What do you want in a 100 MPG car?

[donskar]

A number of people have mentioned a 3-wheel configuration. Looks like a good choice at first glance, but does anyone remember the Reliant Robin 3-wheeler? I recall it had terminal stability problems.

[roost89]

A number of people have mentioned a 3-wheel configuration. Looks like a good choice at first glance, but does anyone remember the Reliant Robin 3-wheeler? I recall it had terminal stability problems.

I hear they have bad stability but I think that was caused by the layout of the 3 wheels. 1 at the front and 2 at the back. I know of cars that have 2 at the front and 1 at the back. I think that may have been because it has better stability that way.
And the Reliant(s) looked like they were normal cars without a wheel.

But check out this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XI77icKqa68 as far as I'm aware it's called the 'Carver One'

[zac510]

This is quite a good thread!
I think from a consumer perspective it would be reasonable to say that we would not accept any less than an NCAP 4 or 5, 70-80mph top speed and a cd/radio as bare minimum. It would also need to be a manual or automatic (as some of the market demands) and still do 100mpg. Power steering might not be needed if the car is light enough.
Stuff like satnav or more stereo can often be added later with a stand alone units.

Personally I think I could deal with just 2 seats, if the rear space could accomodate some luggage when required.

[Carlos]

The 2 front, 1 rear driven wheel is very stable, here is a French article outlining the vehicle dynamics of this arangement.
http://www.clevislauzon.qc.ca/Professeu ... tabil4.htm
An English article:
http://designmassif.com/trihawk/article ... /3wc-1.htm
Another thread on 3 wheel vehicles, with about 24 links
viewtopic.php?t=4080

[WhiteBlue]

this turns into some marketing issue as well.

I would propose two classes of cars. 2seaters need to reach 150 mpg. four seaters nead to have 100 mpg.

I suspect that electronic stability has changed some of the research results that are more than 15 years old. compare the swiss cabin motorcycle with training wheels which are only deployed when needed for stoping and starting. pretty much like an aircraft actually.

based on that design I reckon that aerodynamically three wheelers are not competitive unless you use them for three seats which again is interesting by the staggered seating arangement.

so three seaters could be required to get 120 mpg.

[kevster145]

http://www.aptera.com/ this but 4 seater

[WhiteBlue]

can't stop myself admiring that Buick. Stefanie would hate uncle Sondor's barge.

but I love it as much as the aptera.

cool stuff!!

[Ciro Pabón]

I don't know, yes the fuel economy is improving, but if that's your real goal, and given the fact that most 100 mpg cars are a little shabby, sometimes they're trikes, why don't you use a bike?

Masakazu Matszukawa achieved 470 mpg with this bike in 1985.



I love, I really love this interview.

http://www.craigvetter.com/pages/470MPG ... talks.html

Excerpts:

- Mufflers… what worked what did not work?

- Silent with it, noisy without it

...

- It is generally believed that false neutrals and or sprag sprockets were used?

- I do not know meaning of “false neutrals and or sprag sprockets”

...

- What general guidelines can you offer to riders to get better mileage? The pros and cons of, shifting early, lugging the engine, coasting, tidbits that you can offer to help the new generation.

- Enjoy ride to try get low mileage result. Try many ways, but with fun!!

...

- Today, if you wanted to build a usable, high mileage machine for real, solo, cross country riding (coast to coast) please describe what kind of machine you would start with and what you would do to it:

- Buy Honda Insight, drive easy with air conditioner. The size…two seater Hybrid.



All you in pain at the pump, get a bike, men.

[Belatti]

In a previous post I said that Fuel was ARG$2.4 in my country, well, guess what?
Yesterday it climbed to ARG$2.6

The only reason I don´t get a bike is cause I´m afraid my right hand is as heavy as my right foot and I have 0.1 experience with bikes. My head will be the bumper.
Only have ride a 50cc when kid and a CR85 a couple of months ago, with my arm and shoulder full of "strawberries" as consequence

[greenpower dude reloaded]

Ok, I understand why people want greater economy from they're vehicles, I know I do and my little Fiat Punto when driven (incredibly) sensibly can return just under 60mpg (uk) which by is pretty good for a 12yr old car, that can still top out at over 110mph on the track of course.

anyway, back to my point, this doesn't really solve the problem just eases it, we will run out of oil who knows for sure how long it will actually take until, but it's going to happen.

Ideally we need to find a new source of motivation, there are plenty of different ideas as to how this can be done,

My personal favourite outright electric, it's fundamentally flawed eco wise (where does the power come from in the first place?)

Hydrogen-electric, which solves the problem of where the power comes from.

Bio Fuels such as Bio Ethanol which isn't exactly ideal for our environment, but it is better than Petrol/Diesel.

Solar, which in the UK at least i view as somewhat of a nonstarter.

..and last but not least Hybrid to ease the cross over in to electric. I personally feel that with hybrids the best solution is to have a small engine (possibly using bioethanol) run at its peak efficiency constantly just as a generator. This could then be shut off whenever the batteries reach a certain voltage. Can you imagine the potential range on these?

I have a little bit of experience in the field of Fuel efficient vehicles I have worked on 2 Shell Eco Marathon cars, the best we achieved was 2904mpg (UK) some years ago and although we haven't campaigned the car for a while we are still around 1500mpg ahead of the top car in the class we used to compete in.
http://horsfallracing.co.uk/Shell%20eco.html there's some pics there.

