Slashdot Log In
Early Contenders for the Automotive X-Prize
Posted by
Soulskill
on Thu May 01, 2008 06:59 PM
from the i'll-take-an-aptera-please dept.
from the i'll-take-an-aptera-please dept.
longacre writes "With the official entry period for the $10 million Automotive X-Prize contest just around the corner, Popular Mechanics offers a preview of the most promising entries. Among the 100-mpg vehicles that Detroit (and Japan) have claimed impossible to build comes a hybrid designed by a class of inner-city high school students in West Philadelphia. Also displayed is a futuristic-looking electric model with a range of 300 miles. We discussed the beginning of this contest earlier this year."
Related Stories
[+]
Science: New X-Prize for Fuel Efficient Cars Announced 371 comments
miowpurr writes "A new X-Prize for ultra fuel efficient cars has been announced. The winning car must 'carry four or more passengers and have climate control, an audio system and 10 cubic feet of cargo space. They also must have four or more wheels, hit 60 miles per hour in less than 12 seconds and have a minimum top speed of 100 miles per hour and a range of 200 miles. Those that qualify will race their vehicles in cross-country races in 2009 and 2010 that will combine speed, distance, urban driving and overall performance.'"
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading... please wait.
Love the snark... not (Score:5, Insightful)
I know it is fun to rip on 'evil' corporations and all, but there is a bit of difference between some glorified go-cart some kids cobble together and what will pass the Dept of Transportation crash tests. Detroit and Tokyo live in the world where trial lawyers will rip ya a fresh asshole if a jury can be convinced your design wasn't 'perfectly safe.'
Re:Love the snark... not (Score:5, Interesting)
Sure, it's not for everyone. With only 2+1 seating, it's not a "family car" (although their next model will seat more people); it's a commuter car. But as far as commuter cars go, I think it's a beautiful design. I can't wait to test drive it (test drives and factory tours are to start this summer).
Parent
Still (Score:3, Informative)
I have little reason to disbelieve auto manufacturers when they say it is impossible to build a 100 MPH automobile, according to the legal de
Re:Still (Score:4, Insightful)
Actually, there are good technical reasons, too. Three wheelers are lighter, cheaper to build, and have less drag (and weight and drag reductions correspond to battery reductions, which further makes the vehicle lighter and cheaper). As for the regulations, safety regs are just one kind (again, since they're doing crash testing voluntarily, what's the problem?). There's also emissions regs (irrelevant to the Aptera) and lots of real world driving requirements (something that customers are lining up around the block to take care of for them
I have little reason to disbelieve auto manufacturers when they say it is impossible to build a 100 MPH automobile, according to the legal definition of automobile.
Loremo meets the legal definition of an automobile. It's tiny, mind you, and a good example of why a definition based on the number of wheels is a stupid standard.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
The modern common rail diesel engines are also more efficient than the older "Pumpe-Düse" engines that VW used back when they built the A2 and Lupo. So, VW has everything in their parts bin that they need to make a 100 MPG highway car.
It just wouldn't sell.
Re:Love the snark... not (Score:5, Interesting)
Well then perhaps they should start with the automakers that make over sized Soccer-Mom Assault Vehicles and over powered Impotence Compensators. The trend towards ever larger and more powerful cars is what is increasing the danger of our roads. [berkeley.edu] The gains made by auto safety improvements has only served to As Click and Clack pointed out in a recent Nova show about the "Car of the Future", no commuter needs 500hp, and that is ridiculous to even offer it. [newscientist.com] Automakers will be quick to point out that consumers (as a broad trend) buy the most horsepower they can afford for the car type they buy. But huge monster cars are not a true necessity for a car to be a success. Lets look at one of the most successful cars of all time. The 1967 VW Beetle weighed 1850lbs and had 53hp, [wikipedia.org] and they worked just fine. With modern techniques it should be easy enough to make a vehicle with enough room, with a curb weight of under a ton. Then a simple 75 hp engine can get you where you are going just fine. There is no need to go 0-60 in under ten seconds if most cars on the road do it in fifteen seconds. Perhaps if there were tighter regulations on vehicle size (without a special license) and size to horsepower ratio limits, then there would be more room for innovative cars like the Aptera. Structural engineering of cars is really only half the crash test, the other half is the size of the other car they collide with.
