The New X-Prize...again

The new X-Prize is for a car that gets 100 miles-per-gallon and like the previous X-Prize is for ten million dollars...

Now there are a lot of rules but in general the car must get 100 MPG, it must reach a performance level (but not high performance), it must have four wheels (if it's in the four seat category), it must be possible to manufacture, and it will be compared to other entries.

I can do this but really I'm too busy at this time...and the prototype would cost about $250,000 to shop produce.

------------------------------------------------------

The above is from my first posting about the 100 MPG X-Prize...

And since the car must be possible to manufacture and will be compared to the other cars we can say that the car must be practical.

Also the car must have a climate control system and the car must be current automotive emission standards.

And I've been looking around but I see that I am not going to be able to raise the $250,000 I need to produce a prototype vehicle.

So I'll just lay my cards on the table...

The best that I would have been able to do with the mere $250,000 would be to get a Caterham Super7 kit car in the extra wide version but special order the frame in aluminum rather than steel. And I could't use a motorcycle engine and transmission (which could save 300 pounds in weight) so I would use the smallest 4-cylinder engine currently available and certified for emissions standards in the U.S. market (like a 1.5 Yaris engine). Then I would have to find a transmission for the engine since the car frame that I am using is for rear-wheel-drive. Next I would take the car to an Italian design studio and have them design a bodywork and shape for the car. And the thin flexible fiberglass or Lexan bodywork would attach to mounting points but also push down over plastic shapers. Of course a master fiberglass shop would have to make and fit the bodywork. That's Car A and would weigh about

1200 pounds. The Car A result would be about 75 MPG in highway driving...

So the problem with Car A is the weight but I can't go to a motorcycle engine to save weight because I would have to develop the motorcycle engine to meet emission standards...and that's too much for me.

And I can't lighten Car A with a smaller frame because a strong frame is necessary for a practical car. Why ? Well for example a large adult often gets on a very small child's bicycle and leans into a curve. Then the bicycle goes into a big wiggle. That big wiggle is the frame becoming a spring. So a car that can go 0 to 60 mph in 12 seconds and that can also go

100 mph top speed...must have a strong frame or else it could wiggle off the road. In other words frame strength is very important for a car while not so important for something like a 10 mph golf cart...

And also very small tires can't be used on a practical car because turning into a corner could turn small tires into liquid rubber and let the car run wide in a curve. In other words the current tire design of being wide but also having a short sidewall is a tire that holds up to the demands of the car but also a tire that does not wiggle. And a tire that does not wiggle is a tire that saves fuel...

Now Car B would be the same as Car A but would have the 2.0 Solstice turbocharged engine that makes 260 horsepower and 260 foot-pounds of torque. Why ? Well to take advantage of the high torque at low RPM but to ignore the high horsepower at high RPM. In other words Car B would have the engine speed limited to make an ultra-low RPM engine. Then the 0 to 60 mph run of Car B would likely fully use five gears while Car A could make 60 shortly after hitting third gear. And again Car B takes advantage of the low RPM torque but avoids high RPM fuel draw. And Car B would weigh about 1300 pounds while the MPG result would be about 70 MPG. Also Car B might practically need an automatic transmission for the short shift points...

Now I see the first X-Prize event is September 2009 and that means that I could build Car C.

Car C would be the same as Car A but Car C would use the 2009 VW 2.0 diesel engine. Car C would weigh 1300 pounds and the MPG result would be about 90 MPG. Oh hey, 90 MPG is getting close to the requirement. But there is no way to get the extra 10 MPG. Weight, tires, aerodynamics, and everything else has already been considered. For instance the car is low, has a smooth shape, has a front spoiler, and has side skirts. And the car might also have secondary flexible skirts all the way around that hang down to within 1/2" of the ground. (But moveable aerodymanic devices are banned on race cars by international agreement.)

