Student Killed Driving Solar Car 847
Lev13than writes "Tragedy struck the University of Toronto's Blue Sky Solar Racing Team on Thursday when 21-year old student Andrew Frow was killed in a car accident. It appears that Frow lost control of the low-riding experimental car and was struck by a minivan head-on. The team was driving from Stratford to Waterloo (about an hour west of Toronto) as part of a tour of universities in Ontario and Quebec to mark the one-year anniversary of the 2003 Blackout. This is a big setback for solar power advocates, especially as the blackout anniversary will pass with remedial legislation stranded in Congress. More information on the accident is available here." The vehicle's design is not really street-safe - this will be a problem as more efficient, lighter cars share the road with Hummers.
It's sad (Score:5, Insightful)
It's not that sad (Score:2, Insightful)
When it's Bus vs. Bicycle, the bus ALWAYS wins.
Re:It's not that sad (Score:5, Informative)
Not really...note from the story that there was a support minivan in front of him, and another behind him. That's pretty good protection.
He lost control, and crossed the lane into oncoming traffic. That would likely have been fatal on a motorcycle, or even many smaller regular cars.
Re:It's not that sad (Score:3, Insightful)
That's why this "vehicle" should have never been allowed to drive on a road in the first place.
Built by students with no (or low) security on their minds, I wouldn't have driven it for the world, on a regular road!
Would you set your life in the hands of a school project that don't built the engine to be secure (because it's never been mea
Research? (Score:3, Insightful)
How does driving a solar powered car on public roads further research? Is there some unique interaction between photons and trucks that needs to be investigated? If so where are the research papers?
Designing and building a solar car is an interesting project suitable for a university engineering department's students. Designing a very light weight car that can be driven safely on public roads in normal traff
Re:It's sad (Score:5, Insightful)
Concern for his family, is worthwhile.
Concern for his concerns is worthwhile.
Concern for the car is also worthwhile, since it is a positive concept that may be damaged by this tragic accident.
It's a conspiracy!!! (Score:3, Funny)
Re:It's sad (Score:5, Insightful)
Needs of the few etc. etc.
Re:It's sad --need standards? (Score:4, Interesting)
Reading The Article (Score:3, Insightful)
Sorry, but RTFA. The solar car was lacking in bumpers, and the vehicle he hit was not an SUV, it was a minivan, which has standard bumpers.
Virg
Perspective from another solar car team (Score:5, Insightful)
This won't be the end of solar racing, although it will be a significant setback for the Toronto team. They have lost a friend, a teammate and many, many, many hours of work, spent not only building their car but also convincing people that their cause is worth supporting. The team has a solid history--they placed 11th in the 2003 American Solar Challenge (and won the saftey award), 12th in ASC2001, 14th in WSC2001, and they were the top rookie team in SunRayce 1999 (info from their website [utoronto.ca]).
I imagine that the future will see a serious review of solar car saftey rules, which will result in changes to the specifications for solar cars as well as the conditions under which they should be driven. Even though solar powered cars are not the way of the future, the sport has led to the develompent of new technologies that are nevertheless important (the world's most effiecient electric motors and maximum power point trackers), and it teaches young engineers far more about engineering than they could possibly learn in any other way.
A public show of support (and /. counts as these days) is really what the BlueSky team needs right now. Then, after the incident has been properly observed, a respectful review of the causes and solutions should get underway.
Jeff Thompson
Yale Solar Racing
Re:Perspective from another solar car team (Score:3, Insightful)
This leads me to wonder, is the research on these
Concern about the car is *not* misplaced (Score:5, Insightful)
To get a slightly more extreme example: If a doctor announced that he had discovered a cure for influenza or a way to purify water cheaply without engergy requirements, and then was promptly killed be a mugger, I'm sure that everyone would feel bad about his death, but I think that it's more than excusable to place as a higher priority finding out what happened to his work than making noises to make his family feel good. They *know* that his dying sucked already. And, honestly, I've never met or heard of the guy. If every person in the world was told "this guy died", should they all be obligated to lay down their tools and bow their heads for a moment? Of course not. The cost would be phenomenal.
If you want grief, let it be the grief from those who can grieve, the people that knew him. Not random, anonymous strangers on Slashdot.
As another example, every day CNN prints up stories about Iraqis dying. Should I stop and express a list of sympathetic things for an hour? No. People die. The fact that this guy had his name printed instead of just being a statistic, increasing a fatality count by one somewhere does not change that fact.
Re:Concern about the car is *not* misplaced (Score:3, Interesting)
If you want grief, let it be the grief from those who can grieve, the people that knew him. Not random, anonymous strangers on Slashdot.
