LocostUSA.com

Learning how to build Lotus Seven replicas...together!
It is currently Tue Sep 02, 2014 2:47 pm

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 23 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Tue Aug 15, 2006 1:21 am 
Offline
Locostering Information Liaison
User avatar

Joined: Wed Aug 17, 2005 1:30 am
Posts: 2402
Location: So CALIFORNIA
Is it possible.....
Kept that question in mind as you read the post.

So I picked up a copy of popular mechanics....
Article here....
http://www.popsci.com/popsci/automotive ... drcrd.html
Quote:
...automakers have responded with a fleet of cars that averages 21 miles per gallon, about four miles per gallon worse than the Model T.


Quote:
Several small companies are developing new engine technologies and advanced automotive designs that promise to deliver 100 miles from a single gallon of gas. The proposals run from the simple—reduce weight, improve aerodynamics—to the incredible (one company wants to borrow a few tricks from jet engines).

The race should heat up further when the X Prize Foundation—the group that kick-started the space-tourism industry with its $10-million competition to produce a reusable private spacecraft—announces in the next few months a competition for the first car to break 100 miles per gallon and sell a yet-to-be-decided number of units. The prize money hadn’t been finalized at press time, but X Prize officials are discussing figures in the $25-million range as an appropriate incentive. They hope the prize will urge people to completely reconsider what a car should look like and how it should function. “We need a paradigm shift,” says Mark Goodstein, the executive director for the automotive X Prize. “We need to change the way people think about automobiles.”


Quote:
By far the most obvious approach to achieving ultra-high mileage is to dramatically cut weight and wind resistance, the chief enemies of highway mileage.


So my question to the community is can it be done with locost TECH?

Yes the chassis would need to be redesighned..... But lets look at the CD
Quote:
# 5.10 - 1999 Honda Insight
# 5.71 - 1990 Honda CR-X Si
# 5.76 - 1968 Toyota 2000GT
# 5.88 - 1990 Nissan 240SX
# 5.92 - 1994 Porsche 911 Speedster
# 6.27 - 1986 Porsche 911 Carrera
# 6.27 - 1992 Chevy Corvette
# 6.54 - 1991 Saturn Sports Coupe
# 6.57 - 1985 Chevy Corvette
# 6.77 - 1995 BMW M3
# 6.79 - 1993 Toyota Corolla DX
# 6.81 - 1991 Subaru Legacy
# 6.90 - 1993 Saturn Wagon
# 6.96 - 1988 Porsche 944 S
# 6.96 - 1995 Chevy Lumina LS
# 7.02 - 1992 BMW 325I
# 7.04 - 1991 Honda Civic EX
# 7.10 - 1995 Saab 900
# 7.14 - 1995 Subaru Legacy L
# 7.34 - 2001 Honda Civic
# 7.39 - 1994 Honda Accord EX
# 7.48 - 1993 Camaro Z28
# 7.57 - 1992 Toyota Camry
# 7.69 - 1994 Chrysler LHS
# 7.72 - 1993 Subaru Impreza
# 8.70 - 1990 Volvo 740 Turbo
# 8.71 - 1991 Buick LeSabre Limited
# 9.54 - 1992 Chevy Caprice Wagon
# 10.7 - 1992 Chevy Blazer
# 16.8 - 2006 Hummer H3
# 26.3 - Hummer H2 (like driving 3 cars at once)


Quote:
Some notable examples:

