Slashdot Log In
VW Concept Microcar Gets 235 MPG
Posted by
CowboyNeal
on Sat Jul 05, 2008 10:22 AM
from the expensive-ways-to-save-at-the-pump dept.
from the expensive-ways-to-save-at-the-pump dept.
Hugh Pickens writes "Volkswagen is bringing new meaning to the term 'fuel efficiency' with a bullet-shaped microcar that gets 235 mpg. Called the One-Liter, because that's how much fuel it needs to go 100 kilometers, the body's made of carbon fiber to minimize weight and the One-Liter makes extensive use of magnesium, titanium and aluminum so the entire vehicle weighs in at 660 pounds. Aerodynamics plays a big role in its fuel economy, so the car is long and low, coming in at 11.4 feet long, 4.1 feet wide and 3.3 feet tall with a coefficient of drag of 0.16, a little more than half that of an average car. The One-Liter could have a sticker price of anywhere from $31,750 to $47,622, and VW plans to build a limited number in 2010."
Related Stories
This discussion has been archived.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.
built-in coffin (Score:5, Funny)
Re:built-in coffin (Score:5, Funny)
Surprisingly the name in germany is "totencrappen" which is the german word for "suppository coffin", but the english translation was too long, so they went with one-liter.
Parent
photo not yet slashdotted link (Score:5, Informative)
The main article is slashdotted, here's the summary article [wired.com] for the "Totemcrappen" which has a picture. Notice the priceless licensence plate which is Leet speak "Wobbly".
Interestingly the car was desinged 6 years ago but the 2012 was the release date as the prices would fall far enough to manufacture it. But they decided to roll is out 2 years early.
Parent
Re:photo not yet slashdotted link (Score:5, Informative)
The WOB on the license plate stands for Wolfsburg, which is where Volkswagen headquarters are. The L 1 stands for 1 Liter, which is the amount of fuel the car uses for 100km. Hence, WOB - 1 L.
Now if only I could figure out how many Rods to the Hogshead that is...
Parent
Re:photo not yet slashdotted link (Score:5, Funny)
Look how small it is! Oh, it's just a HUGE license plate. My bad.
Parent
Re:built-in coffin (Score:4, Interesting)
Or get a Trabant [wikipedia.org], or a Lastun [wikipedia.org] and a good life insurance. Trabant has the advantage it will run on anything even remotely flammable, and the Lastun has the advantage that is so light that you can push it with one hand when you run out of gas, or you can use it as a shopping basket. Both cars can carry 4 people.
Parent
Re:built-in coffin (Score:5, Interesting)
This is reminiscent of the car built by Messerschmidt after WWII [youtube.com]. It was really an enclosed motorcycle with exactly the same form factor.
Parent
Re:built-in coffin (Score:5, Informative)
Good catch! the Messerschmidt got 125 miles per gallon and carried 2 people (top speed was 50, but that was cookin' back then, and still is plenty in the city).
Parent
Re:built-in coffin (Score:5, Informative)
Of course, statistics can be misleading. In this case, the vehicle actually got 285mpg in a test run. However, thus run was at 45mph rather than a more typical 55mph; there's 1 1/2 times the aerodynamic drag at 55mph. Rolling losses will be higher by 1.2x. Let's say an overall 1.4x higher, since aerodynamic drag dominates at higher speeds; converting, we get 203mpg. Next, this wasn't a normal drive cycle, but a person trying to optimize their ride. Let's be generous and only cut it to 180mpg. It's a diesel, and diesel is about 15% more dense than gasoline, and emits about 15% more CO2; cut it to 155mpg for a gasoline-equivalent. The production version is going from a 1 cylinder to a 2 cylinder mild hybrid, since the 1 cylinder has poor acceleration. This won't hit it as much as normal, since the car operates on an acceleration/coasting system of maintaining sped, but it should at least hit it a little; let's say 145mpg. The production version is also going to be getting heavier, since this version omitted all of the standard things like airbags and so on. Let's say 130mpg to be generous. And if they widen it to make it more stable (it's quite narrow), it'll get more aerodynamic drag and go lower still. Same if they try and reinforce that frame and skin -- carbon fiber is great, but they're not using much of it, and magnesium (which makes up the bulk of the frame) is even weaker than aluminum. And if they try to make it more affordable by, say, swapping the carbon fiber and magnesium for aluminum and kevlar or fiberglass or whatnot (it's current projected *subsidized* price is, if I recall correctly, something like $40-60k USD), that'll drop further still. Also, since it only has a rather limited regen capability, its city mileage will be lower than its highway mileage.
