How To Make Awesome Cars A Reality (330 mpg diesel-hybrid)
by Michael Graham Richard, Gatineau, Canada on 01.18.06
This concept car is amazing! It is a 2-seat, 3-wheel serial (bio)diesel hybrid called the Aptera: It achieves 330 miles per gallon (0.7 liter/100 kilometers!) in normal city and highway driving, has a 0.055-0.06 coefficient of drag (much lower than even the best current hybrids, and even than other cool prototypes like the 70 mpg Boxfish diesel hybrid by DaimlerChrysler) and a projected price of less than $20,000. Great uh? But the reaction of most people when they look at it is: "It'll never pass safety tests! You'd get run over by an Escalade!"
They are most probably right; if that vehicle was to be on our roads at the same time as the huge vehicles we currently have, it would be at a ginormous safety disadvantage. But if it was on the road with other vehicles of the same type (not necessarily as small, but in the same ballpark of weight and efficiency -- we'd gladly settle for the bigger 200 mpg biodisel-hybrid compromise that could be designed using the same technologies), the playing fiel would be level and safety would not be such a problem. It is the same thing with SUVs vs cars; road mortality had been dropping for decades until suburbanites & other people who don't need them started buying trucks, and now road-safety has been compromised.
The real problem is: Even if we can make very efficient vehicles with radical new designs, how do we get them on the road? How do we make the transition from our current breed of heavy metal machines to small aerodynamic composite-materials hybrids (and fuel cells) without having both types share the pavement?
The faster that happens, the best it will be for all of us, but the way things are going, it will probably unfold in North-America is like this: oil will keep getting more expensive, SUVs sales will keep going down, cars will progressively slim down (Small Japanese Cars Are Coming to North-America, Again) and hybridizing until North-America catches up to Europe and Asia in vehicle size. Then it will be a lot more realistic to envision a move to such cool vehicles as the concept-hybrid mentioned at the beginning of this post.
Thanks to ::Green Car Congress for the info on the Aptera.
Accelerated Composites, a San Diego, California-area startup, has designed a two-seat, three-wheel parallel hybrid—the Aptera—to achieve up to 330 MPG and sell for less than $20,000. [...]The production powertrain will consist of a 12 hp (9 kW) diesel engine with a 25 hp (19 kW) permanent magnet DC motor. (Accelerated Composites is designing the prototype with a gasoline engine for cost.) The electric motor is coupled through a Continuously Variable Transmission (CVT); when the engine is off the car can run on the electric motor alone. [...]
The Aptera weighs 850 lbs and is made almost entirely of lightweight composites, based on Accelerated Composites’ Panelized Automated Composite Construction (PAC2) process. It accelerates from 0–60 mph in 11 seconds, and has a top speed of 95 mph.
::Accelerated Composites, ::A 330 mpg Car For Everyone (pdf)
To catch up:
All good points! I'll put them in the FAQ. Until then I'll try and address them.
*License plate: The plate is recessed with a flush mount Lexan cover (like an aircraft landing light). Our designer hurt his wrist and was not able to complete the renderings before the press release. Images on the website will be updated in due time.
*Bumpers et al: The Aptera will be treated as a motorcycle in the eyes of the law, but that doesn't mean it's unsafe. On the contrary, it will have the same type of airbag-in-seatbelt technology used in newer light planes. Additionally, the dirver and passenger sit in a 'crashbox' thats underneath the aeroshell...or body. There's crushable/absorbing material between the aeroshell and body as well. The crashbox design, still being modeled and simulated, offers much more protection than most car doors/pillars.
*cold weather: Since the core material of the crashbox sandwich has a very high 'R' value, the Aptera should lose/gain heat very slowly. Meaning, it doesn't take much energy to heat or cool.
Thanks,
Steve
and
After reading more of your press release, I see that the safety issues seem to be addressed. The PR reads:
"The Aptera© is made almost entirely of lightweight composites, making it one of the lightest cars on the road. Yet this savings does not come at the cost of safety. In fact, the construction of the car is based on the driver-protection “crash box” found in Formula One race cars. “Composites are enormously strong and lightweight,” says Fambro. “That’s why all the aircraft manufacturers are switching to them.”
