X Prize For a 100-MPG Car

Heinen writes in about the X Prize Foundation, which spurred innovation by offering US $10 million for the first privately built spacecraft. The Foundation now plans to offer millions for the first practical car that increases mileage five-fold. The specs for the competition are out in draft form amd call for cars in two categories that are capable of 100 MPG in tests to be run in 2009. The categories are: 4-passenger/4-wheel; and 2-passenger/unspecified wheels. The cars must be manufacturable, not "science projects. The prize is expected to top $10 million. The X Prize Foundation says that so far it has received more than 1,000 inquiries from possible competitors.

Key concepts

[Chairboy (88841)]

It's possible to make cars that are 'manufacturable' that meet this, the real problem will be making cars that are manufacturable... AND sellable.

Is there a market for super efficient cars that look like tampons with wheels?

Re:Key concepts

[clem (5683)]

Is there a market for super efficient cars that look like tampons with wheels?

I suppose if you drove through a lot of tunnels it might be of interest.

Re:

[Opportunist (166417)]

Only to Mr. Freud.

Re:Key concepts

[rs79 (71822)]

"Most "international" words are quite easy to translate, just replace every c in English with a k for German."

Fukk you?

Re:Key concepts

[TFloore (27278)]

Most "international" words are quite easy to translate, just replace every c in English with a k for German.

I assume you have heard this joke before, but just in case you haven't, I'm going to paste it in here. I think I first saw it almost 15 years ago, and I doubt it was new then...

This particular version came from http://www.twcenter.net/forums/archive/index.php/t -25152.html [twcenter.net] and was found with a simple Google search. Google sometimes scares me.

===

Five year phase-in plan for "EuroEnglish"

The European Commission have just announced an agreement whereby
English will be the official language of the EU, rather than German, which
was the other possibility. As part of the negotiations, Her Majesty's
government conceded that English spelling had some room for improvement and
has accepted a five year phase in plan that would be known as "EuroEnglish".

In the first year, "s" will replace the soft "c". Sertainly, this will
make the sivil servants jump for joy. The hard "c" will be dropped in favour
of the "k". This should klear up konfusion and keyboards kan have 1 less
letter.

There will be growing publik enthusiasm in the sekond year, when the
troublesome "ph" will be replaced with the "f". This will make words like
"fotograf" 20% shorter.

In the third year, publik akseptanse of the new spelling kan be
expekted to reach the stage where more komplikated changes are possible.
Governments will enkorage the removal of double letters, which have always
ben a deterent to akurate speling. Also, al wil agre that the horible mes of
the silent "e"s in the language is disgraseful, and they should go away.

By the 4th year, peopl wil be reseptiv to steps such as replasing "th"
with "z" and "w" with "v".

During ze fifz year, ze unesesary "o" kan be dropd from vords
kontaining "ou" and similar changes vud of kors be aplid to ozer
kombinations of leters. After zis fifz year, ve vil hav a realy sensibl
riten styl. Zer vil be no mor trubls or difikultis and evrivun vil find it
ezi to understand each ozer

ZE DREAM VIL FINALI KUM TRU!

all credit to... (http://egea.geog.uu.nl/viewthread.php?tid=1448)

Changing percpetion

[EmbeddedJanitor (597831)]

There are a few things that probably need to change to make this work. First off, there's a macho intertwining of cars with manhood, power etc. Many cars can easily beat a Prius hybrid on fuel economy, but not high performance cars.

To get good fuel economy probably needs a mindshift away from SUVs and Hummers towards smaller 1300cc or smaller cars.

The "look" of cars is pretty much fashion driven, dictated by the car manufacturers to promote consumption. This year it's round headlights, next year square; boxy Hummer look one year, curved Porche look the next; big grill, then small.

Car manufacturers keep advertising more power, size etc (10% more power than last year's model, 5% more space...). How is it that they never advertise reduced consumption (well they might, but only if it does not compromise power, size etc)..

People really need to see cars as transport. Perhaps then they will start to think in terms of efficiency etc.

Re:Changing percpetion

[Kadin2048 (468275)]

People really need to see cars as transport. Perhaps then they will start to think in terms of efficiency etc.

People really need to start seeing clothes as something to prevent their reproductive apparatus from freezing. Perhaps then they will start to think in terms of the material and energy required.

In other words: good freaking luck. Cars have been more than transportation for as long as there have been cars. Before there were cars, people had carriages and teams of horses, the perceived quality of which was a sign of wealth, status, and taste. It's been like this probably since the dawn of humanity, with various things.

