Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Technology Science

Environmentally Friendly Race Cars, Military Vehicles 191

Posted by michael from the won't-die-of-global-warming dept.
jackelfish writes "The non-profit organization IdéeVerte Compétition has created a 'space age' race car that runs on Liquefied Petroleum Gas (propane or butane) and is lubricated with sunflower oil. Sponsored by the European Space Agency, the car recently broke the 'LPG powered vehicle' speed record of 315 km/h. The car also utilizes space technologies such as a titanium fuel tank, heat shielding developed for the Ariane launch vehicles and an EGNOS satellite navigation system to determine the speed, acceleration and position of the car in real-time." And reader gkbarr writes "Is the DoD feeling the crunch of sky-high gasoline prices or are they being overrun by a bunch of Greens? Who cares, the latest Humvee looks to be a more capable and greener machine than its predecessors."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Environmentally Friendly Race Cars, Military Vehicles More

Environmentally Friendly Race Cars, Military Vehicles

Comments Filter:
  • Haha, is there anything more harmful to it's environment than a military vehicle? After all they are created to destroy and kill things.

    • Re:Environment Friendly Military?! (Score:5, Funny)

      by imsabbel ( 611519 ) on Sunday November 21, 2004 @08:44AM (#10880409)
      Think different!
      More military->more wars->less humans-> better enviroment :)

      • More military->more wars->less humans-> better enviroment

        Sadly, the fact of the matter is that is not far from the truth.

        People like to advocate decreasing CO2 production as a means for controlling global warming. However, if one puts the CO2 composition of the atmosphere on a timeline of human history they'd find only TWO instances where the exponential trend temporarily declines. These two points in human history? World War II and the Great Depression. Meaning, while lip-service like the

    • Re:Environment Friendly Military?! (Score:5, Interesting)

      by zakezuke ( 229119 ) on Sunday November 21, 2004 @08:46AM (#10880414)
      Haha, is there anything more harmful to it's environment than a military vehicle?

      Several million soccer moms in Ford Explorers averaging 11-14mpg might qualify.
    • Is there anything more inaccurate than sweeping generalizations?
    • Every gallon of diesel a Hummer burns has to be delivered to the front lines somehow. These supply columns need to be protected, diverting resources from the actual fighting. Many advances have been strangled by overstretched supply-lines. So if you can make Humvees use half the juice, you can increase the effective 'reach' of your units, given the same logistical back-up.

      Moreover, if it's twice as efficient it's putting out half the heat, making it harder for the enemy to see / fire heat-seeking missil
    • Yeah, this is true. However, I have to say, the Military in general (at least what I've seen in the last 4 years I've been in), is very environmentally conscious. Not because we're a bunch of Greens (well, I am, but it would be rather inaccurate to speak for everyone), but because it's the right thing to do.

      A few weeks ago we had an Field Training Excercise at a camp in the middle of Nebraska. After we were done, we cleaned up not only our own garbage, but a bunch of spent shotgun shells that some hicks h

  • An observation (Score:5, Insightful)

    by daniil ( 775990 ) * <evilbj8rn@hotmail.com> on Sunday November 21, 2004 @08:20AM (#10880351) Journal
    Whenever some vehicle is called "environmentally friendly," this title always seems to be referring to its fuel consumption. It's as if fuel exhaust gases were all there is to environment. What seems to be neglected in these cases is that building the vehicle (or any other machine) also takes up resources, pollutes, etc. Is there any research being done in these areas as well, or are they simply not deemed as important as reducing air pollution from exhaust fumes?

    • Re:An observation (Score:5, Interesting)

      by moonbender ( 547943 ) <moonbender@gUUUm ... inus threevowels> on Sunday November 21, 2004 @08:42AM (#10880401)
      There is research done in this direction (not by the DOD I would assume) - each piece of equipment has an "environmental backpack" which consists of the emissions generated and the resources used during it's research and development. Obviously, this is not exactly an easy thing to define clearly, or for that matter to measure. Also, the emissions generated during it's usage are typically considered more important simply due to the fact that the environmental backpack is a fixed cost (per item) while otherwise the emissions increase with usage. I guess (but don't know) the direct emissions of, say, a car are greater than the backpack emissions after a few months of average usage.

      This all applies very much to computer parts, which have a relatively huge backpack compared to their direct emissions (ie. by power consumption): Recent research by the German-based Wuppertal Institute as part of a large-scale investigation of Digital Europe showed that a 200g handheld computer requires the equivalent of 58 kilograms of raw materials in its manufacture, a massive overhead that we rarely think about. (from an undated article [developments.org.uk])

      • and most of that material is water, perhaps about a bathtub full, hardly worthy of note.