Now Cars A, B, and C are based on a convertible car that does not have doors or windows. So the newly designed bodywork would likely have a top that swings back to allow the driver and passenger to step in. And these cars are two-seat cars. Now consider a two-seat car that does have traditional doors and windows and the weight goes to 1500 pounds. Consider a four seat four-door car and the the weight of a practical car goes to 2200 pounds. (Keep in mind that a carbon fiber frame car would be too expensive.)

So the 100 MPG X-Prize car can't be done as a practical car unless a motorcycle engine is brought up to automotive emission standards. And the motorcycle engine and transmission would have a difficult shifting linkage...

Now one of the X-Prize entries is a 900 pound car with a 50 horsepower diesel engine. Of course that does it. But is the frame a practical strength ? Are the tires a practical size ? Is the car a practical cost ? Well...if the 50 horsepower diesel is about the same weight as a motorcycle engine and if it meets emission standards...then that does it. Most of the weight would be in the frame of the car with a very light engine...

Reply to
PolicySpy
Loading thread data ...

Oh, if Car B fully uses five gears in a 0 to 60 mph maximum acceleration run then it needs an overdrive sixth gear for the top speed requirement. Of course it would have an overdrive gear anyway...

And Car C would have the RPM limited similar to Car B.

Reply to
PolicySpy

I once designed a car that would get an estimated 150 MPG. The secret is to make your engine with an operating temp of >2,000 degrees F. Gas combusts very efficiently at those temps. Only problem was the ceramic engine didn't last long enough and the insulating jacket kept breaking down, and the engine cost too much to replace.

Greysky

Reply to
greysky

Oh, I said a two-seat car using an automotive engine and transmission could come in at 1300 pounds with a tilt-back top. Then a two-seat car with doors and side windows could come in at 1500 pounds.

Now a very small four-seat car could come in at 1700 pounds while a larger four-seat car could come in at 2200 pounds.

And that's based on a strong tubular frame with a lightweight fiberglass or Lexan bodywork.

Reply to
PolicySpy

Oh, VW has 1.2, 1.4, 1.7, 1.9, and 2.0 tubo diesels...

But only the 1.9 diesel engine has been to the USA market and it is not a current model for emission standards.

Now I believe that the 2.0 diesel engine is planned for the USA market in

2009.

So the problem with the X-Prize is that there is not an engine that a fabrication shop can pull off a shelf to put in their own lightweight vehicle. Any engine found has to be developed to current emission standards...

Reply to
PolicySpy

The car that I envision could look something like this:

formatting link
But go ahead and cover the wheels with bodywork and make a swing back top. Now reduce the 1540 pound weight by using a motorcycle engine and transmission instead of a car engine and transmission. And to target the 100 MPG requirement use about a 50 horsepower engine and have a vehicle weight of 1000 to 1100 pounds...

Reply to
PolicySpy

Hey, I think I've driven one of those before. Its called a go-kart and it was down at the NAS-CART Fasttrak. Hey, there were a lot of cub scouts there that Saturday. If I could market that with its powerful 5 hp Briggs & Stratton I could win the X-prize and one million dollars? Call Algore, I think this will be the answer to the global warming hoax, uh, er, I mean crisis.

Reply to
madcadman

No, the KTM X-BOW has a suspension and is not a go-cart. But at 1650 pounds it does not have top, doors, or windows...while a Lotus Elise at 1980 pounds does have a top, doors, and windows.

Now since the X-BOW uses a 2.0 VW engine it could probably swap for a 2009

2.0 VW diesel. But for a 100 MPG it needs to weigh 1100 pounds instead of 1650 pounds and it needs a 1.1 to 1.4 diesel. Also a swing back top needs to be added because a car without a top would have dubious climate control...

But see the X-BOW is a much better 100 MPG design philosophy direction than someone's high-in-the-air tandem-seat tricycle...and that's the point.

(Now the Lotus Elise might swap for the 1.5 Yaris engine...but still too heavy for 100 MPG.)

Back to the X-BOW...it is actually a race car. And it looks a little like a super-modified. (Of course current stock car fans think a SUV is a race car and have never seen a super-modified.)