I'm a little lost on the whole "safety standards" comment? What safety standards?
If I'm to believe that an enclosed car shaped vehicle like the above won't "pass" standards, how is it that motorcycles and bikes are allowed on our roads?
Looks like a rip off of the cree SAM. SAM is only electric though but if you do the calc with its current test Zebra battery you get in the range of 500-600mpg. Check out: http://www.cree.ch/
People forget that the US is testoserone poisoned. What's missing from that picture is an organic cotton bikini-clad babe. (Just kidding ^_~)
Small, lightweight, and efficient vehicles already do share the roads with large, heavy vehicles. Bikes, trikes, motorcycles, etc. are already on the roads, as are other non-vehicular travellers (humans, dogs, squirrels, etc.) and have been for decades or even centuries.
But you are right, large and heavy vehicles are definitely dangerous. And the operators need to be extrememly careful when operating these things. I think the main obstacle to safe roads is our culture's attitudes that might makes right, bigger is better, greed is good, and speed equals success. Now, if only we could come up with some more sustainable, more friendly, and more catchy mantras for our culture... (Do I smell a Treehugger slogan writing contest, perhaps?)
>> "It'll never pass safety tests! You'd get run over by an Escalade!"
If one cares to do any research on hybrids, alternative fuel, and MPG, one will quickly note that these concept cars have been produced, hyped, and then discarded for decades. It's a dog and pony show to keep us in Jetsons "the future is here" mode. We are so conditioned to naysay the technology that has been mature and absolutely ready-for-prime time for half a century.
Our drone-like faith in corporate table-scrapping keeps us wide-eyed and empty mouthed.
A 330 MPG vehicle could be produced safely, efficiently, and in mass supply today. Right now. But the same corporations that destroyed and continue to destroy rail and other non-auto technologies still control the press, financial, and political levers of authority.
On the one hand, we are told that we can deploy a network of space-based anti-ballistic weapons or that we can place humans on Mars. It just requires the will and the cash. Both of which we have in spades.
And this inevitably results in enthusiastic head-nodding in the affirmative as our ongoing mastery of space has been shoehorned into our empty skulls from birth.
Yet.
Tell someone that the automakers could produce a 100 MPG hybrid that is safe, supple, and affordable and they will firehose you with conventional wisdom which contemptuously contradicts your foilhat ranting.
We have been robbed of our critical reasoning.
All that is left is acquiescence. And apathy.
We are chimps amused and amazed by MP3 players, cellphones, and talking bass.
Why are we satisfied with a concept car or some mocked-up empty shell with Blade Runner-esque curves and gadgets? Why do we get all creamy in the jeans over something as pathetic as iPod compatibility in a BMW? Is that the extent of our will and our imagination?
Sure.
This concept car will get 330 MPG. Why not call it 1,000 MPG? WHy not claim that it can create wormholes and transcend time and space and raise the dead? It won't ever show up in your driveway until we take the scales from our eyes and begin to demand access to suppressed technology.
And please do not counter with the idea that such a car could make billions for the manufacturer. Those billions absolutely pale in comparison to the trillions made on fuel for the lumbering heaps we are burdened with today.
In 2006.
The future.
Apparently.
Spudnuts,
Truer words were never spoken. Here in Los Angeles, where it rains only a handful of days per year, you'd think everyone would be taking advantage of the sparkling weather to ride bicycles, scooters, and motorcycles. But in fact the opposite is true: if it's not SUVs, it's equally inefficient, supercharged luxury sedans (all single-driver) that rule the roads.
You're absolutely right: fuel efficiency has never been a matter of technology, but of culture and will. As a result, places like L.A. have become a bizarro world of upside-down perception:
- Bicycles are the most dangerous form of transport.
- Walking is for the poor & lonely.
- Trains & busses are dirty and rife with crime.
