Volkswagen Concept Car Averages 262 MPG 353
coolnumbr12 writes "The Volkswagen XL1 averages an amazing 262 mpg, and although it may never hit streets in the United States, the technology behind the car could impact future Volkswagen vehicles. The keys to the incredible mileage in the Volkswagen XL1 were reducing the weight of the vehicle and eliminating wind resistance. The XL1 only weighs 1,753 pounds — that's more than a thousand pounds lighter than the Toyota Prius, which weighs in at 2,921 pounds. The wheels on the Volkswagen XL1 are as thin as road bike's and wrapped in custom Michelin rubber. The XL1 chassis is a single piece of molded carbon-fiber, and has a drag coefficient of only 0.189 – similar to a bumblebee."
We need a new class of 'ultralight' cars (Score:5, Interesting)
We have very safe cars but they're also very heavy as a result. Granted gains can be made with expensive and exotic materials, but how about CHEAP and LIGHT cars that could be had for just a few grand, and get 80-100MPG? before you think no-one would want to drive something without airbags and side impact beams and crush zones, what about motorbikes? I really think it would be a big hit with consumers who don't wish to be exposed to the elements or have to balance a motorcycle, but would opt for BASIC transportation with a 500cc motor, 3 or 4 wheels, and enclosed cab. Current safety standards for 4 wheeled vehicles make basic and light car not an option.
Re:We need a new class of 'ultralight' cars (Score:4, Informative)
There's a category of neighborhood electric vehicles [wikipedia.org] that are basically glorified golf carts. They can go about 30 mph, in some states can legally go on roads up to posted speed limits of 45 mph, and don't weigh much.
Re: (Score:2)
There's a category of neighborhood electric vehicles [wikipedia.org] that are basically glorified golf carts. They can go about 30 mph, in some states can legally go on roads up to posted speed limits of 45 mph, and don't weigh much.
Yeah, so banned from the same roads that motorcycles can drive on. I was looking at one of those Italian enclosed scooters for commuting to work (10 miles of country road), but I'd rather have 4-wheel stability.
I think it's like alcohol and tobacco - if they weren't grandfather
Re: (Score:2)
if they weren't grandfathered, the Nanny State would never approve them today.
There is hope: Not long ago Colorado approved 35mph neighborhood electric vehicles, conditional on a federal safety standard for such vehicles (and change in DOT reg to allow them on the roads).
Re:We need a new class of 'ultralight' cars (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:We need a new class of 'ultralight' cars (Score:5, Interesting)
If the goal here is to 'save money' or 'save resources' by having a high MPG/k/L, I don't really get the point of these 'ultra safe' cars.
I'm sorry, but I've seen dozens of what would've been considered 'minor fender benders' even 10 years ago result in the vehicles being irreparably totaled. I've personally been hit twice where the other late-model vehicle was put on a flatbed and (likely) scrapped: in both instances, I barely even noticed the impact in my 1980s-vintage vehicle, I had -maybe- $250 in total body damage each time, and nobody was hurt. These modern cars, to the exception of full size trucks, seem to lose pieces if they hit so much as a slightly sticky traffic cone. Considering the cost and resources that go into making them, and how easily they're totalled, I can't see this as a win for anyone but the automotive makers and insurers (through larger premiums).
Re:We need a new class of 'ultralight' cars (Score:5, Insightful)
As far as I know, modern cars are designed to crumple, and smash externally in order to dissipate shock in an accident as much as possible.
For instance, if you have a very rigid-bodied vehicle and a crumply-bodied vehicle, you'll most likely experience more acceleration in an accident with the stiff bodied vehicle, as the crumply vehicle takes more time to come to a complete stop. Going from 60mph to 0mph in 100 milliseconds exerts ~27.34G on the occupant. If you can double the period of acceleration from 100 milliseconds to 200 milliseconds, you can half the G load to ~13.67G, which is much more survivable.
I don't know how much the crumple zones and pliability of the frame contribute exactly, but in life or death situations every little bit counts, as far as the highly risk averse public is concerned.
Re: (Score:2)
This.
The frames of most of today's cars are referred to as unibody. The frame is essentially one piece (including the roof, door mounts, trunk/engine enclosures) that everything is attached to. It provides structural support; and when impacted, crumples, absorbing energy.
The OP mentions trucks specifically, which is a very astute observation. Work trucks use the older body-on-frame construction, which has a solid frame supporting the "body" of the vehicle (the body is essentially a separate frame on top
Re:We need a new class of 'ultralight' cars (Score:5, Insightful)
As far as I know, modern cars are designed to crumple, and smash externally in order to dissipate shock in an accident as much as possible.