        A more interesting comparison is something like total energy required and ore required. Assume we have two raw materials, rock and electricity. How much rock and how much electricity does it take to generate this thing. You can throw in water as a third raw material if you wish, but usually it's fairly unimportant.

        Seems almost "warcraft" like, but that would be the logical way to measure things.

        "This computer took 2 t

    • Re:An observation (Score:5, Insightful)

      by kfg ( 145172 ) on Sunday November 21, 2004 @08:49AM (#10880427)
      . . .are they simply not deemed as important as reducing air pollution from exhaust fumes?

      It's always easier to get a warm, fuzzy feeling by focusing intently on one small parameter, doing something about that, and thinking you've solved the problem than it is to acknowledge the whole picture.

      Ignorance, after all, is bliss.

      When I pointed out to a friend that part of the cost of replacing older, less "enviromentally friendly" cars with new cars was the pollution inherent in dispossing of the old car prematurely and manufacturing the new one (not to mention the pollution inherent in earning the money to buy the new car, and the pollution inherent in. . .) he was stunned. He'd simply never thought of that issue. All he'd ever heard about were emmisions, so that's all he ever thought about.

      It's almost always more 'friendly' in the long run to use existing systems until they naturally expire than it is to replace them with new systems before that time. After all, isn't that why many of us spend so much time maintaining existing code base?

      Is there any research being done in these areas as well. . .

      Oh sure. There are people, such as myself, who give a considerable amount of thought to the issue, and put a certain amount of work into it as well, but after doing it for a few decades you are inevitably faced with an issue:

      Until the skies are all thick and brown, and the oil is all gone, nobody much is going to care. It always boils down to a dietary issue with shades of laziness on top("Yo, have we got enough money for a pizza?" Cool, have it delivered").

      When that time comes there will be those of us standing around with solutions that might have been, although at that point largely irrelevant because, while they would have kept the air from becoming thick and brown, won't, in and of themselves, make the air any less thick.

      There's an eternal cycle of creating your own problems, than patting yourself on the back for being clever enough to wangle your way out of them, and so far as I've ever been able to determine from observation, the purpose of man as machine seems to be to incessantly worry about the future while doing nothing practical about it, all the while regreting the past.

      I don't understand it, but it seems to make people "happy."

      KFG
      • It's almost always more 'friendly' in the long run to use existing systems until they naturally expire than it is to replace them with new systems before that time.

        I doubt this statement is entirely true. What people need to do is look at update gross polluters. Cars that put out a disprortionate amount of pollution. An example, my 1969 GMC truck runs fine. It also only gets 9mpg, has no catalytic converter and is an environmentalist nightmare. I could drive it for many more miles. From an enviromen

      • I found your comments very interesting. I do think there's a point where it becomes worth replacing cars - when they become extremely inefficient and dirty. Short term air pollution also matters, from a health perspective among other things.

        That said, it does bring the Japanese policy of taxing even slightly old cars into oblivion into a whole new light. How ... dodgy.

        <i>After all, isn't that why many of us spend so much time maintaining existing code base?</i>

        Certainly not because nobody und
      • ... it's about the cheap oil being all gone.

        Quite frankly, I'm surprised /. hasn't had any discussion on the subject of Peak Oil [peakoil.net]. Geologists following the models of King Hubbert have projected that oil production will peak within about two years, never to increase again. With India and China becoming big oil consumers, we don't have a choice anymore but to think about the energy cost of everything we do. When oil company executives [thebusinessonline.com] start telling you we're running out of oil, soon, and forever, why isn't

      • When I pointed out to a friend that part of the cost of replacing older, less "enviromentally friendly" cars with new cars was the pollution inherent in dispossing of the old car prematurely and manufacturing the new one (not to mention the pollution inherent in earning the money to buy the new car, and the pollution inherent in. . .) he was stunned. He'd simply never thought of that issue. All he'd ever heard about were emmisions, so that's all he ever thought about.

        It's almost always more 'friendly' in t

    • Re:An observation (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Comatose51 ( 687974 ) on Sunday November 21, 2004 @09:28AM (#10880530) Homepage
      The point of the research really wasn't about being environmentally friendly. The title and snippet are misleading. The DoD's goal is to make a more efficient vehicle so that it can operate with less logistical support. Logistical support is a huge issue with the military. How far an army or navy can move or strike has always been limited by that. Even while the Germans were chasing the British across north Africa, they were limited by the lack of fuel. The problem still exists today. It is estimated that for every person on the ground fighting, there's another 4 people doing logistics to keep him supplied. A military as technologically advance as the US will have a huge logistics train. So a more efficient vehicle is always a very desirable thing. If the vehicle happens to be environmentally friendly, then all the better but that wasn't the point. So to answer your question, I really doubt that the DoD researched environmentally friendly manufacturing processes.