Now, even with all of this, it's still one darned efficient vehicle. It's just not as impressive as the original claims. It's easy to manipulate numbers to try and make a vehicle look more efficient than it is. For example, with the Aptera. You generally see two numbers for it: 230mpg and 300mpg. Both are bogus. 230mpg was what the Mk0 got at 55mph. However, it too was a shell, and was not as safe or full of the things needed to meet legal requirements as the Mk1. It was also a diesel. Converting to the Mk1 pre-production model, its charge sustaining mileage went all the way down to 130mpg. However, they generally cite 300mpg, under the excuse that most people don't go on long trips very often, so it'll usually run just on electricity, which they don't count. It's still misleading; many people I've talked to thought you could go cross-country on 300mpg. Nope, not without charging every hundred miles or so. Mind you, Aptera is hardly alone in doing this; virtually all of the PHEV makers do it, and some are a lot worse offenders than others. I remember seeing an article about an SUV that got "150mpg". If you look at how they did their numbers, they were assuming that only something like 1/7th of its miles ran on gasoline, and only counting the gasoline.
In short: before you believe inflated mileage claims, look into the numbers.
On the subject of Aptera vs. 1L car: it's interesting the approaches taken by Aptera and the 1L car. The 1L car doesn't take streamlining as far. They move the rear wheels close together, but not so far as to make it a three wheeler. They lift the rear a little off the ground to eliminate ground turbulence, but not nearly as much as the Aptera -- nor do they use cabin air to fill in their wake. Overall, their drag coeff is 0.19, compared to 0.11 for the Aptera. However, while Aptera decided to make one significant compromise on efficiency -- requiring side-by-side seating to make it more acceptable to the general public -- Volkswagen did not. Their tandem seating arrangement reduces frontal area. While there are some downsides to tandem seating, it would be interesting to see a vehicle that takes a combined approach, with the extreme streamlining of an Aptera, along with its hig
Parent
Re:built-in coffin (Score:4, Informative)
Pardon, metric gallons? The only "metric" gallon that I'm aware of is the 1985 legal definition of the British Imperial gallon that defines it to be 4.54609dm^3.
Parent
Re:built-in coffin (Score:4, Funny)
I know girls that would rather enjoy that.
Parent
Re:built-in coffin (Score:4, Insightful)
I'm not sure what the big deal about safety is. Indy car drivers walk away from 200 mph crashes, and their cars are 1500 pounds, about half the weight of a standard American car. Safety doesn't come from weight alone, it comes from engineering for safety. The car will be safe, or unsafe, depending on how it's engineered.
In any case, looks much less dangerous than a motorcycle, and tens of millions of people drive those. Looks like it will easy to park in the city, too.
Parent
660 pounds (Score:3, Funny)
Some Americans weigh that much!
In other words (Score:5, Informative)
Convincing one of safety of small vehicles. (Score:5, Interesting)
I look at a vehicle this small and wonder what would happen if it was hit by a 3000lb vehicle. Even if it has a crumple zones, I could see it being sent flying across the road like a hockeypuck, or it's lack of mass being unable to stop the forward progress of the impacting vehicle after the impact.
What arguments does one use to convince laymen that these tiny vehicles are safe? My gf wants to get a volvo SUV, but when I even mention a Corolla/Tercel/Yarvis, she likes that they are fuel efficient, but is concerned about being hit by any full size vehicle (not just a Hummer/SUV).