This x 1000. Modern cars are designed to ablate and crumple as much as possible in order to protect the meat that crashed it.
People without a clue as to how physics works in a car crash often lament that their 19-dicket-2 car hardly gets a scratch in a low speed collision and completely forget that in a mid speed collision the car also harldy suffers a scratch, but the driver and passengers ended up going to the morgue.
The more bits that come off the car, the more crumpled it looks the less kinetic energy went into the occupants.
Re: (Score:3)
For instance, if you have a very rigid-bodied vehicle and a crumply-bodied vehicle, you'll most likely experience more acceleration in an accident with the stiff bodied vehicle, as the crumply vehicle takes more time to come to a complete stop.
This crash test by the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety speaks for itself
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xtxd27jlZ_g [youtube.com]
I know which car I'd rather be in
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
If the goal here is to 'save money' or 'save resources' by having a high MPG/k/L, I don't really get the point of these 'ultra safe' cars.
I'm sorry, but I've seen dozens of what would've been considered 'minor fender benders' even 10 years ago result in the vehicles being irreparably totaled. I've personally been hit twice where the other late-model vehicle was put on a flatbed and (likely) scrapped: in both instances, I barely even noticed the impact in my 1980s-vintage vehicle, I had -maybe- $250 in total body damage each time, and nobody was hurt. These modern cars, to the exception of full size trucks, seem to lose pieces if they hit so much as a slightly sticky traffic cone. Considering the cost and resources that go into making them, and how easily they're totalled, I can't see this as a win for anyone but the automotive makers and insurers (through larger premiums).
New cars are designed that way on purpose. They have built in crumple zones to absorb the energy of an impact. The problem is that the impact zone can't differentiate between a 25 mph hit and a 60mph hit and crumples either way, totalling the car. That's the official answer. Of course, there are those that believe that since a large percentage of cars will be in sub 25mph fender benders and get totalled, it guarantees new vehicle sales.
Personally, though, if I'm going to be in an accident, I'd rather the ve
Re: (Score:3)
My wife drove our Mazda CX-9 through a 3m pine tree and hardwood fence. I had to use a chainsaw and multiple jacks to free the car but there was no visible damage expect a very bent numberplate.
Insurance companies (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Cars don't need to be made much lighter to get incredible gas mileage. I drive a 20 year-old car that has airbags, side-impact beams, crumple zones, etc, terrible aerodynamics, and it gets 37MPG (US) hwy (and drivers report even better real-world results). Why? Because the engine is 85HP.
Re: (Score:2)
After 47 years, only 81 pounds to go! (Score:3, Interesting)
In 1966, VW [1966vwbeetle.com] built a car with a curb weight of 1672 pounds. They did it with inexpensive steel, not expensive carbon fiber. Perhaps they should review herr Doktor Porsche's designs, so they can remember how it's done!
Re: (Score:3)
not yet available and not cheap:
Frequently Asked Questions
When can I get a Persu V3?
Production vehicles are targeted for a 2014 model release.
How much will the Persu V3 cost?
MSRP is targeted at $25,000.
Re: (Score:2)
Metric Units. (Score:2, Interesting)
Why are the USA still not using them?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Why are the USA still not using them?
Despite what some people will assert, it's due to weak government.
For years we saw these stupid signs along highways, listing Metric and English speed limits and then they were quietly replaced with English ones only. Rather than just push people to accept and get the pain over with (retiring that stupid old system of weights and measures) the government caved to the moronic side of America.
Re:Metric Units. (Score:5, Insightful)
No it's because we had a working system and didn't need a new one. Long may it live!
Yeah... Nothing I enjoyed more than doing conversions of miles, feet, inches, tenths of inches, pounds, ounces (avoirdupois), gallons, fluid ounces and all that muck during Math, Chemistry and Physics classes, all the while there were these lovely decimal systems just itching to make everything much easier.
Re:Metric Units. (Score:4, Informative)
Yeah... Nothing I enjoyed more than doing conversions of miles, feet, inches, tenths of inches, pounds, ounces (avoirdupois), gallons, fluid ounces
Umm, you're doing it wrong. Inches are most commonly divided into eighths or sixteenths, not tenths. (And, on occasion, even into 32nds or 64ths.) Americans like the more advanced binary systems of measurement, rather than some stupid 10-based system... [/sarcasm]
all the while there were these lovely decimal systems just itching to make everything much easier.
I'm definitely a fan of the metric system, but honestly I don't know if it's "much easier" in the days of calculators and computers that can do conversions easily -- heck, for many years your web browser has even been able to interpret unit names to do the conversion for you, so you don't even have to memorize it.