      • Re:An observation (Score:3, Insightful)

        by SnapShot ( 171582 )
        You are absolutly right, but I would take it a step farther and say that it applies to every aspect of our industrial society. I wish more people would realize that being green is only a by-product of being more efficient. This isn't a war between the environmentalists and the industrialists, it is a war between efficiency and waste.

        At the risk of oversimplifying, what is pollution? It's a layman's term for entropy. The conversion of a good from an ordered state into an unordered state. Every drop of
        • ...or, that sometimes, there just isn't anything to be done with the waste. You can only reprocess wood pulp, for example. At some point, the fibers become too short to do anything with.

          What do you do with excess arsenic, cesium, etc. that may be byproducts of various recycling streams? You bury them as toxic waste.

    • Re:An observation (Score:3, Insightful)

      by WIAKywbfatw ( 307557 )
      Sorry, but I disagree. The adverts I've seen for environmentally-friendly vehicles don't just emphasise their fuel consumption, they also stress how recyclable the cars are.

      Making anything takes time, resources and energy, and something like a car, however green it is, is going to require a fair amount of all three in its manufacture. The start of a car's life, when it's built, isn't going to be where the best non-fuel-related savings are going to be made: even the most efficient build process wouldn't be
    • But design & manufacture pollutants can be more easlily controlled at a central point and are one-time occurances. That's the true benifits of the focus on electric power for all sorts of stuff. Because it allows you to build one, well regulated, super-polluter...and have the local devices be extremely clean.

      Things like lawn mowers, leaf blowers, and chainsaws are "simpler" devices, but pound-for-pound nearly 10x as bad as gas-guzzlers like the Hummer.

      The real factor in the military's decision f

    • Re:An observation (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Peyna ( 14792 )
      I know of at least one example of an assembly plant trying to lower it's resource consumption. Actually, after a quick google search, it appears there are at least four GM plants using landfill gas for energy. [gm.com]

      Why do they do these things? Because in many cases, there actually is a cost savings in more "green" industrial methods.

    • Except the changes between a regular car and an LPG car are: LPG tank, throttle body & intake manifold. It's not like you have to redesign the entire car.
    • I can only speak for American companies so other parts of the world are probably different, but I can say that over the past 10 years, American companies have started to become more fanatical about being 'green', at least with companies that deal with chemicals. 30 years ago in your average American corporate engineering lab they used all manner of horrible chemicals and it generally was not a big deal. They built things using terrible side products.

      Over the past few years though, I have noticed a pretty

  • that RST is very toyota! (Score:3, Informative)

    by snellgrove2 ( 724957 ) on Sunday November 21, 2004 @08:26AM (#10880366) Journal
    Combining a standard internal-combustion-engine with an electric generator, and motors (which can also be run in reverse, when coasting / braking, thus returning the kinetic energy back into electrical power) is exactly the same idea, as Toyota have come up with in their family car, the "Prius" which is called the "Hybrid Synergy Drive"

    I have driven a prius about 4 times now, and have managed to average, at "99.9 miles per gallon" as it says on the display. albeit, ive only managed that to last about 10 minutes, when doing around 40mph, on relatively flat land, but still its pretty damn good fuel economy

    • Re:that RST is very toyota! (Score:3, Funny)

      by Anonymous Coward
      I have driven a prius about 4 times now, and have managed to average, at "99.9 miles per gallon" as it says on the display. albeit, ive only managed that to last about 10 minutes, when doing around 40mph, on relatively flat land, but still its pretty damn good fuel economy

      That's nothing. On my display in my 1966 Ford F-250 with a 5.7l engine and 50 gal fuel tanks I've managed to hit 100 mpg on my analog vacuum gauge. Imagine a 7,500 pound truck going down hill and you'll understand.