I recently rode in a coworkers SmartCar, and while it seemed like a great car, I realized that if were were rear ended, we'd be killed. There's about a foot between your back and the back of the car. Less than that of a Jeep Wrangler. My biggest fear would be having to stop quickly on the highway and the guy behind me doesn't stop in time.
Anybody have any good arguments for justifying these ultra-light cars (VW, SmartCar) to those that do equate a certain size=safety measure?
Re:Convincing one of safety of small vehicles. (Score:5, Interesting)
Parent
Re:Convincing one of safety of small vehicles. (Score:5, Insightful)
These absolutist arguments are pointless.
Yes, there are times when you can avoid, and times when you cannot. This does not make it useless to favor avoidance over resilience.
You need to carry out a more complete analysis. Being able to avoid accidents in some situations will result in fewer accidents, and will result in some of those accidents being less bad. Being less crash-worthy (but please note that many SUVs, despite their size, are extremely unworthy in a crash!) will result in some of the remaining accidents being worse. To decide what's better, you need to see if the latter overcomes the former.
Most people feel helpless on the road and therefore feel safest with massive amounts of passive protection at all times, but I don't think this is actually the best way to go. Not the least because carrying all that extra passive protection around with you costs a huge amount of money, especially at $4/gallon.
Parent
Re:Convincing one of safety of small vehicles. (Score:5, Interesting)
Parent
Re:Young jedi... you have much to learn. (Score:4, Insightful)
I must disagree. In my experience, people who are considering or who already own SUVs due to their perceived safety generally think that, in the event of a two-vehicle accident, the other guy is essentially on his own. If he gets the worst of it due to having a smaller car, it's his own fault for not having also bought an SUV. I've never heard anyone say "I've never thought of that!" after being asked about the other guy in a hypothetical accident.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Convincing one of safety of small vehicles. (Score:5, Informative)
Even if it has a crumple zones, I could see it being sent flying across the road like a hockeypuck, or it's lack of mass being unable to stop the forward progress of the impacting vehicle after the impact.
Why does it need to physically stop the other car? I don't think I'd mind being sent across the road like a hockeypuck, as long as each change in velocity (... probably collision-induced) is gentle enough to prevent damage to my body. I couldn't care less if the truck that hits me has enough forward momentum to go across America.
As long as it has crumple zones (remember---what you really care about is the acceleration of your own body (which gives the force on you), and that's inversely proportional to the distance you have to travel, given an initial and final velocity), I don't see how it's any less safer than a bulkier car with identical length of crumple zone.
I recently rode in a coworkers SmartCar, and while it seemed like a great car, I realized that if were were rear ended, we'd be killed. There's about a foot between your back and the back of the car. Less than that of a Jeep Wrangler. My biggest fear would be having to stop quickly on the highway and the guy behind me doesn't stop in time.
That should be fine---with your small mass, the other guy will simply end up pushing you forward.
Now, it's a different question if you were stopped right in front of a cliff (either one that stands as a wall or one where the ground disappears beneath you), but in the normal traffic conditions, you will either get pushed forward by yourself, or as you are pushed forward, you will hit the car ahead of you. In either case, assuming that the passenger compartment is strong, the mass of your car itself has no bearing on safety.
Anybody have any good arguments for justifying these ultra-light cars (VW, SmartCar) to those that do equate a certain size=safety measure?
Well, tell them about how "safe" SUVs are, with its frequent rollovers. If that doesn't convince them bigger != safer, well, I do think the gene pool would benefit from their decision.
Parent
No Problem (Score:5, Insightful)
If there are only light cars around, no one get's hit by a 2.5 ton doctor's wife with her Porsche Cayenne.
It's really time for it. And by the way, if your car is extremely light, an much heavier opponent in an accidend would push your micocompact away instead of crushing through it. Especially if the microcompact is made of an robust security cell (see the Samrts Tridion Security Cell) or a Formula One like cage of carbon fiber like the VW 1L. I assume there are almost no more secure big cars around as these compacts are.
