Auto weight issues - if it takes as much energy to make an auto as it uses in it's lifetime, then weight really does impact the environment heavily. See:Vehicle Technologies Program: Fact #475: June 25, 2007<BR>Light Vehicle Weight on the Rise

Platform sharing is a good way for car companies to keep costs down, not just by the manufactures, but by 2nd hand parts, if you have a lot more cars using the same platform, using the same basic parts it's cheaper because you have a lot of supply

Yes, I agree David - that makes good economic sense; but then who is willing to offer a completely new platform, when it's time for such a transition? Platform sharing for autos has been around since (probably) 1898, but in those days, the auto was transforming rapidly on a yearly basis.

What I am proposing is a departure from the normal designs, aside from instrumentation and tires. It's time for a change into something more 21st century. Light, flexible, impact cushioning as nature is the guide & master designer, electric, with a high-efficiency gen set, solar charging, using aerodynamics as an aid in vehicle traction and control, as well as to assist braking; maximizing earth-friendly materials, and minimizing rare, risk-causing materials. revolutionary. Some vehicles have part of this equation solved, but none incorporate them all..

Henry Ford had the right idea with his autos - light, flexible, strong, with a light, powerful power-plant. Use a planetary transmission and bands to change gears, rather than the standard "crunch" transmission. that was in 1909 - today's auto needs to be just as revolutionary and visionary in it's design. Just watching the gulls today, I am always in awe of nature's finely honed designs - birds that can go up and down vertically in the slightest breeze as though they were riding an invisible elevator, and lands exactly where they took off from, making flight look like child's play. Methinks we have barely scratched the surface of design...

I can imagine Chuck driving a car like this:

Lol green cars.

General ramblings of a fool:

I'm glad to see that the price difference between petrol and diesel has decreased from 7/8pence per litre to less than 2p per litre, sometimes even the same price and sometimes diesel is cheaper :D. Also it looks like the prices might be coming down again :D

I can imagine Chuck driving a car like this:

 

That is an awesome car. It's the atom, right?

That is an awesome car. It's the atom, right?

 

Yep

:laugh3: (perhaps you're right!:)) Although, I like the moss-covered version offered up by Nick too..

Wisconsin is a cool climate, so there's got to be a top to put on it... Nice to see the modern equivalent of the cycle-car - Aptera was all I knew of before, and this Atom adds another dimension.

More innovative and creative than anything yet in existence. A radical departure from the norm - I'm working on the design. Surrounded by a spring cage similar to a rib-cage, covered with a semi-flexible skin, complete with solar panels on all upper surfaces. Retractable anti-skid system (similar to snow-mobile belt & rollers), able to handle black ice and all slippery conditions, and the body built from bio-composites. Collision capabilities superb, by bio-mimicry; utilizing air-cushioning fabrics to absorb energy, and specially designed shock-absorbers built in (collision absorbers). Interior of bio-composites and natural materials. Very high torque e-motor drive, with lithium batteries (the new safe ones), solar recharge, plug-in, but with a full-expansion power stroke engine for the long haul; Diesel gen-set, but designed primarily for bio-diesel or strait vegetable oil. Engine with one or two cylinders, with excellent balancing, so no more motor vibrations. (No need for multi-cylinder design, as gen-set levels the power pulses, and balancing eliminates the shaking.) ++With the fold-out solar panels, given the parking-lot recharge on an average day, the vehicle should rarely need to start the engine on short commutes, thus (as with some of the light hybrids) the mileage can be very good - on the order of 200+ mpg. Optional pedal cranks for energy and exercise while driving. Range can be extended with fast recharge.. Super-capacitors for quick power boosting. Control surfaces for added traction and enhanced steering at highway speeds, plus air-brakes. Dual-type tires, of softer material, to grip the road better and shed water more efficiently, making up for the light vehicle weight in the traction department. Weight a fraction of current light-vehicle weight. 3500 lb (~1590 KG) reduced to 1500 lb (~700KG). Infra-red sensors for spotting deer/reindeer/elk/moose/cows/sheep/kangaroos far ahead, and alerting the driver of the danger. Headlights of high-intensity LED's, using a focusable light-bar across the front. Tail-lamps and side-lanps highly vibile bright red LED, with LED's in the tail fins.