I'm not saying the old units make a lot of sense, but surely the math isn't that hard. Carrying a unit like "in." or "ft." or "lb." around with a number is equivalent in complexity to carrying around a pi or e or whatever and then plugging in 3.14 or 2.718 at the end.
Few people seem "itching" to make things "much easier" by converting time units to decimal (at least not since the French Revolution), so we live with base 60, base 12 and/or 24, base 7, and a completely irregular month system... why?
Same as GP's answer -- because it is a "working system," even if it's inefficient.
For the average Joe, he almost never has to convert miles to feet or gallons to ounces. About the only unit conversions average Americans ever have to think about on a regular basis are 12 inches = 1 foot and 3 feet = 1 yard. If you're ordering a steak or a hamburger, it might help to know that 16 ounces = 1 pound, and if you're ordering a beer, knowing the size of a pint might be helpful. That's about it for the average American. (Perhaps unfortunately...)
A mile could be 5280 feet or 5000 feet or 5347 feet for all most people care -- the exact amount is pretty irrelevant in everyday life. The units of miles and feet are so different in size that they only tend to occur in completely different contexts for most people. Very few people these days ever use the intermediate units like furlongs, chains, or rods, so complicated length conversions rarely are needed.
And that's true for most units. Different units may exist that are orders of magnitude apart, and from a practical everyday standpoint, you rarely need to know that some big unit converts to 5280 or 128 or 1728 or whatever of some smaller unit. You just use the appropriate unit in the first place. If you happen to be in some business or something where you actually need to convert hogsheads to pints or something on a regular basis, you get your spreadsheet or calculator to do it.
I'd be happy if the U.S. converted to metric, but the only people whose lives would be significantly easier would be scientists and engineers, and most of them use metric on an everyday basis already. For average Joe, unit conversions just don't impact his life so much.
Re:Metric Units. (Score:4, Funny)
My car gets 40 rods to the hogshead and that's the way I likes it. -Abe Simpson
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Metric Units. (Score:4, Interesting)
Why are the USA still not using them?
Because Jimmy Carter only served one term and Ronald Regan didn't like the metric system.
Neat, but unsafe. (Score:5, Informative)
Given the drag coefficient, I assume this car exhibits Laminar flow. This can get disrupted by external factors (say getting passed by a buss) and result in localized turbulent flow. This would drastically increase the drag on one part of the car, causing a sudden unexpected side load, likely causing a turn (into the passing bus). An airplane bouncing around is not much of an issue, but when your car moves over 6 feet sideways on the freeway unexpectedly, it can be rather bad.
Generally maximally aerodynamic cars are not safe. They may not have gotten to that point, or may have cleverly worked around the issues, but given the lack of side mirrors, I think mileage was the priority over safety here. Its a neat technical feet, but as mentioned in the article, its dangerous in multiple respects.
Re:Neat, but unsafe. (Score:4, Funny)
Given the drag coefficient, I assume this car exhibits Laminar flow. This can get disrupted by external factors (say getting passed by a buss) and result in localized turbulent flow. This would drastically increase the drag on one part of the car, causing a sudden unexpected side load, likely causing a turn (into the passing bus). An airplane bouncing around is not much of an issue, but when your car moves over 6 feet sideways on the freeway unexpectedly, it can be rather bad.
Generally maximally aerodynamic cars are not safe. They may not have gotten to that point, or may have cleverly worked around the issues, but given the lack of side mirrors, I think mileage was the priority over safety here. Its a neat technical feet, but as mentioned in the article, its dangerous in multiple respects.
I drive a 1972 VW beetle as a daily driver. You get used to your car moving over 6 feet sideways on the freeway unexpectedly and come to anticipate it. Before long it is just like operating a clutch, you just don't think about it. :)
Re: (Score:2)
Then again, I think that looks like SOOO much fun! It just loo
Not 261 MPG (Score:4, Insightful)
Sensationalist bullshit. From the article:
Volkswagen claims a consumption rating equivalent to 261 mpg; but that's using the full charge of the battery.
310 miles in all, starting out on a charge, on its 2.6-gallon (yes, that's right) fuel tank.
Not sure what "starting out on a charge" means, but if it means starting with zero battery power, the mileage is 119.23 -- and that is only according to the manufacturer. The test drive in the article was too short and limited to be meaningful.
Not going to available in USA (Score:2)
I think in a decade or so, all the cars will get an electric motor as the zeroth gear.If the IC engine has work only above 5mph or 7mph they can tune it completely differently and improve fuel economy by 50% easily. Much of the fuel econ
Re: (Score:2)
Because it has a top speed of 99mph, it has to obey all the passenger car safety requirements. If they use some software to limit the speed to 25mph, they can sell it USA as a Lowspeed vehicle.