And getting all of those SUVs off the road is easy, it's called $10-a-gallon gas.
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
You have clearly never merged onto a freeway in Los Angeles. Particularly on the 110 north of downtown. It doesn't matter how fast other cars accelerate; it matters how fast they're moving toward your rear bumper as you try to get up to highway speed.
Seriously -- try to merge on this [scvresources.com] (source [scvresources.com]) ramp with a 53 hp motor. Yes, that's 65-miles-per-hour freeway traffic on the left, a stop sign on the right, and ma
Re: (Score:2)
PS
Even if you force everyone else to drive around in cardboard cars, you could still crash into concrete wall and no amount of "S-MAV
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
I wish we had projects 1/10th as interesting when I was in high school
Go Aptera! (Score:4, Informative)
Oh, and they recently brought on the head of production for the Ford GT, Dodge Viper, and half a dozen other high end cars to head up their manufacturing. First cars go out the door this December; mine should be late next summer. Can't wait!
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Perhaps its time to start putting train and trollies back into our cities.
Re: (Score:2)
But even here, it is an expensive way to move people. Fares are subsidized, and it still takes me 1/2 hour to go about 2 miles across town (since I have to walk or take a slow crosstown bus to the station).
Since much of the population lives in suburbia, there is no way you could create rail serving that part of the population in anything a
Re: (Score:2)
rail (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Go Aptera! - NOT (Score:2)
Based on their own numbers you get a 120 mile distance to dead so you wouldn't want to get more than forty or fifty miles afrom home and that is going to be with the climate control off. From their webpage it looks like you can get a hybrid drive as an option but they don't have any details as to how much cargo space you sacrifice for the gas engine/generator.
Do the math. A basic el cheapo econobox w
Re:Go Aptera! - NOT (Score:5, Informative)
Commite, shop, and all of the stuff I normally do with a car except for long trips**. Duh.
[quote]Based on their own numbers you get a 120 mile distance to dead so you wouldn't want to get more than forty or fifty miles afrom home[/quote]
Depends on whether there's merely a normal household power socket on the other end, but let's go with that. So?
[quote]and that is going to be with the climate control off.[/quote]
Small car, efficient heat pump, solar-powered climate assist. Sure, it'll impact range, but probably not as much as you're picturing. Also, there's no initial cooling load, as it has a solar-powered vent fan that keeps the car just above ambient temperature when you're not in it and it's out in the sun.
[quoteFrom their webpage it looks like you can get a hybrid drive as an option but they don't have any details as to how much cargo space you sacrifice for the gas engine/generator.[/quote]
None. The generator displaces 2/3rds of the batteries; it has a shorter electric range, but the 5-gallon gas tank gives it a range of 600-700 miles.
The Aptera has 15.9 cubic feet of cargo space.
[quote]Lets run the numbers. Assume a commute that runs 35 miles, 70 both ways. On a good econobox you can get 35mpg so it works out to two gallons per day or assuming gas hits $5/gal you pay $10/day for gas. Average of about twenty work days per month and ya get $200 for gas to commute. Now compute the difference in the monthly note for the econobox and the savings on the light bill from not plugging in every night and gulping down a few KWH (remember it takes more than 10KWH to charge a 10KWH battery) and it's probably a wash. If your commute is less the economics get worse pretty fast.[/quote]
I find it funny that you said "let's run the numbers" and then didn't actually run the numbers. That's pretty amusing.
Econobox: $13k, +$2k in taxes, -0k deductions.
Aptera: $27k, +3k in taxes, and let's assume that deductions roughly cancel out taxes (could be a lot more, but let's be pessimistic).
Price difference: $14k
$10/day = $3650/year
Aptera goes 120mi on 10kWh = 80Wh/mi (0.08kWh/mi). Charging is usually ~93% efficient, but let's be pessimstic and say that it raises power consumption to 0.09kWh/mi. I pay $0.05/kWh, but the average in the US is more like $0.10/kWh, so let's go with that. That's 4/5th of a cent per mile. * 70 miles, * 365.24 days, that's $230/year.