Parent
Re:No Problem (Score:4, Insightful)
Parent
Re:Convincing one of safety of small vehicles. (Score:5, Insightful)
How big is a Formula 1 car, and what does it weigh?
Ever seen some of the crashes that those F1 drivers just walk away from?
Parent
Re:Convincing one of safety of small vehicles. (Score:5, Interesting)
Parent
I'd rather an improved Volkswagen GX3. (Score:4, Interesting)
I'd rather see VW work on an improved version of the GX3 concept. If they enclosed it for better aerodynamics and reduced the engine power from the concept's 125 bhp, they'd be able to eke out much better mileage than the measly 46 mpg of the prototype. There really wasn't any need for a 1.6 L engine in the GX3. They could have gone with the engine from the Lupo 3L, which was a 1.2 L inline three cylinder TDI engine that made 61 bhp.
Of course, the first thing they should do is bring the Lupo 3L back to life and bring it to the US.
The Lupo 3L weighed about 1830 lb, and the GX3 weighed about about 1260 lb, so you can see that the Lupo 3L engine would still give quite interesting performance in the GX3 chassis, and the fuel consumption, with a new aerodynamic, enclosed chassis for the GX3 should enable that configuration to easily reach at least the ~80 mpg of the Lupo 3L, and probably even better that figure by a good margin, while offering the advantages of side-by-side seating.
Europe is not the US. (Score:5, Interesting)
More people in the world with high disposable incomes drive on roads where American SUVs are in a small minority. Here in the UK SUVs have been making inroads which have come to a sudden halt as fuel approaches $3/liter. On the other hand, the sales of class A,B and C vehicles - microcars, minis and superminis - are rising fast. Expect European roads to look rather different in 2010, when the first of the new technologies really start to reach the market.
The guy who wrote the article did not get this - quoting US gallons is pretty irrelevant. 1 liter/100km, or miles per UK gallon, are appropriate because that is where they will be used.
modern engines in lighter cars would be a start (Score:5, Insightful)
235 MPG is impressive, and this concept car is *really* cool looking, which is a rare thing when it comes to super efficient, futuristic concept cars. While I really doubt will see cars like this on the road anytime soon, this car does bring to mind some things, though, particularly in the weight department. If we took our current engine technologies (not even hybrid) and put them in much lighter cars, we'd likely be able to have cars average close to 100 MPG without any special work.
Compared to light cars in the 1970s, our cars are much heavier (1000-2000 pounds heavier on average), but produce much, much more power from the same amount of gas than engines in the 70s did. Not to mention they are now better looking than the boxes of the 70s.
Basically all the extra efficiency our engines now have is pretty much wasted by the fact that we're hauling around so much extra weight. If we lighten our cars a bit and then stop this silly addiction to "power" (really acceleration), we'd be a long ways closer to practical cars that get 100 MPG right now. That'd pave the way for mass appeal of cars like this VW concept.
Re:I call Gimmick (Score:4, Informative)
Well it's actually a two-seater, though the person in the back seat isn't going to have a lot of leg-room I'll grant you...
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
1 - It's a 1 person car
2 - It's going into limited production
3 - Marketing is talking about it 2 years in advance
1 - No. Its a two-seat car. You know. Like all those other penile extensions out there.
2 - You did get that one right. Still... Again with penile extensions. How many Porsches and Ferraris are made each year?
3 - Actually - it is 4 years in advance since they were planing to push it out in the market in 2012. But carbon fiber price dropped enough so they can start making it 2 years earlier.
Apparently they don't want to massproduce this, just enhance their brand, without actually jeopardizing their relationship with Big Oil(TM)
You do realize its the same company that made those small economic VW Beetle cars?
And all those Golfs later on...
Re:Big Deal! (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:What year? (Score:4, Informative)
If it has less than four wheels, though, it's not considered a car, and the safety standards become much, much lower.