If my best friend died, you can be sure that I'll be out talking to his family. On the other hand, I'm not going to go through the motions of grief on Slashdot because someone is so wrapped up in tradition that they fail to realize the pu
Re:It's sad (Score:3, Insightful)
Kitchener-Waterloo Record Story (Score:5, Informative)
U of T student dies in solar car; Vehicle out of control near Waterloo Regulations being followed, police say
A University of Toronto student is dead after the solar car he was driving veered out of control on a highway just west of Waterloo Region yesterday afternoon.
Andrew Frow, 21, of Toronto was driving the university's team car east along Highway 7 and 8, from Stratford to Waterloo, as part of a Canadian solar car tour. The small low-riding car suddenly went out of control at about 4 30 p.m., veering across the centre line of the two-lane highway, said Constable Glen Childerley of Perth County Ontario Provincial Police.
The car then swerved back into its lane, hitting the right shoulder. It then plowed across the highway into the path of a minivan in the westbound lane.
"It zoomed right across the road and was T-boned by the van," said Childerley, adding the driver was alone in the solar car.
The impact destroyed the car. Its solar-panelled roof was flung off and its shell ended up in the ditch on the north side of the highway.
The driver's teammates rushed to his aid. The students were in two minivans, one driving in front of the solar car, one behind, when the crash occurred.
Two of his teammates frantically performed CPR on the young man as he lay in the wreckage, said truck driver David Hackett, who pulled up at the scene moments after the accident.
Hackett, a volunteer firefighter in his hometown of Maryhill, offered to take over from the visibly upset woman doing mouth-to- mouth.
"I'm just sorry we couldn't do more," said Hackett, who was delivering groceries to Stratford when he came across the crash.
"I am grateful for the training that I had and that I could respond."
Paramedics, Stratford firefighters and OPP soon arrived on the scene and took the driver by ambulance to another ambulance with a doctor and waiting medical team.
The crew took the young man to a Kitchener hospital, where he was pronounced dead.
After he was rushed away, police began inspecting the mangled wreckage in the ditch to determine why the crash occurred. That section of the highway was closed for hours as they worked.
Hunks of metal, some bearing the University of Toronto logo, were strewn across the grassy ditch.
As police worked, students on the U of T team huddled across the street, many hugging each other.
They did not want to talk to the news media last night.
Rudy Schoenhoeffer, who was driving the minivan that hit the solar car, was also there.
"I'm just saying a prayer for him," the Stratford man said quietly as he stood by his van, its front end dented.
He was on his way home from work in Cambridge when the crash occurred.
Jessica Whiteside, U of T's acting associate director of news services, said it was too early last night for anyone at the university to comment.
Childerley said solar cars have to get a special permit from the Ministry of Transportation to drive on roads and highways, and must travel with a regular vehicle in front and behind. Those vehicles must have flashing yellow lights on their roofs.
The U of T car was following these regulations.
Kitchener-Waterloo Record
[Photo] The U of T solar car drives along Western Rd. toward the University of Western Ontario in London yesterday. Later, near Waterloo, another driver lost control.
[Photo] OPP investigate the scene of the fatal solar car accident on Highway 7 and 8 near the town of Shakespeare, Ont., yesterday.
-1 Illegal Copyright Violation? (Score:2, Insightful)
For a fee. Which is perfectly alright - these "value added" services cost money.
What? Not worth it? But you claim that it is "The most detailed story I've read about this." Sounds like t
Re:-1 Illegal Copyright Violation? (Score:4, Insightful)
Anyone who reads the record knows that they rarely add any value to [blah blah blah blah].
Doesn't change the fact that it's infringement.
Had the poster taken a couple of minutes to read, understand and restate the facts in his own words, it would have been perfectly legal.
Copyright law may be all out of whack, but this is clearly infringement under even the mildest copyright regime. We who want our copyrights to be respected should have more respect for others'.
Re:Kitchener-Waterloo Record Story (Score:5, Insightful)
Not to mention saving a lot of fuel, since a 1/2 HP engine would be plenty for the largest car.
doesn't matter if it's a hummer or not. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:doesn't matter if it's a hummer or not. (Score:4, Insightful)
True, including a wall if the vehicle is traveling at any speed. The problem here was not the minivan. The problem was un un-streetworthy vehicle that had to forego safety in an attempt to achieve efficiency. I'm sure the same vehicle traveling at 40mph that ran into a wall would have killed the driver just as effectively.
This is more evidence of why we still use "inefficient" heavy vehicles. It's not just the efficiency of the vehicle that counts, but survivability in a crash.
It isn't about the weight of the car. (Score:5, Insightful)
In the US, poeple believe that SUVs are the safest, but the fatality record of SUVs is only about as good as that of a mid-sized car. While a heavier vehicle may be more "survivable", the mid-sized car, with its better braking, lower center of gravity (less roll-over potential) and better handling can better avoid getting into an accident in the first place.