It would make more sense to me to remove one of the rear wheels and enter the US market under motorcycle regulations.
bumblebees have a Cv of 0.189? (Score:2)
If a bumblebee has such a low drag coefficient I'd be completely astounded - I'd guess closer to 0.5.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
This IS the VW XL1.
Interesting specs... (Score:2)
1.6l engine, 48hp, 1753 lbs sounds a lot like my 72 beetle that has a 1600cc engine 54hp and weighed 1800 lbs. Of course, it only gets 27mpg around town and about 32 on the highway, Besides, it's fun to drive by the school yards and watch the kids all punch each other in the arm and yell "Slug bug!"
Re: (Score:2)
1.6l engine, 48hp, 1753 lbs sounds a lot like my 72 beetle that has a 1600cc engine 54hp and weighed 1800 lbs. Of course, it only gets 27mpg around town and about 32 on the highway, Besides, it's fun to drive by the school yards and watch the kids all punch each other in the arm and yell "Slug bug!"
You should see those kids if I drive by in my Porsche Boxter :)
Why are we hearing about this only now? (Score:2)
This car is the third iteration of a concept car that has been around since 2009, this iteration since 2011. Is there some other significance that I am missing that puts it in the news today?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volkswagen_1-litre_car [wikipedia.org]
Carbon Fiber? Who is going to repair and recycle? (Score:2)
Ya, I love the strength per weight that carbon fiber brings, but the stuff is (as of yet) unrecyclable and non-repurposable. Shatter a bit of carbon fiber and all you have is is a bunch of broken carbon fiber. The repair process is shaky and there's no reclamation process for the baked final product...
My idea of a an irony-laden "green" auto:
Carbon Fiber Frame/body
Plug-In Battery Electric
Owned and Operated in Appalachia
Metals are recyclable. Plastics can be recyclable. When we keep our eyes on the cradle-to
Thankfully won't hit North America. (Score:2)
VW makes THE dullest looking vehicles on the market today. Even as a prototype this XL1 wouldn't even look cool or modern in an 80's James Bond flick staring Timothy Dalton.. I actually puked a little bit looking at this thing. Its like they started off with a boring Jetta front and then just gave up as they reached the back.
Das "Boring" Auto.
Too Light to Last (Score:2)
Light weight cars go crumble on the autobahn. Bad news. I would rather get lower mpg and be safe. Better yet, I minimize travel.
Re: (Score:2)
Light weight cars go crumble on the autobahn. Bad news. I would rather get lower mpg and be safe. Better yet, I minimize travel.
This one is made out of carbon fiber. It also only has a top speed of 78, so it probably won't have a problem with "crumbling" on the autobahn. 1) it's stronger than steel and 2) it doesn't go fast enough for the vibration to be a probelm.
Bullshit (Score:2)
Interesting how they say their measurements start with a full battery charge but don't say they end with a full battery charge. It's almost as though the so-called MPG number is totally made up out of thin air.
Re: (Score:2)
With a depleted battery pack it gets 168 mpg, which is pretty good.
Not really (Score:5, Insightful)
So subtract the 31 miles on battery, leaving 279 miles on gas, and it can get 107.3 MPG on gas alone. The 262 MPG figure probably comes from a shorter test drive where the first 31 miles were on battery, the remainder on gas, then attributing the total distance to gas. Which if I did my math right is a 52.5 mile run.
Thing is, if you're going to cheat this way, why not just make it a 32 mile run and claim your car gets over 3400 MPG.
It's also worth pointing out that outside of research, these ultra-high mileage vehicles are rather pointless. MPG is the inverse of fuel consumption, so higher MPG means smaller savings. e.g. Consider a trip of 300 miles in a variety of different cars:
15 MPG SUV = 20 gallons consumed
25 MPG sedan = 12 gallons consumed
50 MPG hybrid = 6 gallons consumed
100 MPG research car = 3 gallons consumed
300 MPG super-car = 1 gallon consumed
So if you consider a switch from an SUV to a super-car on a 300 mile trip, where exactly do the 19 gallons of fuel saved come from?
8 gallons saved comes from the 10 MPG jump from 15 to 25 MPG.
6 gallons saved comes from the 25 MPG jump from 25 to 50 MPG.
3 gallons saved comes from the 50 MPG jump from 50 MPG to 100 MPG.
2 gallons saved comes from the 200 MPG jump from 100 MPG to 300 MPG.