* 2.1 - a smooth brick
* 0.9 - a typical bicycle plus cyclist
* 0.7 to 1.1 - typical values for a Formula 1 car (wing settings change for each circuit)
* 0.7 - Caterham Seven
* at least 0.6 - a typical truck
* 0.57 - Hummer H2, 2003
* 0.51 - Citroën 2CV
* over 0.5 - Dodge Viper
* 0.44 - Toyota Truck, 1990-1995
* 0.42 - Lamborghini Countach, 1974
* 0.42 - Triumph Spitfire Mk IV, 1971-1980
* 0.42 - Plymouth Duster, 1994
* 0.39 - Dodge Durango, 2004
* 0.39 - Triumph Spitfire, 1964-1970
* 0.38 - Volkswagen Beetle
* 0.38 - Mazda Miata, 1989
* 0.374 - Ford Capri Mk III, 1978-1986
* 0.372 - Ferrari F50, 1996
* 0.36 - Eagle Talon, mid-1990s
* 0.36 - Citroën DS, 1955
* 0.36 - Ferrari Testarossa, 1986
* 0.36 - Opel GT, 1969
* 0.36 - Honda Civic, 2001
* 0.36 - Citroën CX, 1974 (the car was named after the term for drag coefficient)
* 0.355 - NSU Ro 80, 1967
* 0.34 - Ford Sierra, 1982
* 0.34 - Ferrari F40, 1987
* 0.34 - Chevrolet Caprice, 1994-1996
* 0.34 - Chevrolet Corvette Z06, 2006
* 0.338 - Chevrolet Camaro, 1995
* 0.33 - Dodge Charger, 2006
* 0.33 - Audi A3, 2006
* 0.33 - Subaru Impreza WRX STi, 2004
* 0.33 - Mazda RX-7 FC3C, 1987-91
* 0.33 - Citroen SM, 1970
* 0.32064 - Volkswagen GTI Mk V, 2006 (0.3216 with ground effects)
* 0.32 - Toyota Celica,1995-2005
* 0.31 - Citroën GS, 1970
* 0.31 - Renault 25, 1984
* 0.31 - Citroën AX, 1986
* 0.31 - Mazda RX-7 FC3S, 1986-91
* 0.31 - Eagle Vision
* 0.30 - Saab 92, 1947
* 0.30 - Audi 100, 1983
* 0.30 - Porsche 996, 1997
* 0.30 - BMW E90, 2006
* 0.29 - Dodge Charger Daytona, 1969
* 0.29 - Honda CRX HF 1988
* 0.29 - Subaru XT, 1985
* 0.29 - BMW 8-Series, 1989
* 0.29 - Porsche Boxster, 2005
* 0.29 - Chevrolet Corvette, 2005
* 0.29 - Mazda RX-7 FC3S Aero Package, 1986-91
* 0.29 - Lancia Dedra, 1990-1998
* 0.29 - Honda Accord Hybrid, 2005
* 0.29 - Lotus Elite, 1958
* 0.29 - Mercedes-Benz W203 C-Class Coupe, 2001 - 2007
* 0.28 - Toyota Camry and sister model Lexus ES, 2005
* 0.28 - Porsche 997, 2004
* 0.28 - Renault 25 TS, 1984
* 0.28 - Saab 9-3, 2003
* 0.27 - Infiniti G35, 2002 (0.26 with "aero package")
* 0.27 - Mercedes-Benz W203 C-Class Sedan, 2001 - 2007
* 0.27 - Rumpler, 1921
* 0.27 - Toyota Camry Hybrid, 2007
* 0.26 - Alfa Romeo Disco Volante, 1952
* 0.26 - Hotchkiss Gregoire, 1951
* 0.26 - Mercedes-Benz W221 S-Class, 2006
* 0.26 - Toyota Prius, 2004
* 0.26 - Vauxhall Calibra, 1989
* 0.25 - Dymaxion, 1933
* 0.25 - Honda Insight, 1999
* 0.24 - Audi A2 1.2 TDI, 2001
* 0.212 - Tatra T77a, 1935
* 0.20 - Loremo Concept, 2006
* 0.20 - Opel Eco Speedster Concept, 2003
* 0.195 - General Motors EV1, 1996
* 0.19 - Alfa Romeo BAT Concept, 1953
* 0.19 - Dodge Intrepid ESX Concept , 1995
* 0.19 - Mercedes-Benz "Bionic Car" Concept, 2005 [1] (based on the boxfish)
* 0.16 - Daihatsu UFEIII Concept, 2005
* 0.16 - General Motors Precept Concept, 2000
* 0.14 - Fiat Turbina Concept, 1954
* 0.137 - Ford Probe V prototype, 1985


Both taken from....
http://www.answers.com/topic/drag-coefficient-1

With an areo-dynamic body and a fuel sipping motor....
Is it possible?
(please keep that idea in mind)

One of our own has already stated tha he is building a 1100 lb GT Swift
http://www.locostusa.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=922
His weights are well with in limits (good enought) for this dicussion.

With an areo body and light wight id it possible?