Re:It isn't about the weight of the car. (Score:5, Insightful)
That's because Japan is one big traffic jam. Cars in cities rarely exceed walking speed.
Re:doesn't matter if it's a hummer or not. (Score:4, Insightful)
How can you compare the two (Score:2, Insightful)
R E S P E C T? (Score:3, Insightful)
I have seen plenty of accidents with 15 passenger vans, two ton service vans, semis (which seem more common than Hummers), etc, that have just as bad (if not worse) impacts with other vehicles.
SUVs shouldn't really be a problem... (Score:5, Informative)
Re:SUVs shouldn't really be a problem... (Score:5, Insightful)
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:SUVs shouldn't really be a problem... (Score:4, Funny)
Who's driving whom? (Score:5, Insightful)
What was the steering mechanism in that experimental car? Drive by wire? What failed? The story would more accurately have specified a collision of an "experimental steering" car, than a solar car, unless the steering was conventional.
Re:Who's driving whom? (Score:5, Informative)
At one point in my past I built and roadraced GT cars. The combination of slick race-compound tires (9" wide on a 2000 pound car), and the steering axis offset required to allow their use, meant that the steering effort was OK when the front tires weren't sliding, and the caster would re-center the steering. But under conditions where the car was going sideways beyond a certain limit, the steering would drive itself to lock unless you manually wrestled it back to center. Not for the faint of heart or puny forearm development.
Sad, sad day. (Score:5, Interesting)
Rest in peace Andrew, and keep them strong Raja.
NHTSA (Score:2, Interesting)
Experimental vehicles (Score:5, Insightful)
He may not have been returning from orbit, or travelled at supersonic speed. But his shadow will always be a mile long.
Hero is overstating things (Score:4, Insightful)
Simpson's quote:
Homer: That Timmy is a real hero!
Lisa: How do you mean, Dad?
Homer: Well, he fell down a well, and... he can't get out.
Lisa: How does that make him a hero?
Homer: Well, that's more than you did!
perhaps (Score:3, Insightful)
WTF?!? (Score:5, Insightful)
Sure, lets blame the big, bad, SUV because your car is unsafe. I realize that the Hummer is the mortal enemy of solar car advoates everywhere but how is this possibly relevant? If you follow that logic we should ban Semi-trucks from the road as well. We've got to make it safe for experimental solar car vehicles, right?
Gimme a break. This is a tragedy, and you're trying to spin in into an anti-SUV infomercial.
Re:WTF?!? (Score:5, Insightful)
You need a better license, more inspections, a better driving record.
And the legal requirements for making a semi-truck require it to be built far safer.
One of the problems with Hummers, unlike Semi-trucks, is that they have high bumpers. These bumpers sometimes start ABOVE the bumber/hood of a small vehicle.
Semi-trucks are legally required to have lower bumpers that alway make contact with the small car bumpers.
Re:WTF?!? (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:WTF?!? (Score:4, Interesting)
Also, the summary writer was political trolling. There was no SUV involved, a "minivan" is hardly an SUV. And striking any lightweight, cheap car at highway speeds would have ripped through this solar "car" and likely killed the driver.
And about the car. The specs seem to have been pulled from the site, but the Internet Wayback Machine pulled this page: http://web.archive.org/web/20040214072418/www.blu
"Chassis: Composed of hollow aluminium tubes with sides only slightly thicker than a pop can." They're bragging about this? And running it on a highway?
A little premature, I think.
Re:WTF?!? (Score:3, Insightful)
Semi trucks are the backbone of this country. How do you think freight is carried from the rail yard to the destination? Or from the air port? Or the grove? You say you would like to see less semis, well are you willing to pay 2x for everything as a result? I bet no.
As for Hummers having a good reason to exist...How about their being an important part of our military's mobility?
Re:WTF?!? (Score:5, Insightful)
That's fine. Now we just need those needless SUV drivers to properly compensate society for the extra damange done to the roads and the environment, and require them to pass more stringent driving tests due to the extra safety risk they pose to everyone else on the road.
SUVs are fine, just stop making everyone else pay for them.
Comment on University of Waterloo's general newsgr (Score:3, Insightful)
> > Solar cars from five university teams will be on display later today
> > at the Student Life Centre. The appearanace is part of the _Canadian
> > Solar Tour,_ an event sponsored by the Government of Ontario, and VIA
> > RAIL Canada. The cars are travelling from Windsor to Quebec, and will
> Apparently one of the cars didn't make it here. That must put a damper on
> the whole event.
And perhaps put a few people back in touch with reality?
Every time I see these solar car things, I'm reminded of the saying
"Little boys play with little toys, and big boys play with big toys.".