The biggest fuel savings comes from the low end of the MPG range. The smallest savings from the high end. Or in other words, in a SUV to super-car switch:
42.1% of the fuel savings comes from the 15-25 MPG jump
31.6% of the fuel savings comes from the 25-50 MPG jump
15.8% of the fuel savings comes from the 50-100 MPG jump
10.5% of the fuel savings comes from the 100-300 MPG jump
Diminishing returns says the cost-effectiveness of improving mileage rapidly drops off above about 50 MPG. If we want to reduce overall fuel consumption, we should be concentrating on ad campaigns to get people out of gas guzzlers into smaller cars. Not concentrating on designing ultra-high mileage vehicles.
Re:Not really (Score:4, Informative)
This is nice and all but the cars I drove in my life were about 45 mpg (non hybrid cars from the 1980s and 90s). I find that to be too much fuel use to my liking. It's polluting too much and we can't much reduce GHG emissions by 80% with that. Right now a regular car does 50 mpg. So (ignoring the problem that people will drive longer and more often)
50 MPG regular car = 6 gallons consumed
100 MPG research car = 3 gallons consumed
300 MPG super-car = 1 gallon consumed
3 gallons saved comes from the 50 MPG jump from 50 MPG to 100 MPG.
2 gallons saved comes from the 200 MPG jump from 100 MPG to 300 MPG.
50.0% of the fuel savings comes from the 50-100 MPG jump
33.3% of the fuel savings comes from the 100-300 MPG jump
Re: (Score:3)
Diminishing returns says the cost-effectiveness of improving mileage rapidly drops off above about 50 MPG.
No it doesn't "rapidly drop off" above any arbitrary dividing line. It's a smooth function, and there is no particular place where the "drop off" suddenly happens.
The gains in economy simply get less and less as you go higher. Going from 15 to 20 MPG is better than going from 20 to 25, which is better than 25 to 30, etc., etc., etc.
Going from 45 to 50 MPG, for example, is better than going from 50 to 55 MPG, but there's no sudden drop at 50 MPG.
If we want to reduce overall fuel consumption, we should be concentrating on ad campaigns to get people out of gas guzzlers into smaller cars. Not concentrating on designing ultra-high mileage vehicles.
Your own statistics say that if we got people who are now
Ultra Narrow tires?? (Score:2)
The wheels on the Volkswagen XL1 are as thin as road bike's and wrapped in custom Michelin rubber.
So having a 1700lb car riding on road bike tires just seems like this car is ripe for a disaster. How much friction/traction can be gained from having such a tiny tire? If these tires are super-sticky tires then they'll have almost no lifespan. I wonder at what speed you could nolonger take an emergency avoidance maneuver? As they say, "Sir Isaac Newton is in the driver's seat."
There's a reason why high performance race cars have wide tires and bicycles or those college competition solar powered vehicl
Re: (Score:2)
That's largely offset by the low mass. Half the mass means half the force required to turn or stop it, which means you only need half the traction.
Not all concepts are equally good (Score:3)
A lot of the concepts in this concept car are no good. The mass budget is just too tight, they've thrown out too much structural strength, safety equipment, comfort equipment, etc.
BUT, turbodiesel hybrid is the way to go. Turbodiesel is inherently more efficient than gasoline, but it's got a much flatter torque profile than gasoline, meaning you can't get much by putting the pedal to the metal. But that's where the electric motor comes in. Diesel and electric techs are a match made in heaven, as anyone who's ever designed a rail locomotive is well aware.
Re: (Score:3)
Rear wheel drive is not a problem. Read wheel drive with all the weight over the front wheels is a problem, especially in low traction situations. Ideal is really all wheel drive with weight distributed close to evenly.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:One problem (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:3)
Re:One problem (Score:4, Informative)
The concept car is real wheel drive with rear engine, similar to the origianl VW although it isn't aircooled.
Re: (Score:2)
Rear wheel drive is not a problem. Read wheel drive with all the weight over the front wheels is a problem, especially in low traction situations. Ideal is really all wheel drive with weight distributed close to evenly.
A friend of mine had a Mustang too. ;-)
Re: (Score:2)
Rear wheel drive is not a problem. Read wheel drive with all the weight over the front wheels is a problem, especially in low traction situations. Ideal is really all wheel drive with weight distributed close to evenly.
And this is why high end sports and performance cars use the mid-rear configuration.
Re: (Score:3)
"Ideal" depends on what you are trying to achieve. To go fast, yes mid/rear or mid/awd is the way to go.
To be fair, I did specify performance and sports cars, so balance is key there.