People will accept some sort of standardized, generic "people transporter" in lieu of a car, right after they all go to wearing standardized jumpsuits with built-in underwear, because hey, its only real function is to keep you warm, right? Who cares what it looks like. Ain't gonna happen.

Re:Changing percpetion

[Kadin2048 (468275)]

Oddly enough, however, one of the reasons that many people use public transportation is because of the traffic. (This is definitely true where I am, outside DC, and I suspect it's true elsewhere.) Other people do it because parking a car in a city is prohibitively expensive...because of the high demand for what spaces are available.

What does this show? It shows that given the choice, people would probably take cars, but because more people want to do that than there is space on the road or parking spaces available, those without large amounts of surplus time and money are pushed onto mass transit.

Sure, there are individual exceptions to this. I'm sure there are a few people riding Metro in the morning who would still ride it, even if I-66 wasn't HOV-only and the Beltway wasn't a veritable parking lot. But they're in the minority; given the option of personal vehicles or mass transit, people overwhelmingly choose personal vehicles -- as evidenced by the utter failure of public transportation to flourish in the U.S. outside zones where driving a car is particularly obnoxious or expensive.

But to get back on point, this is all a bit academic: people who don't own or use cars, for whatever reason, obviously don't participate in the cars-as-expressions-of-something-besides-a-desire- for-transportation game. However, as evidenced by the fact that they aren't wearing identical jumpsuits and eating mush, I don't think there's anything fundamentally different about them, and if they did own cars, they would probably be just as desirous of one that externalized the image that they're trying to present to the world -- in the same way that the clothes/briefcase/watch/cellphone/etc. that they wear on the Metro does.

Re:Changing percpetion

[Virtual_Raider (52165)]

I think both Parent and GP have valid points that do not necessarily negate each other. I happen to fall in both categories, I used to own a Peugeot 206 SX which I loved and I often modified adding little tune ups like changing the air intake and filters to a more elevated position, whatever. I used to live in a city where I had to drive 30 to 40 minutes from home to work, and if I happened to hit a bottleneck the time would often go to almost an hour and a half. But I had a really nice sound system and AC and I didn't mind.

Now I live in a different city that has an integral and working public transportation system that takes me virtually anywhere I want to go, and I've found that I don't really need to have a car, don't even want one very much. So I'm putting off buying one until I've saved enough to get one of those nifty CC models, but even if I had it I'm sure I'd be taking the train/bus to work just as I do now because I can read a book or get up to speed on the latest manuals during the trip. And many of my co workers do just that. Yes, there is a point to the anecdote and its that I too used to believe all that stuff about a car being an extension of one's personality etc. And I was able to change my mind when presented with a viable alternative. Owning a car is convenient and if I did I'd like it to be the car that I want, but its not impossible to get by without one. I guess its another of those pesky chicken and egg problems, people won't build the infrastructure if they don't see the need, and they won't see it if they can't use the infrastructure and compare. But it is indeed possible.[/RAMBLE]

Re:Changing percpetion

[aztracker1 (702135)]

I think a larger issue is not everyone likes to live in a city large enough to justify public transport as a need. I lived in the Phoenix area most of my life, and to this day, public transport (busses) suck. The reasons why are many, including that they are stuck with the overall traffic patterns. Phoenix, LA and other cities in the southwest aren't densly packed enough for subway systems to work very well. From one end of a Phoenix suburb (say El Mirage) to the other side (say Apache Junction) is well over 50 miles in distance for travel... Take into account the sheer square miles to cover in spread out communities, and the cost of a subway, or other mass transit system (light rail) per citizen become prohibitively expensive.

Part of getting a working mass transit system requires a relatively dense population. I personally don't like living in a densely populated area... In fact I moved to a more rural area simply because I didn't like how crowded even Phoenix was starting to get. I still have to go into Phoenix about once every other week. I am able to work from home, and don't have to drive much as it is. However what I have said still holds true. Most people don't live in areas where public transport *CAN* work without being prohibitively expensive. In the Phoenix area, I have used buses before, and it worked okay, though it takes about an hour to get from an outer suburb into the central Phoenix area. That isn't so bad, as the spacing of buses are about an hour apart, if you just missed a bus, that's two hours of commute time each way, for what would otherwise be a 20-30 minute drive... Tax breaks for businesses with more than 75% of their employees on a 4x10, or 3x12 work week would probably do a lot more though.