Just a wish-list, but hey, we can dream!!

Aptera in the blogosphere: Jay Leno takes the Aptera 2e out onto the highway (w/Video) | Electric Vehicle News

Leno test-drives the Aptera!

Also, Bucky Fuller's Dymaxion redux - retooling the Dymaxion car for the modern world:BuckyWorks: Buckminster Fuller's ... - Google Books

chuck! ♥ :nice:

:rolleyes::laugh3:Hiya Isabel!:)

I'm still doodling around with ideas - please feel free to help me!

 

Thinking about engine vibrations - because smooth power is cool power..:cool:

Since the car of the future will have a need for extended range, and batteries alone may not fill the bill for a while, engines may be here to stay. And since the future hybrids will be (and some are already) basically generator sets - smaller, compact engines coupled to generators & batteries & motors - it's good to get engines that run smooth at higher RPM's for several reasons:

 

1. Horsepower output increases at higher engine RPM, and balancing is critical to keep the engine together (not shaking apart). Wear issues as well..

2. Better balancing means less parts, and less to go wrong - less vibrations, less electrical connections coming loose, lighter crankshafts, and a smoother acceleration.

 

The boxer engine (flat engine) is one of the best inherently balanced engines - Carl Benz liked it, and it's an excellent place to start:

Flat engine - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The advantages are numerous, and even the slight side-to-side vibration caused by offset pistons can be eliminated by fitting one connecting rod end over the other on the crank, in a boot and stirrup manner ("split" the ends of one of the connecting rods in two, have the other connecting rod fit down the middle of the split to the crank, and thus both pistons can be placed exactly opposite one-another). Rotational vibrations are not much of an issue, as they generally only affect the smoothness of the power output - a problem in a system with a drive train directly connected to the engine, but with a generator, less of an issue.

The continuous power output means less need for large engines, and a split-cycle design (making for a doubled two-cylinder boxer layout, or a layered boxer) would greatly improve engine efficiency, reduce exhaust component heating, and make for a much quieter engine.

Acceleration issues - the whole reason for the big engine: The answer is pretty simple - lighter, safer autos, and supercapacitors w/ torquey electric motors for the up-to-speed effect. Since mass is hard to accelerate, and since we're smarter today, autos should be getting lighter - much, much lighter. Safety issues are a matter of design, as light and safe is just a matter of observing and mimicking nature's ways.

Add the fold-out solar panel, and most of the energy needs are met - only the long haul becomes an issue.. so, one can conceive of a family-sized auto, with plenty of room for comfort and visibility, and a low drag coefficient; light, safe, fast, manuverable with more traction and safety than the current crop of autos.

In fact, more mauverable - because we can add aircraft control surfaces, special tires, a low center of gravity (batteries and the flat boxer engine - genset), and a retractable high-friction traction belt for use on ice, snow, or wet pavement. Keeping in mind a fair number of traffic fatalities are the result of the high center of gravity of the SUV's on the road, this should come as welcome news to safety-conscious persons, and anyone who has felt the rush of blood to their stomachs when hitting a patch iof ice in winter!

More Babblings..::P

The Lambert car (One U.S. competitor to Rolls Royce back in the early 1900's) used a friction disc drive - an infinitely variable transmission (basically a small driven traction wheel pressed against a friction disc). Perhaps, if the energy losses are not too great, it may be advantageous to place a friction disc at each wheel, plus motor, shaft, and drive wheel, to allow for the speed changes and torque uniformity currently provided by the differential and transmission. Maybe a horse apiece, but just a thought to consider - vs. band transmissions or sliding gear ones. Simpler, and negates the issue of requiring a variable torque/speed electric motor, which is apparently a hold-up for an all-electric direct drive system..

 

 

 

I've thought about it for a while, and I'm thinking now a bit differently on the vehicle profile matter. Tall is alright, as is long and wide, provided we minimize the drag coefficient. For many car buyers, sitting up higher is pleasing and comfortable, and roominess is nice for hauling families and stuff - I have to face this reality, to get the "hot pizza, cold beer" that we want, and keep the planet cool as well!:cool:

Fuller's Dymaxion was, in many ways, the first fuel-efficient SUV - at 30 miles per gallon U.S. in 1931, it would probably get in the upper 40's for fuel efficiency today with our modern engines and drive trains. Drag coefficient of ~.15, which is pretty impressive as well. Chrysler offered the "Airflow", which used similar streamlining in it's day, and Mercedes offers the bionic car now based on the box fish!