If you're talking about a cheap runabout, Front Forward is the way to go as it gets better gains out of smaller engines, reduces the weight of the engine/drive train and are a hell of lot cheaper to build. People who buy a Toyota Yaris dont care about performance as much as just getting from A to B cheaply.
Ultimately, the cheapness of FF cars is what drives people towards them.
Not that FF cars are all bad (cheap and chee
Re:One problem (Score:4, Funny)
massive rubber on it.
I've always suspected BMW drivers use their cars as penis extenders, but this takes "safety" to a whole new level...
Re:One problem (Score:5, Insightful)
There is absolutely NOTHING wrong with rear wheel drive. (unless you don't know how to drive to begin with)
Re: (Score:2)
(unless you don't know how to drive to begin with)
That describes 90% of all U.S. (and I suspect the world's) drivers.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
(unless you don't know how to drive to begin with)
That describes 90% of all U.S. (and I suspect the world's) drivers.
If you're excluding German and English drivers.
I dont blame the drivers, it's the cars that coddle them.
No need to learn manual, just buy an auto. Cant park, we'll now we have self parking cars. Cant keep a constant speed, try cruise control. Cant keep a safe gap, adaptive cruise control. Cant be bothered using your mirrors, now we have rear and side proximity sensors.
We've been moving towards fully automated cars for years, it's only recently have people even noticed.
BTW, I drive a six speed ma
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Over the years, I have driven pretty much all types - rear wheel (VW's mostly), front wheel, all wheel (Subaru - Oh yeah!), and 4-wheel. (Yes, there is a difference).
The FJ40 is very much like the Volkwagons, excepting that they are way top heavy. It's a HEAVY 4WD for its size (over 4,000 lbs), and a relatively light rear end. It has a habit of breaking loose on wet roads in the turns (much like my '69 VW Camper. Have to be pretty careful. My 2004 Subaru Forester simply could not give a damn about the
Mario Andretti on a chip (Score:3, Insightful)
BTW, I drive a six speed manual without traction control. I drive a lot better than most because I dont expect my car to pull me out of dangerous situations I get myself into.
I am a completely mediocre driver with traction control, anti-lock brakes and as much safety tech as I can slap on a car. When I hit an unexpected patch of black ice, my computer chips will react far faster than any veteran race car driver that ever lived. Don't let pride blind you to to the advantages of technology.
Re: (Score:3)
BTW, in case you missed it in the first post, I avoid dangerous situations rather then rely on my car to compensate for my lack of driving ability.
And this is the key problem with driver assists. The traction control "handles all that", so you don't even notice that today the road is very slippery, and you end up with accidents like this one in Sweden last year (100 car pile-up): http://www.thelocal.se/45626/20130115/ [thelocal.se]
Re: (Score:2)
The problem with RWD is that 99% of drivers have never driven one and have no clue how to properly handle one. But then, 99% of drivers simply don't know how to drive at all, so it doesn't really matter.
The thin little tires are what bothers me most. There's a damn good reason we don't use "bicycle wheels" on cars... traction and cornering stability. (and the reviewer breifly mentioned how quickly the tires give up.)
Re: (Score:3)
http://www.bridgestone.com/corporate/news/2013030502.html [bridgestone.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
My racing slicks hydroplane at 120MPH (a fair bit more speed than I'd be comfortable with on a bicycle), so you can't be talking about wet traction.
Re:And what's that in metric? (Score:5, Informative)
Which of the two widely used metric standards do you want? ;-)
If you're from one of the countries that uses the km/L measure (Netherlands, Denmark, Japan, Korea, etc.), then this Volkswagen prototype gets about 110 km/L.
If you're from one of the countries that uses the L/100km measure (Germany, Italy, Australia, etc.), then this prototype uses about 0.90 L/100km.
Re: (Score:3)
"If you're from one of the countries that uses the L/100km measure (Germany, Italy, Australia, etc.), then this prototype uses about 0.90 L/100km."
We use that conversion here (New Zealand) and it makes a whole lot more sense since I can see precisely how much less fuel this will use compared with my current car which gets around 9L/100Km. Basically, this goes 10x further per gallon than a typical family wagon. Impressive. More so because it is dragging a car around and my 650cc motorcycle only gets 4L/10
Re: (Score:3)
But when you say "goes 10x further per [unit fuel]" you're talking about it the other way! I.e. this one gets 110 km/L, 10 times more km per liter than your car that gets around 11 km/L.
If instead you're comparing 9 L/100km to 0.9 L/100km, that's not talking about how much distance you get per liter, but about how many liters you use per distance, i.e. the rate of fuel consumption. Of course, they're equivalent ratios; it's just a reciprocal.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
We use that conversion here (New Zealand) and it makes a whole lot more sense since I can see precisely how much less fuel this will use compared with my current car which gets around 9L/100Km. Basically, this goes 10x further per gallon than a typical family wagon.