Re:Changing percpetion

[Virtual_Raider (52165)]

I beg to differ. I live in Australia, you would hardly call that a densely populated area, and while the natives complain somewhat about their transport system when compared to Europe, it is awesome. And they do have train stations and light train that does connect very remote cities because like they say here, its a bloody long way. To absolutely anywhere. I agree that not everybody wants to live in a big city, that happens to be the case here. So they build excellent and comprehensive train systems to connect everything. And they have clean gas-powered buses that travel the freeways too, that's how I commute to work. I don't know where you pull that prohibitively expensive claim but if these guys can do it with their dollar being eighty cents US, I adventure the hypothesis that it can in fact be done. It is, again, a matter of perception. Aussies believe they want this, so they go ahead and build it. People from the US believe they want cars, so they build automobile-centric infrastructure.

I do not say one is better than other (although I do like Oz better in that regard), I just say that in order to do things differently you have to see things differently. One thinks one wants a muscle car that looks like so-and-so because one has been told that. No, wait, hear me out. You have been told you want that car, because the companies that produce it invest millions of dollars in advertisement. There is marketing research devoted to finding a way of presenting us a product in a way we will find attractive so we ultimately buy it. If the whole industry shifted overnight to emphasizing fuel economy and advertised that, you wouldn't change your mind overnight with them. But eventually you would.

Just think it through. Why do you like, say, a 300ZX? Let's say its because its "cool", and "powerful" and "sleek" and "modern". But how did you come to attach those characteristics to that particular model? Because the industry strives to portray it in a particular way. You will read about it in magazines that those corporations sponsor through advertising. You will see rich and beautiful people paid to drive them. And they will be young and active and will display all sorts of characteristics that an everyday person associates to success and desirability. And they will use clever sound design, clever wording, whatever. The point of this rant is to say that society influences an individual's tastes. Some more than others, and one big way the general public knows something is desirable is because they way they are told it is. If car manufacturers decide to start pushing a new paradigm, if they chose well their target audience, they will make it happen. Not because they have powerful mind-control machines but because we are social animals and very easily hearded. Or I could just be full of hot air, your take =)

Re:

[Archangel Michael (180766)]

"towards smaller 1300cc or smaller cars."

I'm 6'5" and I don't fit in your "smaller 1300cc OR SMALLER" car, unless it is a motor cycle, which isn't really car, and is impractical for a family.

Re:Changing percpetion

[spun (1352)]

First off, there's a macho intertwining of cars with manhood,

I tried to intertwine my manhood with my car once. It wasn't macho at all. I got blisters.

Re:Changing percpetion

[Broken scope (973885)]

Oh but your a selfish jerk. You obviously don care about [insert group/cause of choice here]. You disgust me because [insert preferred emotion based reasons], you need to think about someone but yourself.

Light != dangerous

[EmbeddedJanitor (597831)]

Light cars are not necessarily dangerous. They get to be dangerous if smug dickheads in Hummers think they are safe so they don't pay attention and squish smaller cars or people driving them are silly. Get the Hummers off the road.

Why do you need huge acceleration and top speed? You're using your car for transport, not racing. There's no need for a car that goes more than 70mph. There's no need for a car that burns rubber.

I use a very old technology 1300cc car (probably equivalent in power to a more modern 1000 cc engine car). It has sufficient guts for my purposes, even when carrying 4 people + a load.

Re:Light != dangerous

[Kadin2048 (468275)]

There's no need for a car that goes more than 70mph.

Regardless of what those pretty signs say on the side of the road, there are lots of places where the prevailing speeds are significantly higher than 70MPH.

And out in those big, flat states (you know, the ones that the pretentious Manhattanites like to call 'flyover states') there are lots of sections of highway where the posted limit is 75 and I suspect most traffic moves upwards of 80.

More generally, you're engaging in what I call the "burlap sack" argument. I could take the same line of thinking that you're going down, and apply it to clothing instead of cars, and come to the conclusion that everyone should stop putting on all these fancy geegaws and just dress in good old burlap sacks, because really, you're just buying a little warmth and weather-resistance. Spray some water repellent on that, and you're good to go.

Cars are as much about 'transportation' as clothes are about staying warm; sure, that's one reason why they exist, but once you've got that function checked off, that's when the real differentiation starts.

Re:Light != dangerous

[tapehands (943962)]

You'd be correct with the whole "burlap sack" argument except for one thing - it's not illegal (well..obviously within reason) to dress however you wish. If you want to wear nipple pasties, then so be it.

It is illegal to speed. That in and of itself isn't news to anyone...we've been getting speeding tickets for years.

There is something you need to consider, though. The highest speed limit I've ever heard of in the USA is 75mph. You know that car manufacturers know this. You also can safely assume that the speed limit isn't going to increase any time soon, due to a multitude of safety and environmental reasons. Why, then, do car manufacturers deem it necessary to make it so that every car they produce can AT LEAST hit 90mph, if not more?