Four wheels, the safety standards have been going up. That's part of the reason many manufacturers are making 3-wheelers - nobody would pay $100,000 for a stripped out single-seater car, just so they could get something that could get extreme fuel economy. 3-wheelers only make sense for legislative reasons, not practical.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Wow man, you're hard to impress. Considering that most cars on the road only get about 20 - 30mpg I would say 235mpg is still pretty good. The article also points out that that they could produce 1,000/year of these to start with if they wanted to, whereas the vehicle you linked to seems to be no more than than a one-shot trophy winner. Don't get me wrong, they're both very cool concept cars, but I don't think one should be sneered at just because it doesn't meet your particular standard.
Also, is it just
Re:Big Deal! (Score:5, Funny)
This is Slashdot. If you can't do better in every possible way than every single thing that has ever been done before, then you're worthless.
Parent
Re:Big Deal! (Score:5, Funny)
In 2006, this vehicle [gizmodo.com] got 3,145 miles per gallon, and some high-school students last year won a mileage contest by creating a similar vehicle that got mileage in the 1000-mpg range.
If VW want to impress, they will have to do a hell of a lot better than that.
The problem with your post is that all of those kids are probably mysteriously dead.
Parent
Re:Big Deal! (Score:5, Informative)
A better picture [physorg.com] might help put things into... perspective.
There's no way in hell something like that will ever be able to enter regular traffic.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I find it depressing that the concept cars are still mainly petrol-driven. When I read Poul Anderson's Harvest of Stars [amazon.com] in high school many years back, I was enthralled by his view of a future where hydrocarbons had been surpassed as motorists' fuel by a more efficient use of hydrogen (elaborately described in a character's m
Re:Vaporware? (Score:4, Insightful)
I don't find that depressing at all. As nice as H2 sounds on paper, when it comes down to it, we're already using the ideal fuels for transportation. Liguid hydrocarbons have far superior energy density compared to other options, they're liquid at room temperature, stable, require no special containment, are basically insensitive to temperature extremes, and very scalable.
Until there's and alternative that does nearly as well in all these categories, i think the most feasible eco-solution is finding ways to displace conventional petroleum (biofuels and whatnot)
Parent
Re:Vaporware? (Score:5, Interesting)
When some new gas saver comes out (like the smart4two), do people really line up to purchase it?
The waiting list for the smart is close to a year.
Parent
Re:Why not just make it a moped? (Score:5, Interesting)
A moped with rider has a much, much higher coefficient of drag, probably more frontal area, and no protection from the elements, to boot.
Also, here in Ohio, a moped is legally defined as a motorized bicycle limited to 20 MPH, with a maximum of 1 hp and 50 cc displacement. This has almost 9 hp and 300 cc displacement, and is designed to go a lot faster than 20. ;)
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
"Oversize" in the motorcycle world would be more along the lines of a Honda Gold Wing, which weighs 400 pounds *more* than this car. The car is closer in weight to a full-size cruiser like a Harley Softail or Yamaha Raider, and even then the car is *still* about 10% lighter.
concept vaporware (Score:4, Funny)
By the time this car makes it into regular mass-production, (if it ever makes it at all), it'll look just like every other car on the road.
Parent
A "Manhattan Project" (Score:5, Interesting)
I totally agree.
Neal Boortz, a local talk show host that tends to sway conservative where I live, keeps railing on how the U.S. needs to have a "Manhattan Project" to explore for oil and develop domestic resources. He says that within three years, if we really focus our time, effort, energy, money, and our brightest minds on it, we could wean ourselves off dependence on foreign oil by replacing it with oil from domestic sources.
I can't help but think, if we're going to gather our time, effort, energy, money, and brightest minds, why can't we come up with a "Manhattan Project" to wean ourselves off of oil entirely?