      • Re:that RST is very toyota! (Score:4, Funny)

        by pchan- ( 118053 ) on Sunday November 21, 2004 @09:30AM (#10880534) Journal
        i can do better. when rolling down hill, i can push in the clutch, put the car into neutral, and shut off the engine. the car's guages don't seem to work too well when it's shut off, but by my rough calculations (since my car is accelerating down hill without using any gasoline), i am getting better than infinity miles per gallon. i tried to check if i had more gas in my tank when i reached the bottom of the hill than at the top, but unfortunately, this was not the case.
        • i can do better. when rolling down hill, i can push in the clutch, put the car into neutral, and shut off the engine. the car's guages don't seem to work too well when it's shut off, but by my rough calculations (since my car is accelerating down hill without using any gasoline), i am getting better than infinity miles per gallon. i tried to check if i had more gas in my tank when i reached the bottom of the hill than at the top, but unfortunately, this was not the case.

          Well, considering your power brakes
          • We're obviously a nation of weaklings.

            Assume the vehicle in question even had power brakes and steering (I have several that don't) the only thing that goes away is the power assist.

            The brakes still work.

            The steering still works.

            In fact, the brakes don't really require that much extra effort. The steering can get pretty heavy, but that's because power steering racks tend to be closer ratio than manual. In fact, the hot autocross setup for some cars is to swap the power rack into the manual steering car.
        • I sure hope there weren't many turns on that hill; most cars with power steering are impossible to turn without it.
          • If by impossible you mean requiring significantly more effort.
            • If by impossible you mean requiring significantly more effort.

              I think he means "impossible for a 5 year old child", and he has a point: You should never shut off the engine when your five year old is driving.

              • The ONLY thing that power steering offers you, for those who have never driven a car without it, is the ability to turn the wheels at a dead stop or slow speed.

                Natural effort and the tendency of the wheels to camber into the curve while spinning are enough to steer a car that's moving at a decent speed.

    • This is better: no normal drive train (Score:4, Informative)

      by r00t ( 33219 ) on Sunday November 21, 2004 @09:42AM (#10880574) Journal
      This uses 4 electric motors in the wheels.
      That means it doesn't need a sloppy differential
      to let the wheels on the outside of a turn go
      faster than the wheels on the inside of a turn.

      The Prius, while nice, lacks this ability.
      A Prius has a direct linkage from the engine to
      the wheels; electric power is only an assist.

      • not to mention the benefits of all wheel drive, independant traction control, and sheer torque from having four wheel based motors. The only real drawback is the maximum speed.. which is limited to the max rpms of the motor. However, nobody except racers needs to have a car that goes 150 mph.. in fact for all intents and purposes a car that can burn up a quarter mile, but maxes out at 100 is probably the perfect solution for general society.

        I am just waiting for the day that i get my four wheel-motored pi

  • Don't panic (Score:5, Funny)

    by halftrack ( 454203 ) <jonkje@gmailCOBOL.com minus language> on Sunday November 21, 2004 @08:28AM (#10880371) Homepage
    But don't worry, a green-friendly Humvee is fairly low-priority on the DoD's list of innovations.

    So relax, will ya... The DoD's not going to start respecting things. And with the Hummer you don't have to either.

  • I remember those days... (Score:3, Funny)

    by The Desert Palooka ( 311888 ) on Sunday November 21, 2004 @08:35AM (#10880384)
    Running on Butane, all lubed up with Safflower oil...

  • DoD Research (Score:5, Informative)

    by Registered Coward v2 ( 447531 ) on Sunday November 21, 2004 @08:35AM (#10880385)
    Actually, there's a lot of hybrid vehicle development going on at DoD - even for the current batch of HMMV's,

    The militray is always interetsed in lower fuel consumption (as long as it doesn't degrade mission capabilities), because that means you have to haul less gas to the battlefield, lessening the logistical footprint. Fuel costs are a very small part of the equation - more of an added benefit than a driver, at least for combat and combat support vehicles.

    In addition, hybrids can be more stealthy - less thermal signature, lower noise, etc. - which maes them better for many types of missions.

    Size counts as wll - anything that helps load it (or more of them) into a C-130 or C-17 is a plus, especially since the US military is moving to lighter fast reaction forces that can be airlifted quickly to combat zones, rather than running massive convoys of ships that take days to get there.
    • The big generator can power a beam weapon.
      The military already has at least two:

      1. terahertz crowd suppression beam
      2. solid-state (synthetic ruby) laser

      Probably they have a secret rail gun too.
    • Actually fuel costs are right up there at the top along with water and food, but not in the cost of buying then, but in hauling them. Those three items make up something in the neighboorhood of 75% of the logistical loadout and get even more expensive when you have to airlift them in instead of by slow boat.

      One of the other articles, either here or someplace else I read, about three other programs the first already undergoing field testing now is the recycling of water, not at the camp level but at the s

      • Actually fuel costs are right up there at the top along with water and food, but not in the cost of buying then, but in hauling them. Those three items make up something in the neighboorhood of 75% of the logistical loadout and get even more expensive when you have to airlift them in instead of by slow boat.