For example...I've got what I would consider an econobox ('04 Hyundai Elantra hatchback with a manual transmission) - it's a cheap car that gets me from point A to point B with relatively good gas mileage. Why would I want to go fast in this car? How fast could I go if I did want to go fast?
The answer to the first question is because I love the feeling of going fast. It's a huge rush when I can accelerate quickly, and I can maintain a high speed.
For the second question? My little econobox can hit about 123mph.

There's no need for this to be the standard in cars distributed to the general public. If the car manufacturers want to make cars that go over 100mph, keep it to the realm of muscle cars that manage to get 15mpg. I'd much rather have an econobox that has a top speed of 80mph (just so I can accelerate around the people not actually driving the speed limit), gets 100mpg, and is relatively cheap to purchase and maintain. And if that becomes the standard from all manufacturers, as opposed to the beefy cars we have, then people will just have to deal with it, or pay the extra money for a car with some kick - which is completely fine by me.

Re:Light != dangerous

[Shihar (153932)]

The reason why cars can go faster then 65 is because people like me wouldn't buy one that can't. The simple fact is that the government fucking sucks at regulating the roads. They have not changed the speed limit in decades, yet cars today are significantly safer beasts then they were when the 65 MPH rule was put in place. No one wants to touch the speed limits. Federal government doesn't want to change the speed limits because they are incompetent. State officials don't want to change them because they fund the police force via speeding tickets. The net result is that you have a stupid government regulation that won't die.

Despite what the government says, the speed limit on Mass Pike is NOT 65 MPH unless you want to get rear-ended. It is more like 85. The speed limit on rt 88 in upstate New York is indeed 65, but only because the local cops line this flat, straight, and empty highway nabbing anyone doing more then 5 over in an effort to fund their local station. The speed limit on the Kennedy in Chicago is well, it is always like 5 MPH regardless of what the government says. I hate that god damn slow moving parking lot.

My point is this. If you tried to sell me a car that can't break 65 or 75, I (and most other Americans who don't live in a city) wouldn't buy it. Most Americans regularly ignore the post speed limits that seem to all magically top at 65 regardless of the actual circumstances of the road. Thankfully, car companies make cars to satisfy real needs, unlike the government which doesn't need to change its attitude until there people are suddenly getting elected on the single issue of speed limits, which even for American voters is a pretty unlikely act of stupidity.

Re:Light != dangerous

[maxume (22995)]

When you give a car with an internal combustion engine 'reasonable' acceleration from 50 to 70 mph, you pretty much give it the ability to go 100 mph. If it has a gear that is efficient at 60, it will be able to go 90. You could add gears instead of displacement, but that's more expensive, only works to a point and makes the car more likely to breakdown.

We'll fix that right after we get cold fusion.

[Kadin2048 (468275)]

Essentially we're getting 100mph for the transport, but the wanger extension is what is giving us 20mpg. People talk about safety etc, but really these are hedges against speaking the real reason; the perception that Real Men drive Hummers with gunracks, only faggots drive 1100cc Noddy cars.

I'm not quite buying your simplification, though, either: how do you account for the 59% of car purchases made by women [womenof.com]? What's their issue, penis envy?

While it may be popular these days to try and pin all the country's (if not the entire world's) ills on a bunch of redneck, white, male, gun-toting, Hummer-driving, "flyover state"-ers, I don't think that reality backs that up. Your typical car buyer is female, and is looking for safety, performance (acceleration and handling, which in many people's minds is intertwined with safety), style, and somewhere significantly further down the list, environmental impact and fuel economy. While the guy driving a Hummer may make a nice target for ridicule, there aren't really enough of them to really matter compared to the legions of people driving mid-market cars which really don't have much in the way of a "penis factor" going for them.

Gas just doesn't cost enough for people to care more about mileage than about style. And to be honest, even if it went up by an order of magnitude, while you'd see cars become more efficient, I doubt that you'd really see people changing their fundamental views very much. We're not really talking about anything that's developed recently here; the same forces are at work today with cars, that led people a century or two ago to buy matched sets of horses to pull their coach. Two thousand years ago, there were probably Romans ogling each others' chariots -- when you have something that represents such a large investment (as personal transportation devices almost always are, regardless of the era), they almost automatically become status symbols.

If we ever get cars that on average get 100MPG, it'll be because the cost of fuel is $10 a gallon; even then, there will still be Hyundais and BMWs, econo-boxes and performance machines, minivans and maybe even a Hummer or two, because that's what people will want and have always wanted.