Looking at the larger picture, if the engine wastes 68% and idling 17% of the energy contained in each gallon of fuel burned, there's the place to fix first. Vehicle drag in air amounts to 4%, brakes amount to ~5%, air conditioning 2-3%, etc. So, delivering a better drive system is #1, and could save 1/2 to 3/4 of the total energy requirements off the bat, since 85% goes into heat, not movement. Having a light vehicle saves quite a bit of fuel, since less energy in needed to accelerate, and less is lost in deceleration; Fuller's car weighed in around 1800 lbs. - fully half of what a "small" car weighs typically in the U.S. Hidden in this equation is the energy required to make a vehicle - as much as the car consumes in it's lifetime in fuel; thus, half the mass is about half the "hidden" energy consumption. And if Fuller's car were covered in solar cells, it might again double it's mileage or better, if parked in a wide open lot. Solar doesn't deliver much instantaneous power - maybe you'd get 1/2 horsepower in full sun; but let the auto sit in a parking lot for 9 hours, and there's quite a bit of stored energy to be released for the 1/2 hour commute home! (for example, it only takes around 10 horsepower to keep a big old Caddy crusin' down the interstate; a modern equivalent of the Dymaxion might only need 3 of those horses, which the solar power and batteries could manage quite well for 30 minutes.)

And even if we choose to not change body styles all that much, as long as the vehicles were lighter, safer, and built along these lines, they would take us out of the current challenges we face, and get us the pizza and beverage, without the heavy toll on the environment!:)

I'm not happy unless I can wear my top-hat in the car :P

:toff:Absolutely David, I agree! Top hats are back in style, and we certainly wouldn't want to take off one's hat just getting into the family limousine! So it is with auto purchases here in the US - ladies like their plumage, and gents must be properly attired.:smug::P And so it was with Lamberts and Rolls in 1909..

What I see is simply the unerring repeat of what we do best: Easter Island had their stone heads, and we have our motor heads.:laugh3: But the problem is the cost of consistency, measured in failed civilizations and ecological ruin...

Since stone heads remain popular even today, I'm just suggesting we make them lighter, more flexible, and less somber.:waffle: Use some pumice, a little natural resin for binder, and maybe put a cheerful grin on each one! Add some cherubs around the edges, a few heart-tipped arrows, and maybe some doves here and there to round them out a bit..

Since a pattern, once established, remains so for as long as the civilization can keep it going, there remains perhaps only one option: make vehicles that appear very much like those we currently use, but are better, lighter, safer, ecologically in-sync, equally functional, and a better value. What I keep hearing is that when the fuel prices rose, people bought the efficient autos, and now that prices have dropped, they're back to the big pickups and SUV's. Which need not be so bad, if the larger vehicles are revamped to ultra-modern efficiency standards, and the cars made super-efficient & less expensive to give the buyer more incentive to choose light cars vs. trucks.

The Aptera might be one option, since the price range could be $29,000 to $40,000; better if it were in the $10,000-20,000 range. Tesla too - offering a $100,000 electric is great for the jet-set, and spurs innovation in technology and refined engineering, but doesn't meet the needs of the average person. I suppose in California that's a bargain when houses cost $300,000 for a starter cottage, but here, that's a wee bit steep!

So, onward with the future:[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TSh2XeLY7YE]YouTube - Rush - Closer To The Heart[/ame]

What on earth does this all have to do with Coldplay, you might be asking yourself. Well, it's all connected - the dynamics of our planet's climate, the greenhouse gases, forests, and auto's. I am seeking - seeking answers, and enlightenment, just as we all are. Coldplay's support of Oxfam & Sustainable Forests is a strong connection.

 

But to keep the fun in driving, and change directions on energy consumption in general is my goal - we can do both, I am convinced, if we make the smart choices. Small is beautiful, but big can be fun - if done properly. Might take some shape changes though, to complete the efficiency measures.