So... it makes more sense to use L/100k, and then you go and talk about distance per gallon? Please hand in your kiwi card on your way out.
Re: (Score:2)
Trying to relate all of this with mpg or even lpk is much harder.
Unless it is what you're used to, and then it isn't harder. Knowing what a mile is and what a US gallon is probably makes MPG easier for me. Of course I know how far a kilometer is and how much a liter is, but since I use neither when driving, those numbers are completely meaningless to me when I want to figure out how far my car goes on a given amount of fuel.
Most of the world uses Kilometres and Litres so you're really the odd one out here. Also most places use Litres per 100 KM as to get an aggregate measure of fuel use. It's also a hell of a lot more computationally convenient than MPG, I.E. I drive 350 KM per week and use 9.4L per 100 KM. So I can calculate my weekly fuel use as 32.9L per week quickly and easily.
Re:And what's that in metric? (Score:5, Informative)
Understanding this makes clear how much it is costing us to make ever smaller incremental changes in improvements in gas usage by vehicles. Paying attention to that will allow us to more readily recognize when further improvements in fuel efficiency are not worth the cost. It is called the law of diminishing returns, a law to which we as a society pay too little attention.
Re: (Score:3)
It doesn't just appear that way, it's true. A doubling in mpg results in a halving of gal/100mi. You picked the wrong numbers to illustrate the difference between the metrics. Should use something like 10 mpg vs 15 mpg (10 to 6.66, 3.33 gallons savings) and then 30 mpg vs 35 mpg (3.33 to 2.86, 0.47 gallons savings).
Re: (Score:2)
Which of the two widely used metric standards do you want? ;-)
If you're from one of the countries that uses the km/L measure (Netherlands, Denmark, Japan, Korea, etc.), then this Volkswagen prototype gets about 110 km/L.
If you're from one of the countries that uses the L/100km measure (Germany, Italy, Australia, etc.), then this prototype uses about 0.90 L/100km.
I think these ought to be further simplified:
The first case is 110/mm^2.
The second is .009 mm^2.
I guess that the second version makes more sense: It would the cross section of the strand of gasoline the car would use if the fuel were stretched into a filament as long as the whole trip.
Re: (Score:2)
Because the Germans at VW and the American regulators are all a bunch of ***** *****.
Actually, you're at great personal risk in one of these on roads populated with mobile-phone-yakking motorists in pickup trucks and SUVs (not that even a smart couldn't flatten you.) Use of a mobile phone while driving should be treated with the same severity as drunk driving.
Re:Of course it won't hit the US (Score:5, Insightful)
Basically. The vehicle's so lightly built that a fricking DODGE OMNI will tear through you like you were toilet paper.
Over in Germany, if someone spatters themselves on (or by the side of) the road, it's the driver's fault for not knowing their car.
Here in the US, it's the manufacturer's fault for not making the car crash-survivable.
Re: (Score:3)
Basically. The vehicle's so lightly built that a fricking DODGE OMNI will tear through you like you were toilet paper.
Over in Germany, if someone spatters themselves on (or by the side of) the road, it's the driver's fault for not knowing their car.
Here in the US, it's the manufacturer's fault for not making the car crash-survivable.
Never mind the willingness of people in Pickup Trucks to drive 70, 80 or 90 MPH in them. Remember when a Pickup was a farm or construction vehicle and could scarcely get over 55?
Re: (Score:2)
Remember when a Pickup was a farm or construction vehicle and could scarcely get over 55?
No
Re: (Score:2)
Here in the US, it's the manufacturer's fault for not making the car crash-survivable.
But what about all those idiots making claims that "Loud pipes saves lives"? You know, those same guys that don't wear helmets?
They chose to ride an inherently dangerous machine. So dangerous, in fact, that they will make claims that the only thing saving them from an untimely end are exhaust pipes so loud they will blow out the eardrum of an adjacent motorist. Helmets? Nah! It's our freedom to ride without them! Safety? Nah! That's your fucking problem if my bike gives you permanent hearing damage.
Re: (Score:2)
I live in California, which is a Helmet state, but incredibly it allows for Lane Splitting, which really was about noodling between stationary vehicles, not racing between moving traffic.
When I worked in the Bay area there wasn't a day that went by where traffic reports didn't tell of at least one motorcycle down somewhere in the area.
I enjoyed riding on back roads in Michigan, but hated riding in California so sold my motorbike.