        Yup = which is what I meant by reducing the logistical footprint; which is most of teh transport capability anyway, especially once the force is on the ground.

        So now they just need to get rid of bull
    • because that means you have to haul less gas to the battlefield

      Gas isn't always readily available where you're going either. Multi-fuel systems are also being considered where you could use any one of a number of available hydrocarbon fuels to run the vehicle.
    • "especially since the US military is moving to lighter fast reaction forces that can be airlifted quickly to combat zones"

      Yeah I didn't think that the special 'high mobility' fuel tankers that have to follow gas-guzzling hummers around could be air lifted very easily...
    • But proving the hybrid system on a more conventional platform means that it might enable a more expanded electrical part of that picture, which leads to various kinds of electromagnetic weapons (lasers, EMP, rail guns, etc.) that can use some of the required electrical generation to help move the vehicle when it's not doing its primary task.

      The navy is moving to do this with ships as well.
      Instead of having two systems, you can reduce it to one big electrical generation system, with some of the power going

  • Fix government waste first (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday November 21, 2004 @08:37AM (#10880389)
    "Is the DoD feeling the crunch of sky-high gasoline prices or are they being overrun by a bunch of Greens? Who cares, the latest Humvee looks to be a more capable and greener machine than its predecessors."

    I don't see any evidence of a shift at the DoD. Of course, increasing gasoline prices negatively impact anyone with vehicles - but if you want to save money due to gasoline prices, there are things you can do today.

    For instance, government fleet vehicles could be hybrids. "But hybrids cost more, so the savings is negligable!". That's true... at TODAY'S fuel prices. But since fleet vehicles have a 3 year life (within the fleet), and since Wall Street says that gasoline prices will rise 40-50% within the next two years, a move to hybrids will cause the real cost of operating the fleet to fall dramatically.

    Or, more fleet vehicles could go with LNG. The US has a lot of natural gas, and NG's price is a bit more stable than oil's price.

    Right now, whenever you fill up your car with gas, remember that half the profits go directly to the likes of Iran, Saudi Arabia, and other terror-supporting states. In fact, they make enough money with these profits to do things like build nuclear weapons. In fact, Iran admits it is. Other countries haven't admitted it (Iraq, Saudi Arabia), but there is no reason to believe they aren't (or haven't) gone down that road covertly.

    And for just that reason alone, LNG, with it's low and stable pricetag, is a compelling alternative to traditional gasoline.

    Fleet vehicle operations cost the US taxpayer billions of dollars a year. Shouldn't these vehicles promote US policy and strive to reduce taxpayer costs?

    We're not talking about taking away your car - we're talking about making some government beaurocrat's official vehicle much cheaper to run, and keeping US dollars here (and out of the middle east).
    • "Wall Street says that gasoline prices will rise 40-50% within the next two years, a move to hybrids will cause the real cost of operating the fleet to fall dramatically."

      I agree with poster about the historical prices of LNG, but I've also done a lot of coding for the financial sector. Their standard legal disclaimer is - Past Performance Is Not Indicative Of Future Results.

    • "Is the DoD feeling the crunch of sky-high gasoline prices or are they being overrun by a bunch of Greens? Who cares, the latest Humvee looks to be a more capable and greener machine than its predecessors."

      I don't see any evidence of a shift at the DoD.

      Not to mention the fact that the hybrid vehicle in the article isn't intended to replace the HMMWV in any capacity whatsoever. It even says at the end of the military.com article that it's replacing the M151A2 [fas.org], which is the old jeep. The dumbass at milita


    • Unfortunately the natural gas of north america is fast diminishing. Within a decade we'll be importing natural gas from the same guys who sell us oil today. This is hardly a long term solution.

      We could however try to use bio diesel as much as possible, and use nuclear generated H2 to replace Natural Gas generated H2, and that would help on both fronts. Using heat pump style heating instead of natural gas would also be helpful, but only if we don't have power plants burning natural gas to produce electricit

  • Interesting goals for the Humvee (Score:3, Informative)

    by Myself ( 57572 ) on Sunday November 21, 2004 @08:37AM (#10880391) Journal
    The hybrid Humvee project I heard about was not so much to reduce fuel consumption, though that was a side benefit. The main goal was to generate lots of electricity without having to tow a generator trailer.

    It was also done with a different engine, and didn't include so many differences from the regular chassis. The one described in this article is by far a more advanced concept, and it looks like it's almost production ready.