Given the choice between trying to change a deep-rooted social behavior and solving the technical problem of making a minivan/Hummer/whatever that gets 100MPG, I'd say the technical problem is far more feasible to solve.

Re:We'll fix that right after we get cold fusion.

[drgonzo59 (747139)]

Given the choice between trying to change a deep-rooted social behavior and solving the technical problem of making a minivan/Hummer/whatever that gets 100MPG, I'd say the technical problem is far more feasible to solve.

You would be surprized how easily the "unwashed masses" can be manipulated by the media and marketing. Most people my age ( genY'ers) want smaller cars that are cute and fuel efficient. For many years American car companies have pushed "Bigger=more status=better" and everyone bought it, but some manufacturers have realized that they need to cater to the new generation since we'll be the ones making money and therefore buying the cars.

For us they are pushing "Smaller+cuter=smarter=better" (and it must have an iPod plug somewhere!), at least that is the stereotype. But of course marketing is a two-way street. If any compeny invests enough into it, it will manage to change our perceptions. For example if Honda decided to sell us Pink Elephants on Wheels and spent a billion dollars in marketing, you can be sure that there will be a lot of people in this country how will just "have" to have a pink elephant on wheels.

Plus I think there is always a tendency of the new generation to reject the values and mores of their parents, not for any reason, just 'cause, so they can be different. That should help those in marketing who want to cater to genY'ers. (If our parents wanted big cars, then we will necessarily want small ones; if they wanted dull colors, we'll probably want more exotic, brighter colors and so on...). Today many people my age get their first job, go shopping for cars and a lot of them look at Honda Fit and Toyota Yaris, at Scion, Chevy Aveo's etc. None of my friends ever said that they wanted to go buy an SUV, a minivan, a big-ass truck or a Hummer.

How about diesel?

[Joce640k (829181)]

One of the big problems is that Americans insist on high torque engines at low revs.

Gasoline engines simply doesn't work that way. You end up with gas-guzzling five liter V8s.

Diesel does work that way. It'll double your gas mileage with no noticeable difference in the car.

Re:We'll fix that right after we get cold fusion.

[toleraen (831634)]

Honestly, gas would have to cost much more than 7 dollars a gallon to get me to move that close to work. I pay $650 for an apartment roughly 30 minutes from work. That same apartment within a few minutes of work would cost around $1100. My average commute consumes ~1.5 gallons of gas which costs me about 4 dollars a day, or about $3.50 more than driving for a few minutes. I drive an average of 23 days a month to work, which costs ~$83 more than driving a few minutes to work. Since I usually car pool, that cuts that number in half.

I realize there is wear and tear on the car to take into account, but we're talking gas usage here. Plus you could say that carpooling would negate the added cost. But by my (basic) calculations, gas would have to cost more than $13.50 per gallon to make the cost of living difference worth it. And frankly, that half an hour each way to/from work gives me the perfect amount of time to wake up with a cup of coffee, or release some post-work stress and crank the volume.

Re:We'll fix that right after we get cold fusion.

[jcnnghm (538570)]

That isn't the problem. Only an idiot would believe that everyone should live in apartments crammed together. Because something works for you, doesn't mean it does or should for anyone else.

Re:Changing percpetion

[flyingsquid (813711)]

Simple answer: reactive armor.

Your small, lightweight 100mpg car will have high explosive charges placed in its bumpers; when it crashes into something they detonate, negating the threat. This will (1) eliminate the need for expensive, heavy crash-proofing, and (2) cause the Hummmers to think twice before bumping into a Mini Cooper.

Re:Changing percpetion

[Dr. Eggman (932300)]

Sadly, Ford prototypes of this car proved only mildly successful [wikipedia.org].

The kind of car that can get 100 mpg

[iangoldby (552781)]

Except that it isn't.

There already exists a car that can get 65 mpg - routinely - not on some secret test track. It has been available for about six years, and there are millions already on the roads in Europe. It's called the Renault Clio dCI and I have one. It is about the same size as any other super-mini and has a four star (out of five) European safety rating. It's quite lively - pulls away quickly and goes well over 80 mph. The Clio is not the only car of its class - there are others with similar performance and specification.

Why is this remarkable? It is not.

The only remarkable thing is that more people don't seem to know about this. Until fuel prices start to reflect the true cost of motoring, many people seem to prefer to bury their heads in the sand and continue to drive their gas-guzzling monsters.

And the X-prize? It sounds as though it shouldn't be too hard to hit that 100 mpg figure. The real challenge is the change of perception required from the public.

AMD You Say?

[quadra23 (786171)]

amd call for cars in two categories that are capable of 100 MPG in tests to be run in 2009.

