Comments for 7,000 MPG Car Wins Eco-Marathon at http://www.ecogeek.org , comment 1 to 14 out of 14 comments http://www.ecogeek.org Tue, 14 Feb 2012 18:08:06 +0100 FeedCreator 1.7.3 http://www.ecogeek.org/automobiles/1446#comment-28602 Nobody needs a 2 litre 5 seater 100+mph car to get to work. It's image/ego and fear of meeting strangers. 50 years ago, people used public transport to catch flu and get to know their neighbours. Car sharing is a start, it'd sort out miserable marriages too. My old sportscar (998cc turbo) usually did 45mpg @ 80mph, with a Weber carb. We all know air-con, excessive size/weight, auto gearboxes, PAS, electric toys and the huge pollution of manufacture are the many problems if we want to obviate being nice to middle east dictators. 4 dollars a gallon? Today in Britain it's about 99.7 pence a litre, and people still persist in driving their mobile living rooms into city centres. Much higher road tax for Range Rovers etc is a good idea, partly because they're more likely to be driven by brain-dead or drunk men or their echo-head temporary young wives. 1000cc with a turbo is plenty for anyone. Small and 120mph, or a big slow barge; the kinetic energy in accidents would be the same. Reduce engine sizes! Look for 'Ghost Rider' on YouTube and tell me small engines are boring :) - Cam Sat, 18 Jul 2009 01:38:44 +0100 http://www.ecogeek.org/automobiles/1446#comment-25735 @Dave Check out the VW TDI. I would regularly get 40mpg in Las Vegas traffic. On the freeway driving 70+mph I would get 45mpg. My best was 50mpg driving across country. I think my average speed was 70mph. I know all this because I was supper anal and actual kept excel spreadsheets on all my mileage. After one year I had an average fuel economy of 42mpg. This was a 2006 Jetta TDI. The 2003 Jetta Wagon TDI got better fuel economy. - lvleph Sun, 05 Apr 2009 22:58:27 +0100 http://www.ecogeek.org/automobiles/1446#comment-25728 Virgil, 1 joule is 1 newton applied over 1 meter. So for 15000 meters and 160000J, the average force on the car is about 10 or 11 newtons multiplied by the efficiency of the car from the gas tank to the road which is at best probably 25%. So the actual force on the car is probably closer to 2-3 newtons. I was the project manager for one of these cars, believe me, they can do it. - Bill Sun, 05 Apr 2009 14:21:47 +0100 http://www.ecogeek.org/automobiles/1446#comment-11790 um, hey, guys?....the vehicle pictured holds ONE person, in PRONE position. - campbell Tue, 08 Apr 2008 04:59:35 +0100 http://www.ecogeek.org/automobiles/1446#comment-11171 @The Geek I'd be interested in seeing that race too. And another race... the same thing but with three kids in the back and a bunch of sporting equipment and having to bring the car to a complete stop every mile while still maintaining a 35Mph average. @ everyone else Even though this car is still using gas, the rest of the technology used to push its mileage up is going to be useful for transport powered by non-fossil-fuel energy sources as well. 7000MPG is still very impressive. - Dave Thu, 20 Mar 2008 05:40:34 +0100 http://www.ecogeek.org/automobiles/1446#comment-11085 They get those kind of number for a couple of reason. Those cars have very little rolling friction being on bike tires total road contact is around 6 square inches or less where a normal car has road contact around 50 square inches or more. The other way is low speed I bet none of those cars went over 30 miles per hour. Because, once you go above about 40 mph most of the energy is going to overcome wind drag. Now if the goal was to get the best mileage out of a consumer grade car that had to go 60mph on average. That would be a race I would be interested in. - The Geek Tue, 18 Mar 2008 22:13:57 +0100 http://www.ecogeek.org/automobiles/1446#comment-11064 See Finnish Eco marathon reults from last year. Best gasoline vehicle made 8576mpg and best diesel engine made 7561mpg which is also the world record for diesel based cars. See http://www.eco-marathon.net/ To Virgil: You physics apply to vertical move and not horizontal. Back to school. - jorma Tue, 18 Mar 2008 10:43:40 +0100 http://www.ecogeek.org/automobiles/1446#comment-11055 lol - it turned my bullet point # 8 into a smiley! - Virgil Tue, 18 Mar 2008 07:26:04 +0100 http://www.ecogeek.org/automobiles/1446#comment-11054 Sorry but I gotta call BS on this one. I'm not an engineer, but here are a few back of the envelope calculations, based on values out there on teh interwebs... 