race in Australia, the main difference being that the Solar cars use no fuel at all! Whats the point? This stuff will never be used on a massive scale.

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 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#15574069)

Well, the solar challenge in Australia might not be practical from a strict "solar-powered mass market vehicle" point of view, but that's not the point -- it's a way to get interest in solar power research, which generates new technologies (lightweight but strong materials, more efficient panels, aerodynamics) that can be put to good use.

Just because a competition doesn't have any direct relevance to society now, it doesn't mean that it won't produce research that is of value in applications unrelated to the competition.

Plus, it's good experience for students to learn about a heap of things related to their course in a practical manner. You might as well ask what the point is in a chess tournament, or a bicycle race, or ...

Liters? (0)

brian0918 (638904) | more than 7 years ago | (#15574017)

"(0.074 liters/100 km)"

I was following along perfectly fine until I hit this speed bump. How do you get a fraction of a liter? Do you chop it up into little inch-sized pieces, spilling tablespoons of flammable liquid all over your feet?

This summary makes no sense whatsoever.

Re:Liters? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#15574068)

I think it's you that makes no sense. A fraction of a liter can be a milliliter. Or perhaps a nanoliter. Ahh, the metric system and all its wonders.

Re:Liters? (1)

satcomdaddy1 (938185) | more than 7 years ago | (#15574074)

Quite frankly, I'm a bit confused m'self. The LITER is the smallest unit of measurement? Here I was thinking it was the molec.....molecu....ato.....phot.......much smaller than that!
My highly advanced math skillz tell me that to reference it to the whole liter, it would be somevhere in the neighborhood of 1351.35Km/L, unless my math is way off, or I jumped the decimal.

Some of the rules (0, Redundant)

saskboy (600063) | more than 7 years ago | (#15574023)

"All vehicles must use the same base engine supplied to each entrant by Briggs & Stratton Corporation (Model 091202 Type1016E1A1001). The engine is air cooled, four cycle, with a 2.61 kw (3.5 horsepower) rating at 3600 rpm."

"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."

http://www.sae.org/students/ [sae.org] copypaste remove this part inserted to avoid slashdotting superrules.pdf

Sounds scary (2, Informative)

Shippy (123643) | more than 7 years ago | (#15574030)

While I think efforts like this are great, it's likely a fairly flimsy vehicle due to its super lightweight construction. Getting in a wreck with another vehicle at almost any relevant speed would probably cause great harm, especially if the occupant is lying down in a forward-facing stomach-down orientation (which is unclear from the article).

Re:Sounds scary (1)

Moocowsia (589092) | more than 7 years ago | (#15574058)

Thats not the point of this at all. It's like denouncing the engineering talent that went into a F1 car, for not having enough cargo capacity to fit your vacationing gear.

I've seen this car in person, and it barely comes up past your knees, and looking at it you wonder how the hell someone fit in it at all, not how durable it is in a crash. If you wanted safer maybe take a look at the rollcage on the UBC FSAE ca, but at less than 40kph it would be kind of pointless.

Re:Sounds scary (1)

Shippy (123643) | more than 7 years ago | (#15574129)

It's like denouncing the engineering talent that went into a F1 car, for not having enough cargo capacity to fit your vacationing gear. No it's not. I never said it was the point of that car, but if you're going to have any sort of motor vehicle, you don't want it to be likely that you'll die in a collision. This includes F1 vehicles as well.

Yeah Right (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#15574043)

Back in school I got involved into supermileage competition as part of my sr. project. I was working on a DAC system to track fuel, temp and so on. I don't have to RTFA to know that the poster of this article must be smoking something really good.

First of all, one of the competition rules says that you can not drop your speed below 15mph. So what does most of the team do? They just ramp up to 20mph or so and then let the car coast until 16mph then speed up again. There is a penalty if you drop below 15mph. Oh did I mention that the track was smooth and leveled? Also, you don't have to run the entire gallon of gas. Basically everything is based on estimates. Everyone is alloted certain amount of fuel (don't remember how much). After a certain number of laps have been completed, they would empty the fuel tank and measure how much was left. Based on calculation they would determine who wins.

The competition was fun to check out. In order to win a lot of teams basically pick a person who is the lightest and most of the time they try to coast w/o having to use the engine. In my opinion, the competition should make it such that the drivers must have an equal weight or use balast and the engine must run constantly and producing torque. They should never allow coasting.

But... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#15574049)

But does it run Linux?

If only I could visualise it... (1)

veg_all (22581) | more than 7 years ago | (#15574054)

equivalent of Vancouver to Halifax on a gallon (3.79 liters) of gas...

Ah! Now it's clear as day.

Halifax is in Texas, right?

This is a big deal (4, Interesting)

Baldrson (78598) | more than 7 years ago | (#15574057)

Fair contests like this really separate the performers from the bullshitters. Its why you basically have to drag the government kicking and screaming to fund fair contests like this by embarrassing the hell out of them with stuff like the X-Prize.

When you look at the race results [sae.org] a few things stand out:

  1. The winning entry beat the first runner up by a whopping 72%.
  2. The only "big name" university represented in the 22 entrants (all listed in the results) is UC Berkeley and they were seventh place.
  3. The only university outside of North America came in 18th place, and IIT, the darling of mainstream media like CBS "60 Minutes" didn't even compete (not that Caltech, MIT or CMU are any better for not having entered). Even so, congratulations to Dehli College of Engineering [dce.edu] for competing.
  4. The winning high school team from Evansville, Indiana, had the second best mileage out of all contenders including the universities.

Re:This is a big deal (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#15574092)

I was looking at that too and thinking that the difference between first and last place is huge. That would imply that they are really doing something fundamentally different from the rest of the field, but of course there are no explainations to be found for the difference. Also I don't know how they measure the differences, but it kind of seems that extrapolating from the short distance amplifies the error in the calculation. Of course, I assume they know how best to measure the amount of fuel burned, but I would like to see some error calculations.

Hurricane Season (0, Flamebait)

Joebert (946227) | more than 7 years ago | (#15574107)

That car sucks.

How efficient of an electric generator does that work out to ?

Re: Picture in article (1)

Deal-a-Neil (166508) | more than 7 years ago | (#15574109)

Wait a second, is that Fabio doing an Eminem casual crotch grab for the camera? Aw hell, congratulations anyway. Time to actually read the article. :-)

4 consecutive years... GO CANADA!! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#15574114)

Amazingly, the UBC team has won the last four years in a row. And 4 out of the top 5 teams are Canadian! Go Canada!

This is a simple matter.. (3, Insightful)

dino213b (949816) | more than 7 years ago | (#15574127)

..of power to weight ratios. A bigger vehicle with a small engine will not be as efficient as with a mid-size engine. On the other hand, same small engine will be more efficient in a smaller vehicle. If you follow that trend to a vehicle size of a skateboard, you get some "incredible efficiencies," but they are unrealistic as they cannot be applied to a modern day concept of vehicles. Having said that, it's important to recognize that there are better and worse engine designs out there; it is not just a simple matter of weight and power ratios when it comes to the consumer.

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.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account