    It's too bad the civilian Hummer is just a Suburban now. I'd like to see one of these bad boys on the dealer's lot! (I'd imagine the local Ham radio survivalist types could build a whole comm station into one.)

  • Speed record (Score:5, Interesting)

    by elh_inny ( 557966 ) on Sunday November 21, 2004 @08:38AM (#10880393) Homepage Journal
    Is it just me or is 315km/h not very impressive?
    I live in Poland (where car drives you) and people often modify their cars to use LPG instead of petrol (actually the car can run on both fuels).
    The car loses some of its horsepower, but I've been driving at almost 200km/h on LPG myself, so I see no reason to employ space technology to go 50% faster.

    • Re:Speed record (Score:4, Interesting)

      by imsabbel ( 611519 ) on Sunday November 21, 2004 @08:47AM (#10880420)
      Well, you realize that 300km/h needs 2.25 times the power than 200km/h, 315 even more but i dont want to pick up a calculator. Kinetic energy and wind drag go with v^2, or else it wouldnt be hard to reach high speeds at all...
    • You're right, 315 km/h is not very fast. I've driven that fast myself on highways around here.

      All for a cost significantly less than a normal midsize car, and three times the adrenaline.

      I drove a Suzuki Hayabusa [suzukihayabusa.org]. Fantastic machine. Insurance costs forced me to sell it, though. Attracted all kinds of reckless drivers, young guys who needed to prove something. :-/

      (OTOH, everything is relative. Yes, going 300+ km/h with your eyes about 3 feet from the ground does cramp your stomach a bit. There's a threshol

  • this one might be different.. (Score:4, Interesting)

    by xot ( 663131 ) <fragiledeathNO@SPAMgmail.com> on Sunday November 21, 2004 @08:40AM (#10880396) Journal
    ..but all other solar/electric/natural fuel powered vehicles crawl slower than snails.Usually never more than 80-100kmph.
    For these cars to be be commercially viable for production, the speed has to be near 200 kmph.Thats more than enough for most people.I think speed is one of the reasons why these cars don't sell.
    • The target market for electric vehicles expects,
      and often even wants, whimpy vehicles. You don't
      want your fleet vehicles to be used for racing.

      If you're a hard-core environmentalist, you're
      expected to be dirt-poor from spending all your
      money (not much -- you were an art major) on the
      organically grown bean sprouts you need to survive.

      Diesel-electric can go plenty fast though, and the
      acceleration can be awesome. This just requires
      a change of target market. Engineering has no
      trouble with this.


    • I think hydrogen counts as a natural fuel, and BMW have non-commercial versions going 300 km/h [h2cars.biz]. The fact is that when you say electric vehicles crawl slower than snails you only mean top-end speed. An electric vehicle will leave its petrol equivalent dead at the lights. I think the massive increase in acceleration will be a big seller.

      Phillip.
    • Actually, it is. In Europe lots of people convert their cars to run on natural gas, mostly because it costs way less than gasoline. Although this usually entails a small reduction in performance, the benefits as measured in lower operating costs by far outweight the disadvantages, such as lower autonomy caused by slightly higher fuel consumption and the loss of some trunk space (which is where the extra tank goes).

      I'm surprised this hasn't caught on in the US, especially with the recent increase in oil pri
      • Up in north-eastern BC many of the light trucks and cars are run on LNG or LPG alone. It has the distinct advantages that it's a byproduct of the oil industry (and therefore cheap in the oil field), and doesn't stop working below -40C.
      • Yup, A lot of the cars here in India do it too.The natural gas converter kits are very popular especially with taxi drivers.The reduction in performance is negated by the cost reduction so the guys are pretty happy.
        And of course its less pollution. :-)

  • Electrical Loads (Score:3, Informative)

    by Detritus ( 11846 ) on Sunday November 21, 2004 @08:55AM (#10880434) Homepage
    Hybrids are also useful for vehicles with large electrical loads, which is the case for many military vehicles.
  • The new Humvee [military.com] looks similar to the APC from Aliens [planetavp.com]. Granted the picture of the new humvee is in its travel mode, but there are still some obvious similarities.
  • They can even recuperate energy when breaking.

    Apparently military.com's editors are all on 'brake'.
    • No no, the article has it right -- the motors can actually recover power from mechanical failures. This will give soldiers an electricity source to play their GameBoys with while waiting for the repair crew to arrive.
  • I think the military ought to take a good hard look at it's naming strategy.

    "The Super Sea Stallion" helicopter for example, whoever named that has issues.
  • Who cares, the latest Humvee looks to be a more capable and greener machine than its predecessors.