The contenders
Image
Quote:
The hydraulic-hybrid system, scheduled to begin testing in two UPS trucks this month, with another to follow next year, promises to return at least 70 percent of the braking energy back to the wheels, which would lead to a 60 to 70 percent jump in fuel economy and a 40 percent reduction in emissions. Perhaps that’s why Charles Gray, the director of the Advanced Technology Division and one of the developers of the hydraulic hybrid, can’t contain his excitement about its potential. “This is going to be the biggest revolution in automotive history,” he declares. “Bigger than the assembly line.”
That’s yet to be seen, of course, but the hydraulic hybrid is also smaller and cheaper than conventional hybrids. “I can hold a 500-horsepower hydraulic pump motor in my hand, and I’m not a big guy,” Gray says. Because the technology would eliminate the need for a transmission—the engine merely pressurizes the hydraulic system, while the hydraulic motors power the wheels—and several other parts, it could be installed in a small car for almost no additional cost. Ford, the U.S. Army and others are investigating the technology, yet UPS—with its fleet of vehicles that constantly suffer through stop-and-go driving—is its only committed customer so far.

http://www.acceleratedcomposites.com/

Image
Quote:
Based on data from compressor prototypes, Rabroker believes the StarRotor will convert between 45 and 65 percent of the chemical energy in its fuel to mechanical energy, irrespective of the engine’s operating speed or power. In contrast, a typical gasoline engine has a peak efficiency of about 30 percent at full throttle and operates at a much lower efficiency during typical driving conditions. “Double is a gimme,” Rabroker says of the StarRotor’s potential. “I think we can ultimately triple the fuel mileage.”

And their Website.....engines
http://www.starrotor.com/Engine.htm

So with a light weight areo-dynamice skin and a re-disighed body with a fuel sipping motor is it possible?

Remove Excess Weight

Avoid keeping unnecessary items in your vehicle, especially heavy ones. An extra 100 pounds in your vehicle could reduce your MPG by up to 2%. The reduction is based on the percentage of extra weight relative to the vehicle's weight and affects smaller vehicles more than larger ones.
Fuel Economy Benefit:
1-2%/100 lbs
Equivalent Gasoline Savings:
$0.03-$0.06/gallon
http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/driveHabits.shtml

Lets look at weights.....Swift GTI was rated at 1741 lbs, MPG 39,4 or 51 MPG in desiel trim*
http://www.fueleconomy.gov/mpg/MPG.do?a ... owser=true
*http://www.greencarcongress.com/2005/08/another_fueleff.html

I will edit this tomorow....[/quote]

_________________
I'll keep an eye out for you!

To err is human...
I am more human than most.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Aug 15, 2006 1:47 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Aug 14, 2006 2:09 am
Posts: 385
Location: Sacramento, CA
I was actually just discussing this with a friend the other day. My idea was to make a trike using a vw tdi or something, with a weight below 1000 lbs, and some really good aero, I thought it would get exceptional mileage.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Aug 15, 2006 1:59 am 
Offline
Locostering Information Liaison
User avatar

Joined: Wed Aug 17, 2005 1:30 am
Posts: 2402
Location: So CALIFORNIA
VW Lupo (1 liter desiel) got 70-80 MPG weighing in at 1600lbs-1700lbs?

_________________
I'll keep an eye out for you!

To err is human...
I am more human than most.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Aug 15, 2006 2:58 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Aug 14, 2006 2:09 am
Posts: 385
Location: Sacramento, CA
Too bad we don't have lupos, that's insane.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Aug 15, 2006 6:48 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Aug 15, 2005 10:13 pm
Posts: 7048
Location: Charleston, WV
I think that vw tdi idea has some merit. Put one in a lightweight locost and slap on an eleven body and I'll bet you are looking at 80MPG right there. My brother in law has acheived 55mpg highway from that engine in his pig of a Golf. (around 3000#)

_________________
He is a wise man who does not grieve for the things which he has not, but rejoices for those which he has.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Aug 15, 2006 8:48 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Aug 16, 2005 10:29 am
Posts: 1064
Location: Alberta, Canada
A little diesel engine (think 300cc or so) in a lightweight microcar body would do it. Things like Scootacars and such were getting close in the 60s. Not super practical of course.

Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Aug 15, 2006 9:50 am 
Offline
Mid-Engined Maniac

Joined: Sun Apr 23, 2006 8:26 pm
Posts: 4834
Location: SoCal
The secret is ALL aerodynamics. The dry-lake racers weigh a lot but have very, very, slippery bodies. Can it be done Locost? Yes - if you're handed the bodyshell. Without that no.

Of course it all comes down to what your/my/our definition is of "Low"cost.

Before we get all excited we should throw out some requirements, like, having two upright seats. No point in presenting something where the lone driver is flat on his stomach!