Reply to
PolicySpy

The X-BOW has a carbon fiber frame. Carbon fiber is about $50 a pound while fiberglass is about 50 cents a pound.

But carbon fiber is not necessary. The car could have a Ducati-style frame...

Of course the X-BOW is designed for 300 horsepower and for race tire traction...

But put the 2009 VW diesel in the X-BOW, add a swing-back roof, and get about 80 MPG...

Reply to
PolicySpy

A device designed and built to a logistical requirement is not a toy...and that's fundamental.

But the X-Prize might be more practical if it required 70 MPG of a four seat car and 90 MPG of a two-seat car.

Reply to
PolicySpy

"> |

High MPG to benefit humanity is not a toy...so the X-Prize language that you quote refutes your won point.

And a race car built to an established class is not a toy...as sport throughout history has always first been adult endeavor.

But early reports are saying that the 2009 Honda Accord diesel will get 52 MPG. Well I doubt that it will be that good since a European diesel Civic is not quite that good.

But the X-Prize at 100 MPG might be reasonable if they waited for the availability of small diesels that meet U.S. emission standards and that would then be available to fabrication shops. But the smallest U.S. diesel in 2009 is likely to be 2.0 and that is too big for 100 MPG.

The remaining choice is to bring a 1.1 to 1.4 diesel up to current emission standards or to bring a fuel-injected motorcycle engine up to emission standards. But the average fabrication shop is not going to be able to develop and engine to emission standards.

But put a 1.1 to 1.4 diesel into something like the X-BOW and you have an X-Prize entry where all you have to fabricate is some extra bodywork.

Reply to
PolicySpy

That raises some interesting points...

For instance do X-Prize road runs allow for the limited range of an electric car ?

Do the X-Prize road runs avoid longer distance high speed cruise which could hurt hybrid cars ?

Of course there is a formula that allows a MPG of the electric car to be determined...

Reply to
PolicySpy

Now I'll take another approach to the 100 MPG X-Prize entry...and show some planning logic.

The European Honda Civic 2.2 diesel gets 54.3 MPG in combined driving. And I'll put the vehicle weight at 2600 pounds.

Now If I want 108.6 MPG all I have to do is make the vehicle weight 1300 pounds ? Well the answer is no if I use the same engine but the answer is yes if I scale the engine to the vehicle weight.

So a 1300 pound car with a 1.1 diesel engine is good for 100 MPG...

Now we make a 1300 pound car as a two-seat car or as a small four-seat car (such as a Civic). But a mid-size car is going to come in more like 1600 pounds...and so the mid-size car is where the X-Prize is difficult.

And these cars would have tubular frames with flexible bodywork attached to the frame and pushed down over shapers.

But the problem is that there is no 1.1 to 1.4 diesel engine currently certified for U.S. emission standards. See if a fabrication shop or a race car shop had an engine then they could build a car.

Now in 2009 there will be a VW 2.0 diesel engine and a Honda 2.2 diesel engine. Now is there some way to make the large engine act like a small engine ? Well of course lower lift camshafts might work but they would change the characteristics of the emission outputs. Also the engine management system would not be set correctly for the lower lift camshafts. So how about cutting the fuel delivery to one of the cyclinders ? Well if you know which cyclinder (if there is one) does not affect the balance of the engine then that might work. Or you might try cutting the fuel delivery to every cyclinder every other intake cycle...

Reply to
PolicySpy

Oh, a two-seat car or a small four-seat car with a motorcycle engine and transmission could come in at 1000 pounds. And Ducati has water-cooled fuel-injected two-cyclinder four-valve-head motorcycle engines. The problem is that the engine must be developed to meet automotive emission standards, the engine must be developed for fuel efficiency rather than for performance, and since the car must have climate control an air-conditioning unit must be added to the engine...

Reply to
PolicySpy

Not quite the requirement but here's a 3 cylinder 1.5 diesel developed to Euro 4 emission standars...

formatting link

Reply to
PolicySpy

And here are some more sources for small European diesel engines:

formatting link

Reply to
PolicySpy

PolyTech Forum website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.