For instance: If I were to plant soybeans for bio-diesel on the farm, doing the calculations for 80 acres, @ 50 bushel per acre, when pressed, it would yield around 5700 gallons US. Enough to run 76 autos each year if we get 200 mpg. 200 mpg is possible if the auto is a true hybrid, with solar fold-out panels on the upper surfaces, and that's where we need to be headed to make it realistic to do what we'd like to do - cruise!

Anyhow, give me some feedback.:)

wouldn't solar panals on the roof mess up the handling by having weight high?

Nah, solar panels can be feather light - the stationary rooftop ones use sturdy aluminum and steel frames, but really the wafers are super thin, and thin film amorphous can be flexible and very light. Solar aircraft have been flying for quite some time, and that stuff's gotta be light for that. I was thinking about the issue of flexibility today - for example, the Prius uses an amorphous panel, because it flexes to the shape of the car's top, but the panel efficiency is probably roughly half that of single crystal or poly-crystalline panels, so how to get the shape rounded, the efficiency maxed out, and use rigid cells..:thinking:...

I thought about making a plastic dome that conforms to the auto shape desired (let's just say, for example, acrylic plastic..), and the cells can be oriented beneath it on a cushioning bed, to reduce vibrational damage to the solider joints, wires, etc. Then an all-day charge would really get you places! 200 Watts, for 10 hours, 2kwh of juice - and and a light vehicle would make a big difference... I always thought that making something like a beetle shell, with wings beneath would be neat - have the shell hinge up, and the solar panel "wings" fold out in the sun, to catch more rays - perhaps 400 or even 800 watts per hour could be harvested that way, and then it would all fold back up neatly under the shell halves, when the vehicle was ready to roll. Wind issues, and poking other vehicles might present challenges, but it's an idea!

The answer is simple - and not a giant leap, really. Redesigning the auto, for something more of the sports-car shape and responsiveness, it would take panels on the upper surfaces, and a second panel of equal size roughly to propel it to and from work (the daily commute here being 15 miles, one-way). On a sunny day..:thinking: What to do in winter - that is the question..

4X the panels for winter, and run with a bio-diesel genset in the vehicle. In fact, the genset could charge the batteries while the cars in the open-air lot or while parked in the driveway, no operator need be around it! Or perhaps hydrogen storage in zeolites in summer, stocked up for winter use.. Farming everything for fuel just won't cut it, so I'm looking always for a solution. Rel. to Fossils: With all the talk about CO2 storage below ground, I have to wonder if that's just not another problem in the making, really. Will it stay put, and what if an earthquake cracks the underground rock formation? Why do all that, when conservation will solve 90% of the problem off the bat, and the rest can be covered by renewables?

But the solar-car leaves questions still. What % of autos are parked in indoor lots/car ramps? How many would be willing to leave the car outside the garage to get it's sun exposure? Perhaps most of us would opt for grid-intertie systems, with most of the power made by the power company, and then they could bid on parking lot canopy panels - good to keep it cooler & more shaded in summer, and get the charge we all need.

Ideas welcome; pleace chime in!

Chuck you're a good man.

Thanks Nick! I'm just trying to fit the pieces together, that's all. And the critical thoughts help a great deal, to consider whether our imaginations are creating something that will work or will not work in the real world.

So with the better engine, 40 mpg becomes 80 mpg; 80 mpg becomes 160 mpg when weight issues, drag, and cooling are better addressed. If half the power were to be from solar - recharged lithium batteries, then 160 mpg becomes effectively 320 mpg. Or perhaps even more, if the solar canopy parking lots are used. Perhaps the engine may only be needed in winter, at night, or in bad weather, or on trips longer than 120 miles. Mileage could be considered to be in the 500 mpg range - liquid fuel consumed little more than the oil changes and lubricants in vehicles mechanical components. (I try and console the Houstonites, that their fair city's economy could be geared to make solar cells, panels, wind turbines, lithium batteries, etc. with the oil & gas energy today, thus keeping them economically strong, and job creation strong as well into the far future).