Supposedly the purpose of all these events is to promote solar
energy as a viable alternative to conventional energy sources.
That's certainly an admirable goal, but the whole point seems
to have been lost to the participants long ago.
As an exercise for engineering students, designing and building
such a vehicle can be a valuable experience, but solar energy
is only a small part of the project, and it seems silly to me
to think that these events, in any way but the most superficial,
actually promote the practical use of solar energy.
If that were the real goal, the projects would spend nearly all
their time working on the energy part of the task. But instead
nearly all the time is spent on making the projects look like
solar energy is practical. i.e. they have to completely design
and build the entire vehicle from the ground up, totally ignoring
a hundred years of engineering that have already gone into modern
passenger vehicles. Almost all the effort goes not into the
solar aspect of the vehicle, but into designing something that will
go faster and farther than other similarly designed vehicles.
i.e. extreme streamlining, removing as much weight as possible,
providing as little passenger and cargo space as possible, etc.
It becomes a contest to see who can design the most energy-efficient
vehicle, with solar power itself becoming the constant factor rather
than the variable that they really should be trying to improve.
If solar energy were the real goal, they would start with a
standard passenger vehicle (a mini, or a truck, or anything between)
and put 90% of the work into making that work with solar energy
as the primary power supply. That would be a true demonstration
of its practicality, and would put the experimentation back into
solar energy research rather than into aerodynamics, etc.
But instead, they spend most of the time reinventing the wheel,
and in the process throwing out such things as passenger and
cargo capacity, not to mention the safety and road-worthiness
with which modern commercial vehicles are packed, and with which
these toys are obviously not. I wonder why they are even allowed
to drive on public roads (except as a parade float).
In terms of energy efficiency, these vehicles are accompanied by
several support vehicles, all conventionally fueled. The result
is an expensive, slow, and unsafe vehicle that transports one person
with no luggage, and burns ten times as much gasoline as would a
small inexpensive car.
In terms of promoting the practical use of solar energy,
this project has just proven what a joke it always was.
It's just unfortunate that it had to happen in the way it did,
and we can only hope that it hasn't hurt its alleged goal too much.
Re:Comment on University of Waterloo's general new (Score:5, Insightful)
Nonetheless, large heavy vehicles on the road should be last resort, not a standard. And it is equally true that as long as big heavy vehicles are on the road smaller light-weight vehicles are going to be dangerous to drive- THIS IS OBVIOUS, and it annoys me to all hell that advocates of big vehicles think the solution is to drive bigger "safer" vehicles. The road need not be the spot for our national Darwinian drama. The road is not a place for an arms-race.
Let's face it: the reasons people want bigger vehicles (for the most part) is because a)They think they're cool b)they think they're safer, or at least they think they make themselves feel safer, c)having an expensive SUV broadcasts their financial success (a mating call, no? -for the males of the species, primarily), d)because the SUV is an attractive option because it is largely functional (if wasteful) because of its size AND because it carries an attractive image of independence, ruggedness, sportiness, etc. (look at those SUV commercials of vehicles driving through the wilderness (a morally dubious thing to do (the destruction caused is more than negligible), but hella fun).
The thing that we tree-huggers need to realize is that SUV's and other large vehicles actually serve a function in society, and the individuals who own/use them are acting rationally in the sphere of things that they think are important. HOWEVER, those things are the wrong things, the things that really aren't that important.
Unfortunately, our human species is not well equipped to take the long view of things. In fact, we are exceedingly poor at doing so- and this makes evolutionary sense- although taking a limited long view is evolutionarily adaptive, focusing on the long view is not because our powers of prediction were/are still exceedingly poor- more important to see the tiger about to eat you than to wonder how we could set up the environment so that there wasn't any conflict between humans and tigers, so to speak.
This is essentially a problem of "The Tragedy of the Commons", but in this case the Commons is not some field, but all of our planetary resources (including good air to breathe and fair weather), and each person's taking away of from the Commons, no matter how ridiculously abusive, is only a miniscule portion of that Commons. We, in fact, have a difficult time seeing the impact of our behaviour, or the scope of the situation. And because we do not see so clearly (and I mean see individually in everyday life) the impact of our behaviour, we do not feel compelled to act to change how things work- certainly not as compelled as we may feel to have the glorious feeling of bringing home that gorgeous SUV (I, like others, think that SUV's (minus the HUMMER) are often designed in a pleasing way). And because some of us are so enamoured with that vision of the good life, of independence, of manliness, of success, of Big Americanness (I am a proud American), and perhaps enamoured of actually having that good life (and I believe that it is probably true that a lot of anti-advocates of the SUV are simply suffering from jealousy because they cannot afford such a vehicle), yes, because of all these things, that many of us refuse to believe, sometimes consciously, but often unconsciously, what our scientists continue to tell us about the destruction we are causing, and the deep problems we are getting ourselves into. It is, in fact, a deep rabbit hole- and it is easier to fall than to climb
Why Lightwight Solar? (Score:2)
A heavier car, once in motion, takes no more power to keep in motion then a light weight car, right?