AMD calls for cars that are capable of 100 MPG? Meanwhile, I call for AMD to design a processor that is capable of 100 GHz by 2009.

sorry to troll, but...

[TheSHAD0W (258774)]

IMO this contest is looking for a milestone in a direction we may not want to go. On the surface it may seem worthy, but new technologies may be making internal combustion engines obsolete in the next decade, and I can't really tell whether the contest rules will take these advances into account. How would one judge a vehicle powered by a hypercapacitor, or by compressed air? You're comparing apples to oranges by merely judging the equivalent energy used to power the vehicle; the ultimate cost of stored electricity may be a lot lower per joule than that in refined petroleum, or it could be higher. How does one judge the total carbon emissions for that electricity? Was it generated by a coal-burning plant, or by nuclear? Or wind, or sea?

Re:sorry to troll, but...

[Dachannien (617929)]

Actually, you raise a very good point. As another example, take ethanol-blended gasoline versus straight gasoline. It's known that in terms of miles per gallon, ethanol blends are somewhat less fuel efficient than gasoline-only blends. It's clear, however, that energy utilization per volume isn't the proper metric for fuel, or else farmers would be the only ones touting ethanol blends as a potential 1.5th-generation fuel.

How do you measure the fuel efficiency of a solar-powered car? Measured by volume, its fuel consumption is infinite, since it uses volumeless photons as its fuel. Even measuring it by utilization efficiency (energy out over energy in) confounds the true goal of next-generation fuels, that being to reduce environmental impact, since the impact of solar power is entirely in the manufacture and disposal of the panels. How do you measure that?

And what's more, if somebody actually did develop a solar powered car that had performance characteristics comparable to compact gasoline-powered cars and was in the same ballpark in terms of price (perhaps taking comparable petroleum-based fuel costs into account), wouldn't it be unfair to deny this prize to the car's designers even though they went, ahem, the extra mile to bring the next generation of vehicles to the public?

Re:

[mandos (8379)]

The infrastructure for gas based cars is already in place. In the US approximately 60-65% of oil is imported. A fivefold reduction in use would bring the US down to 20% of current consumption. This means that we would not need to import fuel anymore, and actually could (theoretically) export as much fuel as we use. The short and long term environmental benefits of the US dropping 80% fuel usage are pretty good too. (Yes this addresses only gasoline powered cars, not fuel equivalents.)

I would love to see ele

VW 80% there

[laptop006 (37721)]

VW already have a production car that gets ~80mpg and have had trial cars beat 300mpg in real traffic. Of all the big car companies they're the most likely ones to do this, yet as a big car company the $10m would be far less useful then the promotion.

VW have beten them to it already

[farmerj (566229)]

VW [wikipedia.org] already have a concept 1 litre car. The 1 litre refers to the fuel consummation of 1 litre per 100 km. Now for the non metric people here this equates to 235 miles per US gallon or 282 mpg Imperial.

More pictures and info here [greatchange.org] and here [vw.co.uk]. Now this is a two seat car, and if you follow the links above, you'll see not the most spacious.

VW also produce a 3 litre car, the Lupo [wikipedia.org]. The fuel consummation here is 78 miles per US gallon or 94 miles per Imperial gallon and this car is in production, and will hold four people and a wee bit of luggage.

With this in mind, does this competition sound like its really pushing the envelope?

Does it specify petroleum?

[Peter Trepan (572016)]

Can I use a gallon of uranium instead?

Can I total the distance that each piece travels, or does it all have to be in the same direction?

Can the direction be "up"?

Use nuclear batteries

[TheSync (5291)]

Power an electric car with a nuclear battery [ieee.org].

100MPG!? Whatever that is ..

[arcade (16638)]

First .. how long is a mile? In real units?

Then .. how much is a gallon? In real units?

When are 'merkins going to start using proper units?

Metric

[SimonInOz (579741)]

Sorry to mention this, oh strange American folk (I'm in Australia), but generally, fuel consumption is expressed in lt/100km.
So that's 2.3lt/100km.

You know, my eight year old Hyundai Excel, four doors + hatch, air conditoning, carries my 4 person family about quite effectively, gets 5.5lt/100km (43mpg). I measured it for some years (it varied from 4.5 to 6.5). I don't even try that hard. And it's half way there.

I am stunned to learn the average American vehicle gets 21mpg, or 8.9 lt/100km. Gosh. Do they have special oil burning jets out the back or something?

Re:Metric

[bitt3n (941736)]

I am stunned to learn the average American vehicle gets 21mpg, or 8.9 lt/100km. Gosh. Do they have special oil burning jets out the back or something?