Once I have got my current electric racing car finished, I plan to make a road legal electric 3 wheeler 2-1 layout. I'm currently thinking front wheels out (smaller Fa)wide relatively high driving position so that it's not "invisible" and can clear speed bumps, faired in front wheels and suspension. Deep cycle batteries and brushless motor. I'd use this for the drive to work everyday which is only 70miles a week but depending on range I could use it for other purposes as well as 9/10 its just me in my car.

[WhiteBlue]

whoever thinks a bike will be more fuel efficieny than a car needs a reality check. I am a proud owner of a 1990 BMW K 75S The flying Brick(with ABS) and will never give that bike away. it is extremely reliable low maintenace and built like a brick shithouse. with 75 bhp it goes 201 km/h on motorways but it takes 5-6 L of super unleaded fuel for its 3 cylinder water cooled electronic fuel injected engine. considering its year of build thats not too bad.

but compare that with a 2007 2L BMW 118 turbocharged diesel hatchback there are miles of economy between. the aerodynamics of the car are so refined that it takes only 5 L at 120 km/h highway speed. it instantly adds 10% consumption if you open the windows. thats how sensitive aerodynamics are. bikes will never come close to that drag figures unless you make them fully enclosed and add electronically deployed training wheels. the car gives you 4 passengers and some luggage.

try to load the flying brick for a tour de france and you will see that fuel consumption go through the roof. and lets not talk about tyre consumption. the flying brick insn't really bad in that category but it still takes a rear tyre all 5000 km.

so if you ask me for a transport with good economy I would recommend a car with a small projected area, a good cw drag coeficient and hatchback design.

[Ciro Pabón]

Well, as for reality check, my daughter owns a Honda Rebel and I don't know about BMWs, but it certainly is cheaper to fill than a car. She says that the bike gives her (I'm not sure about the conversion) around 3.5 liters per 100 km. And she looks cool.

My experience with bikes doesn't go beyond a Vespa Primavera, and, man, that thing was indestructible and even cheaper than the Rebel, I swear.

[WhiteBlue]

yes, bikes are cheaper to drive than cars. the issue here was how they compare to cars when you use them as a family. in India they ride bikes with four or five people. such applications would be better served by a car. bikes in western economies are fun vehicles and do not offer the benefits of proper cars in terms of fuel and tyre economy.

my idea is to discuss this issue by different classes which primarily are distinguished by how many people can be leagally transported.

so if you compare a two seat motorcycle with a two seat car you will find little differentiation in consumption but plenty of difference in user appreciation. aero plays a big role in this.

[fastback33]

Ok, I understand why people want greater economy from they're vehicles, I know I do and my little Fiat Punto when driven (incredibly) sensibly can return just under 60mpg (uk) which by is pretty good for a 12yr old car, that can still top out at over 110mph on the track of course.

anyway, back to my point, this doesn't really solve the problem just eases it, we will run out of oil who knows for sure how long it will actually take until, but it's going to happen.

Ideally we need to find a new source of motivation, there are plenty of different ideas as to how this can be done,

My personal favourite outright electric, it's fundamentally flawed eco wise (where does the power come from in the first place?)

Hydrogen-electric, which solves the problem of where the power comes from.

Bio Fuels such as Bio Ethanol which isn't exactly ideal for our environment, but it is better than Petrol/Diesel.

Solar, which in the UK at least i view as somewhat of a nonstarter.

..and last but not least Hybrid to ease the cross over in to electric. I personally feel that with hybrids the best solution is to have a small engine (possibly using bioethanol) run at its peak efficiency constantly just as a generator. This could then be shut off whenever the batteries reach a certain voltage. Can you imagine the potential range on these?

I have a little bit of experience in the field of Fuel efficient vehicles I have worked on 2 Shell Eco Marathon cars, the best we achieved was 2904mpg (UK) some years ago and although we haven't campaigned the car for a while we are still around 1500mpg ahead of the top car in the class we used to compete in.
http://horsfallracing.co.uk/Shell%20eco.html there's some pics there.

Once I have got my current electric racing car finished, I plan to make a road legal electric 3 wheeler 2-1 layout. I'm currently thinking front wheels out (smaller Fa)wide relatively high driving position so that it's not "invisible" and can clear speed bumps, faired in front wheels and suspension. Deep cycle batteries and brushless motor. I'd use this for the drive to work everyday which is only 70miles a week but depending on range I could use it for other purposes as well as 9/10 its just me in my car.

You're right. We are just avoiding the real problem. However, i think that whatever source of energy we use, needs to be some kind of tangible liquid. Gas stations are just too prolific (for lack of a better word) to not use them once we find something new. Converting a pump to something electric would not work to well either, as it would take far too much money converting the gas pumps to some kind of electric form.

If anyone watches the IRL you'll see concstant promotion of bio-ethanol. I think that is the future for now...

[nae]

If anyone watches the IRL you'll see concstant promotion of bio-ethanol. I think that is the future for now...

only if you dont mind not eating,

the world struggles to grow enough food on the land available and to give that land over to fuel production is simply mad, it takes something like 7l of fuel per hectare to produce 11l of bio fuel, the idea is plain and simple hogwash i am afraid

sounds good mind you