Net savings: $3420/year. Time to pay off the difference: 4 years.
See what happens when you *actually* do the math? Electricity is dirt cheap, and the Aptera uses very little of it.
There's also maintenance, but when you consider that a good lithium phosphate pack should last the life of the car, and even if you had to replace it, by the time you had to replace it, LiP should cost under $0.20/kWh, you're only looking at a couple thousand dollars thanks to the small pack size (thanks to the efficiency). I.e., it'd cost far less than you save by eliminating 90% of the moving parts in the drivetrain compared to a normal gasoline car. It doesn't even have a transmission, let alone all of the breakable parts of an ICE. So the payback time is even sooner.
Parent
Math (Score:2)
Lets use your figure of $15K for an econobox. We will leave out interest (hell, everybody is doing zero interest financing every other week anyway....) to keep the numbers simple. Besides, it doesn't make much difference because it hits both sides about equally. And we are ignoring insurance, and not putting numbers on maintaince, etc.
So lets do the 60 m
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, you're right -- in your custom-made scenario designed to hurt the Aptera (2/3rds the gasoline consumption as in your previous example), the payback period is longer than four years, and closer to five. *ooooh*. What a terrifyingly long period to wait for payback. And this assumes that there are no significant tax breaks for the Aptera. F
Re:Math (Score:5, Interesting)
I assumed anyone at slashdot could take the math the rest of the way and apply it to their situation but apparently you need some help with yer figuring.
Clearly you're not in finance. All of these mathematical calculations are wrong in the face of finance. By finance I'm not talking the terms banks and lenders throw around as a verb, I'm talking about the finance department of any company to compute the feasibility of a project or investment. For example everyone likes to use the "pay back period" as a financially sound way to compare two projects when it ignores a critical factor: the time value of money.
So now you claim the original post not to "take the math the rest of the way" when you've clearly got some issues in your math. To settle this, I'll do a decent job in taking the math all the way by giving you a fairly sound financial computation on net present value. I'm no finance person, but I've been in accounting and finance classes to know that your calculations are wrong and there are better ways. So since you asked, here is your math problem solved correctly.
There are two common ways to compare to streams of cash flows financially: internal rate of return, and net present value. The easier one to understand (and also with fewer math issues) is net present value. All net present value is is taking a stream of cash flows and calculating their values in dollars at the current point in time. As you know, a dollar today is not worth the same amount as a dollar next year due to inflation and other things. Net present value accounts for this by introducing the risk free interest rate into the equation so that you can get two sums of money to compare at a single point in time.
Before I go further, I need to say that dividing the fixed investment cost and time zero (today) over the lifetime of the investment is wrong for time value of money reasons. That is when you buy a car in pure cash today, you cannot receive the benefit of reinvesting that cash because it is gone! What you can do is say you spent X dollars at time zero and if at the end of the useful life, you sell the asset, then you will receive some money back but quite a bit less due to depreciation and market value at the point of sale.
In order to compute the net present value, all you have to do is take the present value of each year or month's cash flow and compute the present value of that item. So for example let's assume the risk free rate is 2.5% and because we don't care about the rate of return (this is not really an investment to make money, but to save money and fill a need), all we care about is the risk free rate. So today a dollar is worth $1. Next year the same dollar invested today will be worth $1 * (1.025 ^ 1) = $1.025. (You can also think in the other direction and say that a dollar in the future by one year is worth $1 / (1.025 ^ 1) ~ $0.97561 today.) As you might guess, a dollar invested today will be worth $1 * (1.025 ^ 2) = $1.050625. If we keep doing this for 5 years, the factors for each year are:
So let's do the real financial math to compare costs. In order to do this, we need to compute how our cash will flow for each investment. I will reduce the calculations to years since it is easier to show, but you could also do the calculations compounded by month if you wish by dividing the interest rate by 12 and recomputing the multipliers on a monthly basis (or use Excel's net present value function hint hint). We will also assume that both cars depreciate at a rate of 20% a year so in 5 years, they will be worth (1 - 0.20) ^ 5 = 32.768% of their initial value and we will find a buyer that is willing to pay that exact value for the asset at the end of the year. That means after 5 years we will sell the econobox at $4,915 (rounding off 20 cents) and the Aptera at $8,683 (rounding off 52 cent
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
There's also maintenance, but when you consider that a good lithium phosphate pack should last the life of the car, and even if you had to replace it, by the time you had to replace it, LiP should cost under $0.20/kWh
I'm generally supportive of the idea, but this bit jumped out as being potentially "not so great"
I could be completely wrong here, but apart from the OLPC, LiP cells have never entered into commercial use, and not very much is known about their longetivity, or how well the economics of scale will apply to their production if/when they become popular.