Well, wind resistance from Old Glory flapping off the antenna, plus the added weight of the gun-rack fully laden with automatic weapons, and the fact that we only drive on unpaved vertiginous mountain roads (see any SUV commercial) does cause us to burn more fuel, yes. I assume the X-Prize will require all participants to observe these standard requirements.

Re:Metric

[Ihlosi (895663)]

Keep in mind that governments around the world mandate much higher fuel efficiency in autos than the US. Europe especially so.

It's not mandates that make fuel efficiency a big selling point, it's the taxation of gasoline.

And once the US government figures out that taxing gasoline would be a great way to pay for the war on terror ...

Competition Guidelines (PDF)

[Migraineman (632203)]

They've published the Draft Competition Guidelines. [xprize.org]

Lots of folks are knee-jerking with "what about electric vehicles?" Unfortunately, the Slashdot summary is misleading ... again. The X-Prize folks are citing a "100 Mile Per Gallon Equivalent," or MPGe. They account for electric vehicles. You can use natural gas as a fuel, or biodeisel, or E85. For the "mainstream" vehicle, it has to have a radio, air conditioning, etc. It's in the linked doc above.

There are performance specs too. The vehicle must go at least 80 mph for the 2-seater; 100 mph for the 4-seater. Braking 60-0 must be less than 170 ft. They don't require crash testing, but expect you to demonstrate that you've built something to contrmporaty standards for front and side impacts. The standard compliment of mirrors, reflectors, indicators and gauges are required as well.

The end of the document describes their objectives and how they came up with their requirements. It's a pretty easy document to read, and it gives you some insight into what they're trying to do (hint: it involves eventual production of the vehicle.)

My solution gets me 1000s of miles to the gallon

[xoyoyo (949672)]

Simple:

1. Buy gallon of petrol/gas
2. Wait fifty years
3. Sell gallon of petrol to automotive museum for $50,000
4. Buy train ticket anywhere I damn well like

Better cars are not the answer

[rwa2 (4391)]

We need better designed cities, not better designed cars.

Cars are certainly the most flexible way to get around. But we should not have to use them for our daily commute through rush hour traffic or even for running most common errands or to go out and play or dine out.

The problem really is with the way we (esp. the US) design cities. Instead of spending money on public transit-oriented communities, it's much, much cheaper for the municipalities to just pave a stretch of concrete and let individual citizens pay for the cost, maintenance, and operation of personally-owned vehicles. On top of that, condo construction here is pretty lousy, whereas if single family home construction is lousy at least your immediate neighbors are farther away from the noise.

Unfortunately, we don't really have a simple way to measure how much energy people can save in cities with alternative transit as opposed to people who live in cities where they have to drive even to the nearest postal mailbox.

In the mean time, the exciting progress in the transportation field ought to be things like transit oriented design:
http://www.transitorienteddevelopment.org/ [transitori...opment.org]
http://www.carfree.com/ [carfree.com]

Progress in these areas of urban development will get us closer to constructing sustainable colonies in space than any improvement in individually run cars.

Where do I claim my prize?!

[Mr_Blank (172031)]

http://www.volkswagen.co.uk/press/Lupo_3L_in_Guine ss_World_Record [volkswagen.co.uk]

    Looks like a production car to me. Where do I collect my prize for bringing this car to the world's attention? I could use the money to buy a nice Bugatti Verron.

Re:Better X-Prize

[jandrese (485)]

SpaceShip Two is gearing up for private space flight as we speak. It has been less than three years since the X-Prize. Personal spaceflight is not an easy process, you shouldn't expect it to be commonplace tomorrow.

Re:Better X-Prize

[Harmonious Botch (921977)]

The problem with the X-prize was that all the money was in first place. When Space Ship One won it, there was no financial incentive for the others to keep going. ( I've seen the same thing in chess tournaments - the lower prizes are significant enough to keep people from dropping out )
It should have been something like 1st = 10 mil, 2nd = 5 mil, 3rd = 2.5 mil, 4th = 1.5 mil, 5th = 1 mil. Yes, it costs twice as much, but it gets more than twice the benefit: instead of one company producing results, three or four, maybe five do.

Re:Better X-Prize

[Animats (122034)]

The problem with the X-prize was that all the money was in first place. When Space Ship One won it, there was no financial incentive for the others to keep going.

The classic example of that was the Kremer Prize [wikipedia.org] for human-powered flight, won in 1977. Once that was done, interest in human-powered flight declined substantially. That effort didn't usher in an era of recreational pedal-powered flying.

Re:What about SAFETY?