    The desert version is tanner than its predecessors.

  • coupe or hatch? (Score:4, Funny)

    by ForestGrump ( 644805 ) on Sunday November 21, 2004 @09:31AM (#10880537) Homepage Journal
    so its a 2 door coupe with a hatch? or a 3 door HB?
  • Here's a easily-achived way to get an environmentally-friendly race car: use a turbodieel engine fuelled by biodiesel fuel.

    Essentially, use the engine from the Mercedes-Benz E320 CDI and put the smallest chassis and body around that engine. Modify it to ensure complete compatibility with biodiesel fuel and the result is a race car that could probably go way over 300 km/h (186 mph) and still get far superior fuel efficiency to its gasoline-fuelled competition. :-)

  • Quote: Shadow uses a series of magnets for propulsion, driven by the main diesel motor. An 110kW Magnet Motor drives four 50kW Magnet Motors mounted on the each of the Shadow's four hub

    This is so technologically illiterate I almost despair, though I think it means

    Shadow uses electric motors for propulsion, driven by a generator attached to the main Diesel engine. There is a 110KW generator and 50KW motors mounted on the hubs (the difference between 200KW and 110KW can be supplied by the Li Ion batteries to

    • Someone should probably let you in on a little secret: Motors and generators are generally the same thing, the name depends on how they are used. I'm sure you already know this but all of the motors would better be termed "motor-generator" units, because I'm sure they're doing regenerative braking, and I wouldn't be surprised to hear that the main generator is also used as a starter motor for the diesel, which would make sense as it would cut down on the number of components. If I had piles of money I'd li

      • I think the only problem with your design is possibly that the belt couldn't generate enough fricton on the crank to turn the engine over. This would be less of a problem with modern engines with serpentine belts, but a belt still wears faster than a steel cog.

        Otherwise, it'd be a fun exercise.
  • The "new Hummer" is driven by wheel-mounted motors, and that provides some extra capabilities you won't find in a conventional mechanical drivetrain. Most noticably, the track (left-to-right spacing between wheels) can be adjusted. That's a huge capability when you have to pack these things into aircraft or ships.

    This vehicle isn't going to completely replace the Humvee, but it will perform certain tasks (like fast recon) much better. The 138hp engine indicates it's not being built as a "do everythin

    • The 138Hp engine powers the generator almost all the time, probably mostly at peak efficiency. The 4 50KW (67HP) electric motors drive the wheels when needed, with the amount of power needed (up to 268HP when accelerating, a handfull of HP when cruising, down to -268HP when braking). Given that it's got an all-aluminum frame and body, it could be a do (almost) anything vehicle.

      You probably don't need a long range, silent, fast, low radar & thermal signature vehicle for towing artillery anyways as arti

  • RTFA, submitter! (Score:2, Flamebait)

    by Doc Ruby ( 173196 )
    FTA: "The Shadow RST-V's reduced fuel consumption wasn't created to make it better for environment, it was designed make it the stealthy and efficient multi-purpose attack vehicle of the future."

    gkbarr [mailto] either didn't read the article they posted, or their military fetish blocked the truth from penetrating the brain layer that controls the posting hand. If the military even uses this tech, rather than just spend billions of our dollars on corporate welfare and PR about "khaki green", they'll use it twice as

    • Moderation 0
      50% Flamebait
      50% Insightful

      In the same spirit, the "Flamebait" spewing mod either didn't RTFA, or their own military fetish gets in the way of reading military criticism. Armies kill people and destroy places: that's bad for the environment. We'd better get used to it.

  • Glaring Errors (Score:4, Informative)

    by Dun Malg ( 230075 ) on Sunday November 21, 2004 @10:53AM (#10880913) Homepage
    TFA is ill researched crap. First, this Shadow hybid vehicle is not suitable as a 1:1 replacement for the HMMWV except in a very small number of roles; it's a light attack vehicle with no cargo capacity. The hummer is 1 1/4 ton truck. Then there's this choice bit of irrelevancy:
    A typical Humvee guzzles over 1,000 pounds of fuel per mission, and the civilian equivalent (the Hummer H2) was ranked among the "12 Most Environmentally Unfriendly Vehicles of 2004."

    The Hummer H2 is not the civilian equivalent of the HMMWV, the H1 is. The H2 is a totally unrelated vehicle based on the Chevy Tahoe SUV. The military is obviously interested in reducing fuel consumption, as driving tankers of diesel around is a logistical nightmare, but really that's about the end of it. And at the end there's this glaring error:

    the Shadow RST-V is slated to replace the M151 A2 fast attack vehicle currently used by the Marine Corps for Special Forces (SF)support. After test and evaluation and rigorous trials, the RST-Vs superior mobility, deployability and fuel economy are welcome advantages over the Humvee's loud, gas guzzling ways.