I'm so tired of the U.S. taking a technological back seat to the rest of the world, but it looks like we're about to yet again. Let other countries develop, test, and build the products while we sit back and get further behind. That way, we'll have yet more industries we can't compete with and yet a higher trade deficit.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
OK we have a problem it's not really oil but we need cheap to free energy. Look at it this way most 3rd world countries want to have an American or eu standard of living, and there is no way without destroying/subjugating them you can stop them from trying to get there since it's driven by the desire to have your children better off than you were. What does that boil down to energy use per capita. At present fission is our only known method to get that energy without oil. Other methods are fine spend pl
Re:Once we all start driving fuel efficient cars.. (Score:4, Insightful)
Yep you nailed it. The gas prices we're seeing have less to do with scarcity, and more to do with a captive market - well, that and the fact that the majority of oil producing countries are literally overrun by the OPEC cartels, which is what inevitably happens when you stick a trillion-dollar business in a 3rd world country.
I agree, we don't need fuel efficiency, we need a whole new form of fuel. One that doesn't shackle every civilized nation to every uncivilized oil producer.
Parent
Re:How much does it cost??!! (Score:5, Informative)
Let's discuss the hypothetical non-hybrid Civic DX sedan with 34mpg @ $15,010 and the American average 12,000 miles a year.
$24,706 dollars spent in fuel over ten years at $7 a dollar gasoline.
total cost = $39,716
Not to mention the Honda Civic can haul you, your family and your stuff at that price, this VW? Nope.
We won't even get into the cost of money and the lost value of paying the high up-front charges of the VW option.
Parent
Re:How much does it cost??!! (Score:5, Informative)
That's where the fallacy lies - do the math.
How about we actually put pen to paper on this one and figure out exactly how much money we would save in fuel costs each year :
I am going to be generous and work with easy numbers - $4 gasoline, 1,200 miles per month.
Start with a relatively easy to find 40 mpg car :
1,200 miles / 40mpg = 30 gallons * $4 = $120 per month.
Crank that up to one of those Volkswagon TDI or a hybrid getting 50 mpg :
1,200 miles / 50mpg = 24 gallons * $4 = $96 per month. Saved about $25 per month.
And now for this ultra-cool one man car made of recycled SR-71 parts at 235 mpg :
1,200 miles / 235mpg = 5 gallons!
5 * $4 = $20 total fuel costs for the month. Which sounds great, except it's only saving about $75 per month, assuming the production models get the same mileage as their hand made prototype - which isn't going to happen.
Let's pretend they get them in viable quantities getting 120mpg, which is still crazy good, right?
1,200 miles / 120mpg = still only 10 gallons, which is only $40. Pretty awesome!
Except compared to a current Prius or a VW TDI, you're only saving $55 a month.
It's because of the way the 1/x curve flattens out on the tail end, after about 40-50 mpg it really doesn't make much of a difference. The dollar difference between 40mpg and 120mpg is the same dollar difference between 17mpg and 21mpg, again - because the curve of 1/x is so high below 20mpg. Get down into the 9mpg-11mpg range and difference for every 1mpg = $40.
Want to make a killer difference in our gas consumption, engineer a way to make the current 500 million cars already on the roads today get 3 more mpg, because I figure 1/3rd of the cars on the road are in the sub 20mpg range.
I already figured that one out too - tire pressure during the winter. I used to think that the gas stations used different formulas in the winter (which they probably do) which is why my gas mileage went from 21 in the summer to 17 in the winter (which wasn't why.) My most recent car has air pressure sensors on the tires so I noticed that during the winter months the air pressure in the tires dropped from 35psi to about 28psi (cold air shrinks) - when I pressured up my tires to the suggested 35psi, my gas mileage went right back to 21mpg. How many people go the entire winter without adding air to their tires (well ... it doesn't look flat and it had plenty of air in August, air isn't leaking out ...) and spend their entire lives thinking the reason they get crap gas mileage in the winter because of the 'winter gasoline formula'? Bingo.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I drive a pickup, which is about as bad as it gets in terms of gas mileage. It's a 2002 model, and it has about 68,000 miles on it, which translates to about 4,000 gallons of fuel that it's used thus far. At $4.00/gallon (far above the average cost of gas over the period I've owned it), that's $16,000. I paid about $19,000 for the truck after all was said and done, so even if this new car had *no fuel cost at all*, it still wouldn't break even until after it had been
Re: (Score:3, Funny)