_________________
Midlana book: Build this mid-engine Locost!, http://www.midlana.com/
Kimini book: Designing mid-engine cars using FWD drivetrains, http://www.kimini.com/book_info/


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Aug 15, 2006 12:03 pm 
Offline
Locostering Information Liaison
User avatar

Joined: Wed Aug 17, 2005 1:30 am
Posts: 2402
Location: So CALIFORNIA
Image

Quote:
The Aptera concept car, a three-wheeled, bullet-shaped two-seater that minimizes drag and weighs only 850 pounds (the Toyota Prius weighs 2,890 pounds). It uses a low-weight, low-drag approach to increasing fuel economy. The goal: 330 mpg for under $20,000 within two years.


back to drag coeffecients....

Quote:
The first Elite or Lotus Type 14 was an ultra-light two-seater coupé, produced from 1957 to 1962. Advanced aerodynamics also made a contribution, giving the car a very low drag coefficient of 0.29 — quite low even for modern cars. This accomplishment is all the more notable considering that the engineers did not enjoy the benefits of computer-aided design and wind tunnel testing.
Curb weight 503.5 kg

1 Kg = aprox 2.2lbs, 503.5x 2.2 = 1107.7 lbs
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lotus_Elite

Lotus 11 replica
Image
Quote:
We filled our almost-empty fuel tank and calculated our mileage at 44 mpg.

Quote:
Our best mileage up to that point had been 52 mpg (Kansas tailwind) and our worst had been 43 mpg (Colorado mountain headwind).

- June 1984 Road & Track, (great article fun to read)
http://members.toast.net/joerger/north.html

Aerodynamics/Lower Drag Coefficient:
Seeking sleeker profiles, hybrid engineers often resort to unconventional design features to maximize airflow. For example, the Honda Insight has an ultralow drag coefficient of 0.25 due to its sleek profile and odd-looking covered rear wheels. Even the Toyota Prius, which looks fairly normal to the untrained eye, has a drag coefficient of just 0.29 because every effort was made to make it as slippery as possible. Because a vehicle with less drag requires less power (and fuel) to move, all manufacturers try to reduce drag wherever possible.
http://autos.aol.com/article/hybrid/v2/ ... RL_article

Quote:
Why Not One Hundred MPG?
The Volkswagen Lupo 3L turbodiesel and the Audi A2, which use the same engine, have both edged close to 80 mpg. That's better than a hybrid. On the downside, that amazing three-cylinder diesel doesn't meet U.S. emissions standards

Quote:
Slicing Through the Air
Aerodynamics are critical for good fuel economy--especially on the highway. "The aerodynamics become a factor exponentially the faster you go," says Nissan's Plavetich. A low-slung, top-speed machine isn't exactly the best design for shuttling the kids to school. But the Mercedes-Benz Bionic Car concept could do the job. Its fishlike profile is tall and skinny, but it is one of slipperiest designs ever conceived for a passenger car. The shape helps the 2888-pound concept deliver a claimed 84 mpg on the highway.

Image
http://www.popularmechanics.com/automot ... 74271.html

Quote:
The Lupo has a curb weight of 800 Kg or aprox 1760lbs

http://www.volkswagen-sustainability.co ... wnload.pdf

While I could find the numbers Drag Co-effecient for the the Lotus Elite it shouldn't be surprising that i could not find the cd for a 48 yo old car that was produced in limited numbers. (lotus 11)

I like the idea of the lotus 11 with a Volkswagen Lupo 3L turbodiesel engine. The lotus 11 would be almost 700 ponds lighter and would translate to 7-14% in increase fuel economy. Low rolling resistence tires light weight rims and other weight saving would put the car very close to the magic number.

I guess the idea question was "Is it possible..... "
Is it possible using existing technology? Is it possible? Yeah I think it is. The magic number of 100 MPG looks really close and the Lotus 11 is a sexy car unlike most of those other areo jelly beans. Of course driving the lotus 11 with only 61 hp would be alittle sad.

(VW Lupo HP rating)
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=& ... tnG=Search

I found this and I thought it would be a funny way of closing this thought...
Quote:
....just how fast do I want to go in a brick-shaped car anyway?

http://www.kimini.com/Diaries/2006Jan_Feb/

_________________
I'll keep an eye out for you!

To err is human...
I am more human than most.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Aug 15, 2006 1:34 pm 
Offline
Mid-Engined Maniac

Joined: Sun Apr 23, 2006 8:26 pm
Posts: 4834
Location: SoCal
"Of course driving the lotus 11 with only 61 hp would be alittle sad."

Exactly. It doesn't matter what the mpg if people hate the car. They don't have to love it, but it would be nice if it was pleasent to drive and be seen in. Marketing counts.