The energy used to get a heavier car into motion, can be recaptured in the stopping of it.
I suppose there is energy lost in the transfer of starting/stopping, but is that enough of a loss to make the cars unworkable?
Bikes (Score:3, Insightful)
Dont know about america, but in the rest of the world we have 44 ton trucks, 3 ton vans, 2 ton cars, and 200lb bikes sharing the road, and we seem to cope pretty well.
Re:Bikes (Score:5, Interesting)
I know this sounds like a troll, but I have a valid point.
People who drive large cars with the ability to control large cars usually are not the problem. The problem are people who drive large cars and lack either the ability or the personality to control such a large vehicle are the problem.
In NSW, Australia, you can do your driving test on a 2 door 800c automatic suzuki, then go and jump behind the wheel of a hummer. Sorry, but that's just crazy. (I believe this is now under review, but its been under review for at least the last 20 years) Pilots have to retrain for each new model aircraft they manage, and similary there needs to be classes of vehicles based on transmission type, weight and size. Vans capable of carrying 10 passengers, even if not for commercial gain, should require testing. I get scared when I see a Mother with 10 kids (presumably not all her own) crawling unbelted around the car while she screams abuse at other drivers for every near-collision she's causing.
The other is a physcological test. If "big car" is a compensation for "small dick". Yeah, rice rockets are a pain in the arse, but when the choice is between contending with 1 tonne of dickhead propelled missile and 4 tonnes of dickhead propelled missile, give me the mag-wheeled Mirage anyday.
I'd also argue that people under 4'6" shouldn't be allowed to drive some of these big SUVs unless they are suitably modified. In jacking up the seat to see out the window means that they can't depress the brake in reflex time. That's just crazy. (Anybody who's driven between Turramurra and Gordon in the North of Sydney knows exactly the types I'm talking about). If little kids have to be over a height to ride a roller coster, people should have to be over a height limit to drive some vehicles. This isn't discrimination. Its public safety.
(Note: I am pretty short myself. I can't ride any model Harley except the FatBoy because my feet aren't close enough to the ground!)
I also agree that Hummers and their like shouldn't be allowed on certain roads. Note that some of the south-bound lanes on the Sydney Harbour Bridge aren't wide enough for the wheel-base of the Holden (Chevy) Suburban. The infrastructure of the city was never designed to cope with this sort of vehicle.
There's an interesting meta-point here! (Score:4, Insightful)
Maybe the real answer is to get these SUVs and minivans off the road, and establish weight and bumper-height limits for cars.
Article seems to imply he overcompensated (Score:3)
He may have fully lost control of the vehicle, but reading the article made it seem like the vehicle started to veer.
In the snowier states, you're taught how to recover from a veering or fishtailing vehicle. Let off the acceleration, and straighten the wheel out. Make SMALL corrective maneuvers.
It's very easy to get panicked in these situations - your car veers one direction, and you're tempted to veer the opposite way. Unfortunately, this often worsens the situation, as power steering is far more powerful than your instincts may "feel."
Likewise, this was a pretty light vehicle.
Regardless of how this happened, it's terrible to see. And serves as a reminder to keep ourselves alert and alive on the road.
Close to Home (Score:4, Informative)
The convoy was supposed to stop here at our company [comtekadvanced.com] this afternoon because we helped the McMaster University team build "Fireball II." I just found out this morning that today's stop, along with the rest of the tour had been called off due to the accident. Looks like it was a mechanical failure of some kind in U of T's vehicle, and what a tragedy. The engineering student who died was only 21.
The tour was planned to coincide with the one year anniversary of the 2003 blackout, to remind people that we ought to be looking into alternative energy sources. These young engineers are really passionate about these projects and our thoughts are with them at what must be a really tough time.
Bad things keep happening to Bluesky (Score:4, Insightful)
As the CTV article stated, one of Bluesky's cars was T-boned just south of U of T campus two years ago. But also, at the end of last summer a pickup driven by a Bluesky member with their solar car in tow flipped somewhere in the northern states, resulting in a hospitilization.
The fact that Bluesky is having an accident every year, to me, indicates that these people are perhaps being pushed a little too hard, and perhaps the cars are not being designed with the driver's safety in mind (and I'm not just talking about the durability of the vehical but also such things as the driver's visibilty of the road and reliability of his control systems).
[This is a repost of an AC post I made; didn't realise I was logged out]
Those who push humanity forward (Score:3, Insightful)
One of the Wright brothers died in an airplane crash.