But considering the alternatives - all electric is looking promising as well. Somewhere I heard a report of an electric car that could be recharged in as little as 5 minutes. Hmm.. Well, when one goes to fill up currently, it takes perhaps 2&1/2 minutes at the pump, so this isn't too bad! All-electric, if it were locally produced, would be of reasonable efficiency, from renewable sources. But is there enough Lithium on the planet to replace the global auto fleet with batteries for the millions of vehicles? Something to research.. It's plentiful in the deposits - salt lakes and salt flats - but is there enough... We could perhaps mine the island of New Caledonia, and then replace the subsoil and missing mass with ordinary stone and earth, with a surface of the nickel-rich soil needed for the unique plant species there.. Nickel-Iron batteries, or Nickel-metal-hydride batteries may be needed - perhaps both are possible - to save the ecological world, and obtain the mineral resources we need to maintain a high standard of living. Unless some new technology comes along..

Still, getting the fuel economy up in the 200 to 300 mpg range would make switching to electric, bio-diesel, alcohol, etc. all the more practical - 90% of the answer is in efficiency.

Performance issues - so, accelerating a 3,500 pound vehicle is what's keeping the marriage of efficiency and sport from happening. I was just pondering that - go out and floor your car once. You can just feel the incredible torque and power that engine has to deliver to get that big iron and glass and plastic boat to accelerate. And braking all the same. A ton and a half, being rapidly slowed by these little metal discs and pads - little wonder they glow cherry red on the stock car circuits! Now imagine a vehicle that weighs just 1000 pounds. You could just touch the accelerator pedal, and you'd be flying!

Safety, safety, safety - the old saw of the auto industry (even though consumer demand, not auto makers, made it happen). The old equation of weight=safety is not necessarily true. In vehicles with small generator sets, and batteries in the floors and elsewhere, the front end can then be devoted to crumple zones. Better still to make the car or truck so impact energy is absorbed as a bird's feathers and body do - hence the falcon catching it's prey at a smashing 200 MPH dive has no troubles. So, light is the way to go! And safety, as in vehicle stability? Well, putting the batteries at the bottom means the center of gravity is low, low, low! Better around curves, better in accidents that would otherwise cause a roll-over. Traction - a big issue. Light vehicles have difficulty here, but then making softer tires, special tread designs, and perhaps even a type of emergency skid plate would solve this one. Less mass means less need for traction to stop a vehicle as well.

Size issues - there's a tough problem. Cross-sectional area is one part of the equation. Drag coefficient is the other. Some auto makers have already shown it's possible to do it - but the drag coefficients have got to be minimized for the SUV vehicles to remain tall and wide. (Or to be driven slower - fat chance of that ever happening!). Challenges still abound, but we've got the answers. Now getting them to be applied in the marketplace is the question.

 

Ah, nothing like a "pet thread"!:laugh3: Good Pick Nick;).

And more of my babble..:P

So, if a vehicle were to be made 2/3 lighter, then the old estimate of "an auto consumes as much energy to make as it uses in fuel in its lifetime" goes down considerably as well. 1/3 the mass, ~1000 pounds, would cut overall energy consumption as dramatically.

The Dymaxion car chimed in at something like 1800 pounds - but it was big. And it used a standard Ford drivetrain, so only so much weight could be reduced.

I'm thinking aluminum-magnesium alloys, or aluminum-silicon alloys, along with composites (bio-composites, glass fibers). We could go whole hog, and try for an all-carbon-composite vehicle, but that might break the bank in the expense department. Leave that to the Lamberts, Rolls, Duesenbergs, Bugatti's, etc. until they get the materials and prices down, and the production up. What did GM do with the Ultralight? Just looking at HP to cruise at 50 MPH, a midsized pickup or SUV takes 42 HP, a Toyota Prius takes 20 HP, a Mazda Miata takes 13 HP, and GM ultralight takes 11HP. I could add the rest if I can get data on them.. But the point is there, and what goes for mass as well - more is lost in acceleration and braking than in rolling & air resistance, so the lighter vehicles make a really big difference- plus they're fleet-footed. Imagine a 180 pound runner, vs. a 360 pound runner. Sure, the 360 pound runner is perfect for a defensive line, but the 180 pound runner goes faster than greased lightning. Quick off the block, can turn on a dime, and maneuver like a barn swallow. Vehicles are no different: power-to-weight ratio is tops in sport vehicles.

Post your connections to Coldplay and Green Cars Here!