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.

A "practical" car

[Stormwave0]

The article seems a bit vague on what practical means. Will it have to include air conditioning, power windows, automatic transmission... like Americans are used to? I can see many entries removing all these features that are pretty much standard on cars today just to save some weight. That's not even going into how I hope it's safe enough to drive and can hit 60 MPH in under, say, 15 seconds.

Now that I've mentioned my concerns, I have to say it's a great idea. Such a prize would push for innovation and provide the world with a useful solution to a growing problem.

What about Electric

[wperry1]

Why not an X-Prize for an electric car that can charge from standard electrical outlets and has a range of say 200-300 miles? Don't get me wrong, I'm all for efficiency but oil is a finite resource that is concentrated in hard to reach or politically turbulent parts of the world. Even as we improve on efficiency more and more people hit the road so we wind up treading water (or oil) and going no-where. As long as we depend on fossil fuels for energy the demand is going to increase faster than we can make efficiency improvements. Electricity can be produced through a number of means including but not limited to wind and solar and unlike hydrogen the distribution infrastructure is already there.

-------------------
WP
http://blog.wperry.net/ [wperry.net]

Existing electric Vehicles?

[Ltar]

wouldn't existing electric vehicles already meet the "100 mpg" criterea? Undefined gas mileage is certainly better than 100 mpg.
Or what about a gas/electric hybrid that didn't really use it's gas engine, except at highway speeds, and charged up from a wall socket?

What about SAFETY?

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

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

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?

Something to think about.

Use nuclear batteries

[TheSync]

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

Re:Key concepts

[homer_ca]

You can't compare a one-off F1 car to any mass produced vehicle. A Dallara Indycar chassis is just as crashworthy, and they cost $300,000 [indymotorspeedway.com]. Indycars are still handmade, but at least they're produced in larger quantities and for several years per design. Most of the R&D cost of an F1 car is in aerodynamics and wringing the last bit of power out of those 18,000 rpm engines. Building a strong, crashworthy structure that hits minimum weight is the easy part.

Metric

[SimonInOz]

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:Changing percpetion

[0111 1110]

unless it is a motor cycle, which isn't really car, and is impractical for a family.

You obviously have never been to Cambodia [mahugh.com].

Re:Changing percpetion

[Virtual_Raider]

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:Key concepts

[Ihlosi]

The real problem for subminis in the U.S. is interstate/highway driving: there's a much more limited market for vehicles that can't do high-speed interstate driving in the U.S. than in Europe,

The Smart ForTwo goes 120 km/h (~75-80 mph), and that's only because it's speed is limited by a governor. You can get it without one, and slightly tuned, then it'll go 100 mph.

Re:What about SAFETY?

[turing_m]

Unfortunately, I don't think anything other than high oil prices or government regulation is going to get the average mpg on cars/trucks down. And for the record, I think such government intervention is a damn good idea.

A police officer I knew once told me that the reason both of his cars were SUVs was because he had witnessed many, many traffic accidents. People in SUVs survive accidents, especially thanks to the crumple zones of the smaller car. (Cruise around in one of the Grand Theft Auto games, the collision physics is very realistic as far as momentum conservation is concerned. Hop in an SUV versus a small car or motorbike.)

If you drive a small car, thank you. Please remember to drive defensively because it's very difficult to sue someone from inside a coffin.

These cars are NOT impractical for highway driving

[TheRealNecator]

(61hp & 14.5 seconds to hit 60 mph), and is impractical for roads that rely on highway driving.

Thats siply not true. In Germany, where the higways are mostly unrestricted in speed, its still possible and practical to use that cars. There speeds like 100MPH are common, some people are even going 150MPH or more (these are not the economic cars -- oc course), still I'm alive and happy.
So what is your problem an an US-Higway, where 55 or 65 MPH are common? In Germany you are allowed to go about 60MPH on a rural road, and these economic cars do it very well. And yet, these economic cars were develloped in germany, and are one of the safest in their class.
Oh, well, the top speed of my economic car is 100MPH, yet I get it to 110MPH regulary (measured by GPS), and still not hitting the limit. How does your car? Are you even able to try it out? Or are you relying on your 'common sense' and 'people state that ...' and so on?

Re:Light != dangerous

[Anonymous Coward]

The fuel efficiency of cars (in terms of miles per gallon) is fairly flat from 30 mph to around 55 mph. As wind resistance increases as roughly the square of the speed it begins to increasingly dominate above 55 mph and fuel efficiency drops off rapidly over 55 mph. If the US government wished to implement the recently suggested reduction in gasoline usage it could achieve approximately half of it simply by mandating a maximum 55 mph speed limit across the whole of the USA. If this was implemented then there would be very little need for cars that could go over 70 mph!

Requirement should be set for mid size SUV

[Shivetya]

Better yet, pick any midsized overpowered v6 sedan; the 250-300hp range that is ever so popular these days. Build me a 100mpg vehicle that performs like that and I bet you will get people lining up for them.

Even with the dangers, see below, its high time we came around and brought vehicle standards up to new levels.

Dangers:

First, overlooked. If it cost less to drive people will drive even more. Urban sprawl would increase and traffic deaths would as well.

The used car market would implode if such technology appeared overnight. Such a change would probably be a boon in the short term for manufacturers because if the pricing were right and the vehicles looked like todays most people would switch. Another area that will see big hits is current lease holders of older engine tech cars and trucks. Throw in the multitude of people needed to support the current engine technologies and not all of those jobs would survive the changeover.