Astronauts have been killed.
Those who push forward humanity's knowledge for the re
Some observations (Score:5, Insightful)
As an out of control vehicle it could have has easily been hit by a truck as a Hummer and had the same outcome, perhaps even an impact with a small hybrid Prius would have had the same outcome (but been far more ironic).
The need to sacrifice weight to gain performance obviously led to some bad design choices. That said, solar power contests should probably be split into 2 categories:
1. No minimum weight, but only on closed courses.
2. Well-defined minimum crash worthiness, minimum weight for vehicle, still require lead and chaser vehicles on public roads. Some well established roadworthiness test by some officiating board before vehicles are taken on public roads.
Breakthroughs in Solar efficiency and conversion to actual horsepower are what this competition should motivate, not design of balsa wood enclosures to hurl down public highways.
I feel for the team and student who lost his life. I'm sure they didn't think they were taking undue risks, but they probably were.
I doubt this will have real long-term negative impact on Solar Power development. It's not like this out of control vehicle also took out a sideline of spectator Nuns. Nor is it hard to imagine the corrective action to keep this safe (as outlined above).
Re:Some observations (Score:3, Interesting)
And just how is this a setback...? (Score:4, Informative)
And just how is this a big setback for solar power advocates? Is every automobile accident with a regular car a setback for gasoline advocates? Are solar cars supposed to be accident free? Or all 21-year-olds excellent drivers (I know they think they are)?
This is just an example of muddy thinking that doesn't belong on Slashdot.
Re:And just how is this a setback...? (Score:5, Insightful)
No, the thinking is crystal clear. When a massive vehicle collides with a puny, composite solar car, death is a certain result.
Therefore, these massive vehicles will, in fact, deter the acceptance of solar technology. Solar cars by nature must be extremely lightweight, and nobody in their right mind would drive one on the same road as trucks and SUVs.
Linkage? (Score:3, Insightful)
I don't see what the two have to do with each other. Was he carrying the sponsoring Senator/Congressman in the car with him? And I don't know that the anniversary has anything to do with the bill...in fact, I'd overwhelmingly prefer as few arbitrary deadlines as possible when legislators are working on laws that affect my life, thank you.
This is getting a little out of hand... (Score:3, Insightful)
I'm as green as the next tree-hugging dirt worshipper, but I don't see how we can blame this on GM for making disgustingly huge wastes of resources or on the people who buy them. If this guy had been on a bike, would this have made it to the front page? Of course not.
Let's stow the "Hummers are wasteful" arguments and just recognize that a brave person lost their life in an experimental vehicle. Let's save these arguments for a topic where it actually matters.
Inherent Risk (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm curious to see how this will affect solar racing rules. It's not like they're going to require crash testing of your half million dollar prototype that you bring to the race. Personally, I think there's probably a lot more room to be stricter with accident avoidance stuff, like making sure your steering and suspension is REALLY secure. My team nearly lost its car to a suspension failure, while going 65 on an interstate down a hill towards a bridge over a very deep chasm. The driver kept it kinda under control, but we got lucky. Turns out there was nothing inherently wrong with our design, aside from the fact that it wasn't sufficiently redundant to resist the force of miniscule human error in construction, followed by 1000 miles of road wear. Point is, wheels just don't fall off of modern production automobiles, but things like that happen with experimental prototypes.
On a personal note, driving a solar car that I built myself was one of the greatest thrills of my life. I was too big to drive our team's car with the top on, but even taking it around the parking lot on battery power was a great thrill. I can't imagine how taking that out on the road feels, but I imagine it compensates somewhat for the very real danger that exists whenever people strap themselves into unorthodox moving objects for the sake of enhancing the body of human knowledge. Whether it's a solar car developed and built by college students or a multi-billion dollar space shuttle designed by one of the largest engineering teams ever assembled, there is no substitute for experience, as NASA has tragically learned twice.
If anyone who knew Andrew is reading this, I hope you realize that he took a risk in pursuit of something greater than himself, for the benefit of everything on Earth.
Re:Inherent Risk (Score:3, Insightful)
You never expect your steering system to fail on the road. It just happens a little more often with an experimental device. There doesn't need to be something fundamentally wrong for this to happen, just less resistance to natural entropic effects. As for inertia, see motorcycles. Certainly more dangerous than ca
Deepest Condolences (Score:3, Insightful)
For those that debate the safety of the car design, the wisdom of highway regulations and current practices, keep in mind that this group isn't a company with vast resources trying to market a solar car. This is not the finished product boing foisted on you to buy. This is an exhibition and competition car. It's an experiment made by students. They do it because they love it.
cool technology, but still a blind alley (Score:3, Interesting)
It sucks that the kid died, but this should be a setback for solar-powered motor vehicle on highways. The safety problems are very probably unsolvable. Bicycles have been on the roads for over a century and motorcycles for almost as long. No technological solution for what happens when car meets bike that keeps the bike or the rider intact has been found. This suggests to me that there isn't one. If a road-safe solar vehicle can't be built, there is no point in pursuing this technology as more than a dangerous hobby any further.