That yellow egg-shaped one is about the best shape that can contain a human driver. I read someplace the Cd of the basic body was something crazy like 0.04. Pretty nuts. With a good engine it should be easily doable.

_________________
Midlana book: Build this mid-engine Locost!, http://www.midlana.com/
Kimini book: Designing mid-engine cars using FWD drivetrains, http://www.kimini.com/book_info/


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Aug 15, 2006 2:07 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Aug 15, 2005 10:13 pm
Posts: 7048
Location: Charleston, WV
Any information yet on what the additional requirements are for this contest? How many passengers, what type of driving, minimum weight, max speed, etc?

_________________
He is a wise man who does not grieve for the things which he has not, but rejoices for those which he has.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Aug 15, 2006 2:44 pm 
Offline
Locostering Information Liaison
User avatar

Joined: Wed Aug 17, 2005 1:30 am
Posts: 2402
Location: So CALIFORNIA
1. "Mass produceable, with production numbers yet unspecified"
Over 200 units a year and you have to crash test vehicles (very expensive).
2. crash survivable
3. and affordable (just some the Pop Sci mentioned)

Image
Mileage X prize
http://www.xprizefoundation.com/prizes/ ... motive.asp

Christian Science Monitor
http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/0508/p01s03-stss.html

APX Blog
http://autoblog.xprize.org/

general Talk
http://technocrat.net/d/2006/5/7/3244
http://www.treehugger.com/files/2006/02 ... xprize.php
http://www.greencarcongress.com/2006/04 ... roduc.html
http://www.autoblog.com/2006/05/05/extr ... on-of-gas/

Fuel_Efficiency
http://peswiki.com/energy/Directory:Fuel_Efficiency

Interview with Mark Goodstein, X PRIZE Foundation Good info
http://www.socaltech.com/fullstory/0003465.html

Google search = mileage "x prize"
http://www.google.com/search?q=mileage+ ... rt=10&sa=N

_________________
I'll keep an eye out for you!

To err is human...
I am more human than most.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Aug 16, 2006 1:57 am 
Offline
Locostering Information Liaison
User avatar

Joined: Wed Aug 17, 2005 1:30 am
Posts: 2402
Location: So CALIFORNIA
MY apologies to the group I was just curious....others have sunk HUGE R&D monies into this project that a hobbiest is not even close to competeing unless they started years ago. I was just curious.....

Again the designs appear to be Exotic and very rather high priced.....I was curious if it could be done with existing tech. Thanks to all that commented.

_________________
I'll keep an eye out for you!

To err is human...
I am more human than most.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Aug 16, 2006 9:37 am 
Offline
Mid-Engined Maniac

Joined: Sun Apr 23, 2006 8:26 pm
Posts: 4834
Location: SoCal
There's one other thing that makes much of this irrelevant; heavy traffic on most urban highways. I live 17 miles from work which typically takes 40 minutes to drive. With such a low average speed, aerodynamic aids are useless. Light weight, a CV transmission and a tiny Diesel engine (if not electric) is what's needed to achieve the goal.

_________________
Midlana book: Build this mid-engine Locost!, http://www.midlana.com/
Kimini book: Designing mid-engine cars using FWD drivetrains, http://www.kimini.com/book_info/


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Aug 17, 2006 9:29 am 
Offline

Joined: Thu Aug 17, 2006 8:55 am
Posts: 365
Hey guys, I just joined.

Couple of things... it seems to me building a car that actually achieves 100 MPG is much easier than selling it in volume.

This little article has been going around: Caterham with modified body work achieving 131 MPG:
http://www.greenvehiclenews.com/index.p ... 5&Itemid=2

Of course, that was not in a EPA highway fuel economy test...

Ford is rumored to be planning a hydraulic hybrid F-150 planned with a 60 MPG target http://www.autoblog.com/2006/02/14/ford ... id-system/

I personally find it hard to believe that even at steady state driving (where the launch assist hydraulics can't help) a F-150 can get 60 MPG, but what do I know.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Aug 17, 2006 9:51 am 
Offline
Mid-Engined Maniac

Joined: Sun Apr 23, 2006 8:26 pm
Posts: 4834
Location: SoCal
I agree. The problem with pickups is the shape. My V6 Toyota doesn't get much better mileage than the V8, but that's just the way it is.

Unless they have some really aerodynamic bed cover...

_________________
Midlana book: Build this mid-engine Locost!, http://www.midlana.com/
Kimini book: Designing mid-engine cars using FWD drivetrains, http://www.kimini.com/book_info/


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 23 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
POWERED_BY