If this progressed into commercial vehicles then the government might have to act as the write off of capitalization from the rapid depreciation of the of older vehicles could put a crimp into tax generation.

The other concern for taxation is decreased use of fuel from gasoline and diesel sales. Governments won't stand for that so expect the taxes to increase thereby hitting anyone who cannot afford the new tech even harder.

Re:How about diesel?

[robot_lords_of_tokyo]

I've got an '02 bmw 320d that routinely gets 55mpg+ on the highway. Plenty of power, great mileage, and it's a fairly large comfy car. I have my eyes on the new 335d, which is an awesome combination of power and great mileage. Without a huge change in technology, it would seem that the US could cut down on fuel consumption by switching over to diesel. with the gas prices being what they are, i'm guessing we'll be seeing more diesels in the states soon.

Look at the Quasiturbine

[Kobun]

It's an awesome engine, just need to get it finished up and built en masse.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quasiturbine [wikipedia.org]
http://auto.howstuffworks.com/quasiturbine.htm [howstuffworks.com]

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

[BigDogCH]

I don't blame those who have little other option, but I feel that most people would incorrectly claim to have little other option (just like my coworkers). For the cost of the commute (in $), most of them could rent a place in town here. Remember, driving your car isn't just the gas, it is the insurance, and upkeep, and repairs, and your time. Is your time valuable? I figure at least $2-$3 per mile for myself. You are spending 2 hours of your day, 200 days per year. That is 400 hours per year! That is 10 extra weeks of work (40 hour work week). You could live closer, and get a part time job on top of it, and still be financially ahead with more free time. Win Win. This wouldn't work for everyone, and maybe not you, but for many it would. Though I don't know anyone who would admit it, because nobody wants to own up to their own waste.....including myself.

I am hoping to start biking to work once the weather warms up (our snow is just melting).....though I live only 1 mile from work. I just wish this employer had a place for me to put my trike.......I haven't found one yet that looks safe or secure.

By the way, a suburb by definition, is set away from the city. It is designed to force you to commute for the crowds that desire such a thing. For some reason, Americans like living 20-40 minutes from their employer, and actually house shop in that range when moving. They do not house shop within 1-2 miles of their employer, even when the home price is the same. This I don't understand.

Talk to the USG -- they tax the hell out of it.

[Kadin2048]

Unfortunately in most of the U.S. diesel is currently more expensive than "regular" unleaded gas. While you may save money with your mileage, most folks don't look that far down the road.

This price difference is artificial. It's a result of the way the Federal (and to a lesser extent, some State) government taxes it.

Here's the issue: trucks (not light trucks, but big semis) do a huge amount of damage to the highways. Aside from frost/salt/washouts and other environmental damage, the biggest thing that kills roads is the high axle loads of semi trucks. Look at a road on which trucks aren't allowed (the G.W. Expressway in VA, or the Merritt in CT, and look at how old the pavement is, and compare it to a nearby freeway -- note the much newer pavement and/or ongoing construction. Cars do almost negligible damage to a well-constructed road.

Since almost all big trucks are powered by diesel fuel, the government at some point decided that making the tax on it higher than gasoline would be a convenient way of making sure that trucks pay for some of the road damage that they do. (Unfortunately they don't pay anything near the damage that they do to the highway system, and the taxpayers foot most of the bill, but I digress.)

But like most shortcuts taken by the government, this had the major unintended consequence of making diesel fuel artificially expensive for passenger vehicles -- or looking at it another way, it made gasoline engines, even though they're comparatively inefficient, much more attractive than they should be.

Just getting rid of the diesel tax, or making it the same as gasoline, isn't an option (at least not without some compensatory measure), because then we'd just be giving an even bigger handout to the OTR trucking industry than we already do.

Until the Federal government figures out some better way of taxing heavy trucks that use the Interstate highways, diesel in the U.S. is always going to be at a massive disadvantage, and our petroleum consumption is going to be far higher than it ought to be as a result. In terms of motor fuels, diesel is just better; it costs less (in terms of energy) to refine, and when used in an internal-combustion engine, you get more energy out of it per volume. With proper emissions equipment it's no more harmful than gasoline, either. The barriers to using it are mostly artificial.

Honda Civic, and South American Cars

[Acer500]

cute little Honda Civic

OMG, you USians really live in another world. You'd never hear a "cute little" description next to Honda Civic in my country (Uruguay).

They're near to luxury cars here, and significantly bigger than what's on the road.

Typical cars in my country and Argentina/Brazil:

Volkswagen Gol, with 4.5 million units sold, with usually 1,6 liter engines with a fuel efficiency of 10-12 kilometers per litre (34 miles per gallon approx)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volkswagen_Gol [wikipedia.org]

Fiat Uno, also several million, with 1.1 liter engines being usual and doing 12-14 kilometrers per litre (40 miles per gallon)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fiat_Uno [wikipedia.org]

Hyundai Atos, less sold than those two, with 1.1 liter engines too and about 14 kilometer per litre (a little over 40 miles per gallon), that's my father's car as well as several coworkers' for example.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyundai_Atos [wikipedia.org]

Another popular car for being among the cheapest is the Maruti 800 which has a 0.8 litre engine and does close to 50 miles per gallon! That was the first car I drove (nowadays I don't have a car).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maruti_800 [wikipedia.org]