More to the point, this is NOT an environmental solution. Safety issues aside, every barrel of oil that is conserved by the industrialized countries will be burned by an industrializing Third World, unless carbon-neutral solutions to replace fossil fuel cheaper than the current ones can be found. Therefore, conservation-based approaches to either global warming or running out of oil are uniformly unworkable, no matter how cool the technologies are.
We need energy replacement, not energy conservation.
The place for solar cells is in orbital solar arrays as part of a solar power satellite [nasa.gov] network. Power availablilty 24/7/365, no concerns about weather, and no SUV will ever run into a cell array and take it offline. However, this is better adapted as a solution for central station power generation facilities.
The solution for motor vehicle power? Switch to diesel engines and grow crude oil in energy farms. Even food-grain crop based biodiesel is comparable to price to bin Laden's Finest Middle East oil product, and algae-based biomass grown as part of sewage treatment promises to be quite a bit cheaper than growing it from fuel crops. [unh.edu]
For more discussion of the implications of this, check my sig.
Re:bad design, not the power (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:bad design, not the power (Score:2)
--Icarus
Re:bad design, not the power (Score:5, Insightful)
strong, fast, cheap. Pick two.
Re:bad design, not the power (Score:5, Informative)
This is exactly what I was going to say. In certain classes of racing (NASCAR in the post-earnhardt-sr. era, I believe) you are required to use a specified carbon fiber crash bumper which is multicellular and will dissipate truly insane amounts of energy. Of course, they're intensely expensive, but I'd say they're well worth it. When it becomes reasonably inexpensive to build such structures I think it will be both reasonable and expected for many light vehicles to be built of such things in perhaps three or four pieces, and when a piece is damaged to any degree it will have to be replaced. It might even be cheaper to give the car one big body and replace the whole thing if the car is in a collision, swapping the entire contents into a new car with a preinstalled wiring harness and fuel lines.
Such a vehicle will likely have plastic body panels on the outside, to protect from damage by rocks and such.
Re:bad design, not the power (Score:3, Informative)
Re:bad design, not the power (Score:3, Interesting)
There are two issues in any impact, vehicular or not: The total impulse and the time over which it is applied. Decrease the first, or increase the second, and the maximum force applied at any given time is decreased. This is why crumple zones are a good thing (tm).
Re:A bit of both! (Score:3, Insightful)
There is a middle ground between the 6000lb crush all vehicle and 500lb speeding balsa model. No, weight alone doesn't make you safer, but adding safety features adds weight. You are more likely to survive running into a wall in a camry than you are a motorcycle, weight differential isn't why, its because you have a "cage" around the driver that makes the force dest
Re:bad design, not the power (Score:5, Insightful)
This was a 2-lane highway (with typical speeds around 55mph, if I remember that area right?), and the solar car was hit when it swerved into the oncoming lane. That could be a fatal even for someone driving a larger vehicle.
So the more interesting question to me would be what caused the driver lost control.
--Bruce Fields
Re:bad design, not the power (Score:5, Interesting)
the occupants of the giant SUV all died.
Small light solar car or giant SUV... an accident at 55mph is usually pretty darn violent.
Re:bad design, not the power (Score:3, Informative)
The collision being talked about in the article, on the other hand, was a
Re:bad design, not the power (Score:3, Informative)
Re:bad design, not the power (Score:3, Interesting)
Except by not allowing them on the highway you remove the possibility of long distance endurance type competition. These races are important because they present challenges you won't necessarily have on a closed course - like construction, road conditions, inclement weather, and oncoming traffic...
Re:bad design, not the power (Score:3, Insightful)
(For you hummer drivers out there, a pushbike is a human propelled vehicle with two wheels that, in cities, is pretty much the fastest form of transport for A-B you can have, faster then Motorbikes)
Re:bad design, not the power (Score:5, Informative)
"solar cars have to get a special permit from the Ministry of Transportation to drive on roads and highways, and must travel with a regular vehicle in front and behind. Those vehicles must have flashing yellow lights on their roofs.
The U of T car was following these regulations."
Quoted from a copy-paste post above...