1) 7148 miles = 11503.6 km on 1 gallon 2) 1 gallon = 3780 ml 3) 1 teaspoon = 5 ml, so 5/3780 x 11503 = 15.216 km per 5 ml 4) Calorific density of gas = 43.5 MJ/kg 5) Density of gas = 737 g/liter 6) 5ml of gas = 3.685 g 7) 3.685g of gas = 160 kJ 8) 1 Joule = energy to move 1 kg by 1 m, with an applied force of 1 Newton 8) So, if the car weighs 1 kg, then to move 15.216 km using only 160 kJ, the applied force will be 0.01052 N This is a vanishingly small amount of force, and assumes no friction. If the car has a more realistic weight of 100 kg including driver, then that's a force of 0.000105N which is nothing! Either they were downhill with the wind behind them all the way, or there's something hooky in the math, or they're using some special mix of mega high octane super racing gas (or a combination of the above) - Virgil Tue, 18 Mar 2008 07:23:22 +0100 http://www.ecogeek.org/automobiles/1446#comment-11053 Tommy. Powering a car off the grid already is cheaper than gasoline. It has nothing to do with the price of renewables. Especially as you can't use renewables to completely power a car while you are driving it, you have to have some form of stored energy. Living off the grid has nothing to do with burning gasoline, either. Actually, I take that back, it would in that the easiest way to do so would be to power your house off of a gasoline generator. The problem with Lithium batteries is not the price, it is the storage capacity. Lead Acid batteries are not a good way to power a car, as they are heavy and they are not made to be discharged and recharged completely. They do not factor in to electric vehicles. Want to make renewables more affordable? Fine, go invent a way to make them really cheap. But don't blame others for not doing something you can't. - EV Tue, 18 Mar 2008 06:41:27 +0100 http://www.ecogeek.org/automobiles/1446#comment-11044 there is a car developed in france that runs on compressed air, though the hybrid model of that runs less efficiently, but still good :D - gaul Tue, 18 Mar 2008 00:24:59 +0100 http://www.ecogeek.org/automobiles/1446#comment-11025 By my calculations, that's about 5 watt hours per mile. - Jeremy Mon, 17 Mar 2008 15:56:05 +0100 http://www.ecogeek.org/automobiles/1446#comment-11013 Yeah, thats the answer, lets just keep burning gasoline. It would be nice if the price of renewable resources like wind, solar, etc... was more commercially viable to average joe's, and average jose's. If it were, electricity would completely replace the IC engine as your primary source, and use it as a range extending gas generator for your car. The answer isn't to get rid of the catalytic converter, but for American's to get up off their a--es. Make renewable alternatives at the house more viable to the average consumer. Bring the price of Lithium Ion or Lithium Polymer batteries to compete with Lead Acid. Make it cheaper to be 100% off the grid. It would be nice to have a nice sized solar array in my back yard, a couple wind turbines, a solar thermal heater for my water, an electrolysis machine to make my own H2 and O2, that can be stored underground in pressurized vessels for use in Fuel Cells that can run in times of inclement weather. Gasoline in my neck of the woods is very near $4 a gallon. And my wife and I carpool in our Prius to work. - Tommy Mon, 17 Mar 2008 10:38:53 +0100 http://www.ecogeek.org/automobiles/1446#comment-11011 Hey, if you want we could have cars like this on the road pretty quickly. Just expect traffic deaths to go up as these things would crack like an egg shell if there's an accident. Also, if we eliminated the environmental requirements (NO2, SO2) that essentially mandate a catalytic converter, fuel could be saved as the engine wouldn't have to get the exhaust as hot and would burn less fuel that way. Hey, less CO2. - EV Mon, 17 Mar 2008 09:18:38 +0100