Re: (Score:2)
Here in the US, it's the manufacturer's fault for not making the car crash-survivable.
But what about all those idiots making claims that "Loud pipes saves lives"? You know, those same guys that don't wear helmets?
They chose to ride an inherently dangerous machine. So dangerous, in fact, that they will make claims that the only thing saving them from an untimely end are exhaust pipes so loud they will blow out the eardrum of an adjacent motorist. Helmets? Nah! It's our freedom to ride without them! Safety? Nah! That's your fucking problem if my bike gives you permanent hearing damage.
No matter how loud or how often somebody makes a claim doesn't make it true. Take loud pipes on a motor cycle, since the most come car/motor cycle accident is where a car pulls out into traffic because they didn't see the motorcycle, loud pipes don't make a difference because the car pulling out is in front of them. But if motorcyclist want to argue that loud pipes make them easier to be noticed, well, so would blaze orange helmets and vests like deer hunters wear.
Re: (Score:3)
Basically. The vehicle's so lightly built that a fricking DODGE OMNI will tear through you like you were toilet paper.
Over in Germany, if someone spatters themselves on (or by the side of) the road, it's the driver's fault for not knowing their car.
Here in the US, it's the manufacturer's fault for not making the car crash-survivable.
Actually, in most of Europe, vehicle safety is concerned with protecting who you hit, particularly pedestrians versus you the driver or the occupants of the vehicle. That doesn't mean that automakers don't exceed those standards, but that is a priority. VW even admited that their test fleet of these vehicles had to get a special waiver because it didn't have a passenger side air bag.
That said, VW also said not to expect this vehicle in the US as it would not meet US safety standards and would have to be tot
Re: (Score:3)
A F1 car is a single-seater speed machine with a cockpit engineered to be crash survivable. Not just with layers of carbon fiber honeycomb. But with exceptionally strong bonding agents between the layers, holding them rigid.
Somehow I doubt this little street car is engineered to the same specs.
Re:Proper units (Score:5, Funny)
A mile is 8 furlongs and a gallon is 8 pints. So this car can do 262 furlongs per pint. That's quite an achievement considering it's mass is 125 stones.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
But the Stone is a fundamental unit of Weight, not Mass. Divide the result by 0.04848 furlongs/s^2 to get a meaningful result.
Re: (Score:3)
A mile is 8 furlongs and a gallon is 8 pints. So this car can do 262 furlongs per pint. That's quite an achievement considering it's mass is 125 stones.
But don't exclude the performance figures! It will do 266,112 furlongs per fortnight. Not too shabby for what it is.
Re: (Score:2)
What's a mile ? A gallon ? A pound ? Do they use those units in Germany ? This summary only makes sense in Myanmar, Liberia and the US. Was it that hard to convert into proper unit, at least as a complement, as most of us will have to do now ? If you can't bother to adapt to your readership, your readership won't bother adapt to you.
Most of the rest of the world is pretty good at adapting US speak to their usage such as miles and gallons to metric. The problem is when it has to go the other way around. Don't fault our /. overlords because they had to dumb down the summary so those in the US could understand it.
Re: (Score:2)
The Prius is built to MUCH higher crash safety standards than the Pinto or the Nova.
It is also expected to perform better, be much quieter, and last far longer than that old junk. The Pinto and Nova were econoboxes built as cheaply as possible.
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/1977/09/pinto-madness [motherjones.com]
The Prius is also carrying a hefty battery pack.
Re: (Score:2)
The Prius is built to MUCH higher crash safety standards than the Pinto or the Nova.
It is also expected to perform better, be much quieter, and last far longer than that old junk. The Pinto and Nova were econoboxes built as cheaply as possible.
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/1977/09/pinto-madness [motherjones.com]
The Prius is also carrying a hefty battery pack.
The Pinto today's dollars also cost 1/3 the price of a Prius. Any of them (Prius, Pinto, Nova) hitting an SUV at freeway speeds won't make much different for the occupants. The Pinto, btw, was Ford's response to the VW Beetle. The Nova, on the other hand was actually a family sedan. Might you mean the Vega?
Re: (Score:2)
My 2000 Honda insight has a curb weight of 1,880 lbs, While I can't touch 262mpg I still get about 69 mpg, and that's in a car with most modern safety features, over a decade old, and at a not unreasonable price....
Adapt it for motorcycle wheels and you'll get better mileage.
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, there have been several versions of the 1 liter concept car [wikipedia.org] rolled out since the idea was originally announced by VW in 2002. This latest one was released in 2011 and is the first one that will be put into production. The production model is slightly different from the 2011 concept car, and 250 examples of it will be built.