Re:bad design, not the power (Score:2)
Re:bad design, not the power (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:bad design, not the power (Score:3, Informative)
Re:bad design, not the power (Score:2)
Re:bad design, not the power (Score:5, Interesting)
You, sir, are a fucking idiot. (Score:5, Insightful)
You are placing human life above everything else, assigning infinite value to human life (and not even human life, but the direct life that you can see being lost). You don't know how many lives solar power would *save*. More lives have been lost over oil wars in the last *year*, and more men have died working on undersea oil rigs than will probably ever die working on solar power.
What are you doing right now? Posting on Slashdot. If you really, truly believed in what you were saying, that human life comes above all else, you wouldn't be posting on Slashdot. You'd be out volunteering to help consel suicidal people on a hotline. Or any number of other things that might save a life. But you know what? You aren't -- you're placing a bit of your short-term *enjoyment* (not even an advancement of human knowledge) over someone else's life. I'll bet you speed too, to get where you want to go five minutes faster by gambling with other people's lives. By your standards, you are one sick fuck. Instead, you are quite comfortable criticizing *other* people because they didn't place human lifes (including *their own*) above all else. Yes, they had to try out new designs. Yes, probably they will make a mistake or learn that something doesn't work when they were sure that it did. You are probably sitting in an air-conditioned house with all the food you want handy. It was shipped to you on trucks, which countless lives were lost in perfecting, running internal combustion engines, the development of which cost more lives. Your AC is powered by electrical power produced (if you live in the United States) almost entirely by coal. Do you have the remotest concept of how many people have been killed in coal mines?
But instead, you jab at anyone who is pushing the envelope, every time something goes wrong. It's comfortable for you to attack them. "Safety first". Christ. There is research going on. The people that blazed trails across America, Madam Curie inducing radiation burns on herself, the men that built bridges (and died doing so, as better techniques were learned), they didn't have soft rubberized surfaces and rounded-off corners. People *died*, you ass. But you can ignore them now, because they're in the past and you can just enjoy the fruits of their labor. You can sit supreme in your self-superiority ("If *I* was running that project, not only would nobody die, but we'd get just as much research done"). You don't have any idea what you're talking about. You haven't worked on any of the systems, or have the faintest grounds to talk about the risk factors involved. If you think that this guy's fellow researchers didn't give a damn about him and sacrificed him because they just didn't care about safety, you're a complete idiot. It's armchair quarterbacking of the worst kind, the kind that damages our advancement of knowledge to make you feel a little more warm and fuzzy inside.
Re:bad design, not the power (Score:3, Informative)
Re:bad design, not the power (Score:3, Informative)
1) US car companies DO get funding for research into fule effeciency. (Read a news paper once and a while)
2) Big Oil DOES NOT fund car companines, they fund their own lobbyist in Washington.
Re:bad design, not the power (Score:3, Interesting)
They did, and they didn't. Car companies are happy to take government money, but when it comes time to actually market energy-conscious cars they dig in their heels and file lawsuits until the government gives up and goes away.
Re:Hummers (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Hummers (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Hummers (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:survived (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:But they are safer (Score:3, Insightful)
Got proof for that? 'cuz it sound pretty counter-intuitive to me. See, in case you didn't know, the kinetic energy of one of these vehicles is equal to their mass times their velocity. IOW, a heavy SUV carries a great deal more energy at speed compared to a smaller vehicle. So, in an accident between two SUVs, more energy must be dissipated in the collision. Tell me again how this somehow makes the situa
Re:So .. do we get rid of... (Score:2, Insightful)
I agree. The big vehicles have their uses, like towing big loads through rough terrain. But for just going to pick up groceries, come on... Maybe SUVs should have their own class of vehicle, with a different type of licence. Then they could be only permitted in certain areas, where they are actually the right tool for the job.
Re:So .. do we get rid of... (Score:3, Insightful)
If your choice is HUMMER's then you should also ban vans, pickup trucks, single-decker and double decker buses, lorries, trucks, not forgetting Hackney taxi's, and anything else that's bigger than a HUMMER.
Re:So .. do we get rid of... (Score:4, Insightful)
One could even argue highways ARE for large cars and trucks, not for little experimental vehicles that can't even stay on their own lane
Re:So .. do we get rid of... (Score:3, Informative)
Cars are held to higher crash standards in the US than probably any other nation. Vehicles which have to be modified to be imported to this country are legal even in other countries with lots of large powerful vehicles - For example the Nissan Skyline was sold in Germany in the same trim as in Japan (except left hand drive) until its recent termination as a Nissan product, but the result of crash testing of several imported test vehicles resulted in retrofits being necessary to import them here and make th
Re:woo (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Re:michael, you tree hugger (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:michael, you tree hugger (Score:3, Insightful)
[*] Semi-trailers - deliver enough food to feed a whole district.
[*] Busses - carry 30 people to work or school
[*] Dump trucks - allow you to build houses and such-like
[*] Garbage trucks - Collect the rubbish for a