[Osty (16825)]

Lets face it, the reason why a lot of people are driving big SUV's and suffering with 20 MPG highway 15 MPG city is because of the marvelous 5 STAR safety rating these vehicles provide.

Most SUVs, especially truck-based SUVs, are much less safe than normal passenger cars. A low center of gravity plus properly designed crumple zones to absorb energy will always fare better than a tall rigid design like an F150. Even better, smaller cars are more maneuverable, providing "active" safety (the ability to avoid an accident entirely) rather than "passive" safety (the ability to walk away from an accident). The only thing making SUVs "safer" than average passenger cars is that everybody bought into the BS that SUVs are "safer". It's become an arms race, and if you don't have a jacked up monster then you risk decapitation if a SUV hits you from the side.

The roads are (in America) getting more crowded by the day, the law of tonnage rules and small guys get eaten alive in wrecks.

Crowding has nothing to do with it. In fact, in a crowded situation a smaller care may be even safer because it gives you the ability to squeeze into smaller areas for avoidance that you wouldn't otherwise be able to.

Is it really worth it to be driving around in a vehicle that gets 30, 40 or even a 100 MPG HWY if it gets compacted like a soda can if merely bumped?

That's exactly the point. Cars crumple to absorb energy that would otherwise transfer into your internal organs. Your best bet is to learn how to drive and avoid such situations in the first place. If you can't handle that, you really shouldn't have a license in the first place.

Re:What about SAFETY?

[rs79 (71822)]

"Lets face it, the reason why a lot of people are driving big SUV's and suffering with 20 MPG highway 15 MPG city is because of the marvelous 5 STAR safety rating these vehicles provide."

As if.

http://money.cnn.com/2001/06/04/home_auto/pickups_ crash/ [cnn.com]

"WASHINGTON (CNN) - The nation's top-selling vehicle, the Ford F-150 pickup truck, fared poorly in high-speed crash tests, according to a new study of large pickup trucks by the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety, which found the results ranged from good to poor for other makes and models.

In 40 mph tests, the institute characterized the safety performance of the Ford F-150 and Dodge Ram as poor. In the case of the F-150, the institute said it's about as "bad as it gets."

A mini cooper is safer in an accident.

http://www.bridger.us/2002/12/16/CrashTestingMINIC ooperVsFordF150 [bridger.us]

Re:What about Electric

[rossifer (581396)]

The reason is that a 10h charge gets you 1 hour on the road.

In the EV I'm converting (1998 Saturn SW2 wagon), twelve hours of charging (110V/20A) gets me 85 miles. That's about 25kWh or $3.50. Since the car used to get 28mpg, that's about a third the price of gas for the same distance, even with SoCal's inflated electricity prices (we also have inflated gas prices). For everything up to the occasional road trip, 85 miles per day is more than enough. We've got a second car for the road trips, so that's covered too.

If you want an electric car, you're probably going to have to deal with renting the battery, and having swap-out stations.

Unlikely, at best. Manufacturers will have to come to some agreement on what a standard pack looks like, mechanical and electrical connections, etc. Can't have too much variety (or the storage cost goes through the roof), but you'll have to support commuter cars up through heavy trucks. A battery swap station will need a large warehouse built on good foundations to store enough battery packs to service an average day. And why would I want to exchange my carefully maintained batteries that cost me $3000 with an expected life of 100k miles for some unknown set that someone else may have abused or be near the end of life?

Not to say what you're talking about will never happen (though I'm extremely skeptical), but for 95%+ of my driving, plugging in overnight works great. Actually, since my commute is only 7 miles each way, I'll only need to charge for about two hours to get back to 80%+. Now, if I need to drop the kids off at a couple of activities, get groceries, do a few other errands, and take the family out for an evening's entertainment? The car will need to charge the whole time that I'm asleep and be topped off with a full charge when I wake up in the morning.

Electric cars are a lot more practical than most people think. Mine will cost me $15k, take 200 hours of my time, will do 80mph and get 85 miles on a charge that costs me $3.50 while hauling four people or light hauling. Some might want to include the 200 hours in the cost, however, I won't bill myself for the time since I find it so enjoyable to work on it and would pay extra to have this much fun :)

Regards,
Ross

Re:Electric is not necessarally a solution

[akheron01 (637033)]

That's exactly the ADVANTAGE of electricity is that the source of the energy is irrelevant! It is a viable solution that can span energy dependencies; regardless of wether the electricity is being created in coal plants, in biodiesel powered giant super-efficient turbine engines, being harvested from natural energy sources such as the sun or hydroelectricity, or being created by nuclear fission or fussion!