Assuming that LiP cells share the same time durability as "traditional" LiCoO2 cells, 24 months seems like a better timeframe.
Similarly, although potentially n
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Hey, genius: an AC *is* a heat pump [wikipedia.org]. What we colloquially refer to a "heat pump" is the same thing as an AC, except it can run in the other direction for heating as well (more accurately, it's a "reversible cycle heat pump"). Reversible cycle heat pumps are no less efficient at cooling than ones that can do cooling only.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Obviously, there is some benefit to using diesel or the truckers wouldn't all be running around with it - but it's not as big a jump as t
Re: (Score:2)
** -- Actually, if they do offer more charging options, or if I can get that aftermarket, I *may well* take it on long trips. We already have infrastructure: RV parks, which can usually be found every 20-50 miles, and are found in even the most remote locations. Sure, fast chargers would be better (lithium phosphate batteries can take a charge in 5-10 minutes if sufficiently cooled, if needed), but RV parks should be
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Someone I used to work with landed a job with Aptera. We keep pestering him to drive the prototype down here for lunch.
From some of the pictures he sent us, the area they work in looks pretty cool too. Like your average tech startup company, except they have prototype parts and equipment lying around instead of just desks and computers.
Re: (Score:2)
The company just recently posted a video tour of their current production facility [youtube.com] (they're in the process of moving to one ten times as big for full-scale production). It's pretty neat, and gives a good idea of just how far they've come, from Steve Fambro building a little wooden car in his garage (it's now a plant holder), to an empty steel frame they built to make sure that the suspension system would work (it's now a wall decoration), to the Mk0 and its spartan interior, to the ever-impress
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I have no problem with people having big cars to carry around their families. What I do have a problem with is people who
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Okay, got some links that suggest passenger occupancy rate is ~1.13
Fairly indicative of a misuse of vehicles. I'd doubt that they adjusted for tradesmen vehicles that only carry 2 people like the venerated ute and the like, but even with them being included, I'd hazard that the occupancy would not rise far past 2 people/vehicle.
As for being ugly, the main problem for the masses, isn't that it is ugly but that it is outside conventional expectation. I certainly d
Plug-in hybrid with lion batteries? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The gasoline-only Loremo is 100mpg, although it's so small you expect to see clowns stepping out of it. The Aptera Typ-1h gets 130mpg in charge sustaining mode (i.e., *after* its battery pack has been drained).
But I agree with you -- giving MPG numbers for PHEVs is an unfair approach. You really need two numbers: all electric range, then MPG in charge-sustaining mode.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Wired had a really great article... (Score:2)
http://www.wired.com/cars/futuretransport/magazine/16-01/ff_100mpg [wired.com]
Why? (Score:3, Interesting)
Seriously, I remember reading about several such contenders in magazines such as, well, Popular Mechanics, and they never materialize.
In fact, what's with mileage going DOWN over the last 15 years? Why do I have to buy a hybrid to get a 35MPG Altima, when I owned a 6-cylinder '95 Intrepid with a 3.5L V6 just a few years ago that got a measly 35MPG when I drove with a lead foot? Who do they think they're fooling?
People, you may be mad about the price of gas, but you should be a lot madder.
Exxon and Detroit are Not to Blame. (Score:5, Interesting)
In fact, what's with mileage going DOWN over the last 15 years?