    OK, so the Shadow isn't replacing the "gas guzzling" Hummer, it's replacing the M151A2! The M151 is the good old fashioned jeep, with a tiny 4 cylinder gasoline engine. Hardly a gas guzzler. The author clearly wanted to put a "green" spin on the story, but didn't bother to research a number of his assumptions, the stupidest of which was assuming the M151A2 was the Hummer!

    • Possibly the Hummer was tested against the Shadow as a potential replacement for the jeep? That would partly explain the phrasing, although it's a horrible bit of writing.
      • Or the fact that you just don't see jeeps in the military anymore, they were replaced mostly by hummers, a few replaced by civilian light trucks, and a few by John Deer Gators.

        I spent five years in the Marine Corps, and a year in the Army National Guard, and the only jeeps I saw were old rusting hulks, often cut up for scrap metal, shoved off in a corner of the motor pool parking lot.

        So I'd write it off as shoddy research as well, but not for the reason the grandparent did. You can't replace the jeep bec
        • Or the fact that you just don't see jeeps in the military anymore, they were replaced mostly by hummers, a few replaced by civilian light trucks, and a few by John Deer Gators. I spent five years in the Marine Corps, and a year in the Army National Guard, and the only jeeps I saw were old rusting hulks, often cut up for scrap metal, shoved off in a corner of the motor pool parking lot. So I'd write it off as shoddy research as well, but not for the reason the grandparent did. You can't replace the jeep be
      • Possibly the Hummer was tested against the Shadow as a potential replacement for the jeep?

        No, the Hummer has been in service for 20-odd years and has always been a big, bulky vehicle. Nobody in the Marine Corps would ever seriously suggest replacing small, light jeeps with the Hummer for the Fast Attack Vehicle role because it cannot be transported inside a CH-53 or CH-46 helicopter or the V-22 Osprey tiltrotor, which is a requirement for the FAV. They've been soliciting designs to replace the M151 jeep f

    • The old fashioned Jeep hasn't seen service since 'Nam, and you know it. Furthermore, the old Go-Devil four banger was hardly fuel efficient... check the EPA stats on the civvie 4cyl Jeep. Better than a humvee or a gamma-goat, but that ain't saying much.

      The HUMMWV has been used as a FAV by the Army and Marines for more than 20 years now, and it's configuration reflects this. It's also being used as an armored scout car these days. It may offend the sensibilities of those who insists there's a proper tool fo
  • It wasn't replaced for environmental friendliness reasons.

    It was replaced because a more fuel-efficient vehicle makes supply chain logistics significantly easier.
  • I was at an electric vehicle trade show in late 1997 and saw a hybrid Hummer. (Diesel engine working as a generator for electric motors, IIRC.) It was actually faster 0-60 than a stock Diesel hummer and it had a great feature: you could put it into "stealth mode" (yes, really) and run almost completely silently. Stealth mode temporarily turned off all hydraulics, etc. Worked great, too. The guy was talking about the vehicle to a group of attendees/reporters, then instructed them to turn around. Unnoticed by
  • I don't think LPG is the alternative fuel of the future. The biggest reason is that LPG is made as a byproduct of either the extraction or refining process of gasoline (can't remember which right now).
    Taxis in Australia have been using LPG for over 10 years - that's pretty much 100% of taxis in every major city. I also have friends who run LPG. You can only tune the engine for one fuel, so you lose power with either petrol or LPG. Also, every car starts on petrol - even if running on LPG, so you still ca
  • Looking at some of the pictures I'm heavily reminded of the troop carrier used in Aliens.

    Last night I saw something on the troops of the future on tv and the helmet with integrated camera and flip down screen could have been a prop out of that movie.

    Now to find a motion tracker.
  • almost made entirely out of aluminium. Aluminium manufacturing plants are normally found next to electric power stations. Furthermore, wasn't there something about aluminium being toxic after being hit? Not that it matters too much, if your car is hit by a DU bullet...
  • are they being overrun by a bunch of Greens?

    Well, you know the Army does pride itself on being the lean, green fighting machine. D'oh! Please, don't throw rotten eggs. I just cleaned this suit.

Slashdot Top Deals

"The vast majority of successful major crimes against property are perpetrated by individuals abusing positions of trust." -- Lawrence Dalzell

Close