Look at the horsepower. Given the same engine size and roughly the same fuel, for the most part,additional efficiency has been applied to produce more horsepower to the engine. In the 1980s and even into the 1990s, fuel efficient cars were so utterly anemic that the best thing to do to get any kind of performance would be to buy a truck or a 1970s muscle car.
No more.
Nowadays, you've got 4 cylinder engines supercharged up to 300hp, and GM's new V6 in the Caddy CTS is a naturally aspirated 6 that makes the same horsepower as the V8. If you want a V8, you are usually talking at least 350 hp to start, going all the way up to 500 or even close to 600 hp once you put a blower on it.
Just look at the 0-60 times. First 7 seconds was good for a stock car, then 6, and now mid 5's are common. A supercar gets you to the speed limit in 3 seconds.
Speed sells. People like to go fast and accelerate quickly, and that is what car makers made.
Most people aren't mad about the price of gasoline, except in a bitter sense, because they intuitively know that Detroit didn't victimize them - 35mpg cars have been there all along, and they know it wasn't some crazy oil conspiracy. Rather, they know it was their own dumb fault for buying a gas guzzling vehicle when we should have learned having been burnt by this first in 1973, then 1979, and certainly we would be burned again.
The thing is, yeah, the price of gas sucks. But everyone knows that the pandering by all of the candidates is not the real solution. I mean, sure , idiots can rise up like Obama blaming the "oil companies", or almost as nearly as bad, McCain trying to get the gas tax repealed, but, if you ask most people if they would rather have just drilled the shit out of the country to get every last drop of oil, turned Colorado into looking like the moon in order to get all the shale, many, shockingly, (and I would almost say foolishly) would rather preserve the environment. I guarantee you, if you really wanted to lower the price of fuel, you could put in the right environmental waivers and tax breaks, blow off global warming, and we'd be back to about $2/gallon gasoline within 3 years.
Really, most Americans intuitively know that they need to get out of their low mileage vehicles, and get higher mileage vehicles, if they are so pissed off about fuel. For some, its the environment and concerns over global warming. For some, cars aren't mystical beautiful things, just transportation and they'll consider the train. For some, its a racial hatred of arabs and a political hatred of chavez. So really, no matter how you arrive at it, a bit of conservation either saves the planet, screws the arabs, and saves some money, so, really, it's all good.
This isn't stuff we didn't know about before, but we know that now is the time to get on it.
Parent
Advanced Batteries, Advanced Transmissions (Score:2)
As neat as hybrid/electric cars are, they don't do much to solve the energy dilema, because there are already hundreds of millions of hydrocarbon burners on the road today - 200+ million in the United States alone. Tom Kasmer's Hydristor [hydristor.com] offers an intriguing potential to retrofit the entire fl
Bicycle Beats Them All (Score:2, Interesting)
Anyways, go to google maps, right-click on where you live and select "Directions from here" then right-click on where you work and select "Directions to here". If the result is less than 5mi, you should be biking to work.
Help the planet, help the country, help yourself, ride a bike.
http://www.bikeleague.org/resources/why/environme [bikeleague.org]
Re: (Score:2)
1.Where do you put the bike when you get to work. Most office buildings just dont have anywhere secure to lock a bike so it wont get stolen (in some cases people just lock their bikes in places that aren't designated as bike storage and then have them removed by security or the like)
2.Its not going to look very professional if you turn up to work after having just done physical excercise, all sweaty and etc. The last place I worked provided showers to take care of that but most workplaces don
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
By my calculations, you can go almost 100mpg with a human engine on a road bike, on flat ground, burning chocolate milk as fuel.
Re: (Score:2)
Not that I don't believe you, but ... (Score:2)
Any patent granted during the 60's has long since expired.
I call B.S.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
EG. Your example of the "energy-efficient bulbs". It's an extreme over-reaction to claim you might need HAZMAT to visit your house because you broke one! In reality, the amount of mercury contained in one is VERY small. Previous generations absorbed FAR more mercury into their bodies doing things like handling/playing with little balls of the stuff in science classes! Playing the "game" of trying to tally up "en