Such thinking is so pervasive that I get the sinking feeling that the only way it will change is through a major, and sudden, oil crisis combined with a population surge. Either that, or a cultural shift brought on by the rise of another economic superpower to stem the tide of American excess.
First sentence from GCC:
”Accelerated Composites, a San Diego, California-area startup,”
This is not a concept vehicle from a major automotive company. It is a vehicle that a small start up company is pitching as their only chance to stay afloat. If they don’t produce this for the general public they would not exist. Their future depends on the success of this product. Please read more about this before going of on a tangent about how dismal things are in the US. We all know it sucks; some people like myself are trying to make it better.
david yoon,
Funny you should mention LA. Recently, I've been going between LA and Portland. I've lived in Portland for five years, but have lived in LA off and on as well. Portland always gets the title of "most bike-friendly city." I'm not entirely sure how that sobriquet was awarded (I think I heard Bicycling magazine mentioned it once and perhaps Portland's chamber of commerce just ran with it), but I have to say that I think Los Angeles offers more of a dedicated bike-friendly culture, infrastructure, and larger demographic dedicated to the conveyance than Portland.
Granted, Los Angeles is a larger city, but I see many, many more people riding bikes in LA than in Portland (and no, I'm not just talking about the winter months. In the summer, Portland's prime cycling season, cyclists are not as prevalent as one is lead to believe by the hype. I have gone out on many a pristine, crystal clear July night in the evening on a bike ride in Portland only to find that NO ONE is out. Where are they? Watching movies, TV, or drinking in one of the many excellent brewpubs. In short, not biking, indoors). Los Angeles has an extensive array and excellent network of bike paths and lanes. It's there, but one really has to look.
But yes, the car culture in LA tends to dominate. However, if one cares to look at LA mass transit and bike and pedestrian friendly options and actually gets out of their cars to try them, there is a LOT to experience.
Of course, more could definitely be done and should, but all is not lost in Southern California.
Rear view mirrors might be helpfull...
Windows maybe a little too small for driving, unless you like blind-spots....
Tail lights?
Door looks too small(~1 ft high?) to craw in.
What is that tail fin for?
Nice 3D Graphics, and imaginative performance figures, but don't look like much engineering had gone into this yet. Real world engineering will eat those performance figures alive.
Looking at their low-res pics on their site, that fancy composite material looks a lot like plywood to me. I guess plywood is a composite but still.
To address some of the good points:
The designer hurt his wrist, and so some things are not even modeled yet, like tailights, recessed license plate holder, etc. We had to go ahead with the press release anyway. The door/side window are too small (mistake in dimensions given to CG guy), but he'll fix this after his wrist recovers.
The 'wood' looking material is actually an engineered end-grain wood....balsa. It's the same kind that's used in the new Corvette and Honda S2000..and airliner floors. Also used in the chassis are other structural cores, like divinycell. These materials are used in all sorts of aircraft and race cars.
http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m3165/is_3_41/ai_n13648403
The tailfins moves. It's active, and it's controlled by a rate gyro and computer. These help stability at higher speeds, something that low drag cars need help with and something we've done a bit of work on.
Side mirrors? There are none. There is, however, a flush mount CCD with a wide angle lens that offers complete rear, left and right view on the PFD. GM did this with the Precept, VW did with the 1L...nothing new there, just low drag.
What, no comments on the composite control arms?
When in the Carlsbad area feel free to stop by our shop and look at the prototype under construction!
Thanks
-steve
I was about to write a comment addressing the safety concerns many have raised after initially viewing this vehicle (myself included) but it seems someone (the anonymous first commentor) has already copied part of my comments at the discussion over at the Green Car Congress about this vehicle. It seems that Accelerated Composites (AC) own Steve Fambro has also addressed some of these concerns (see above comment and more at GCC).
After reading more of AC's press release on this vehicle (an excerpt of which was copied in the above anonymous comment), it truly seems like Accelerated Composites is designing this thing with mass production in mind - i.e. thinking about not just pushing fuel economy to a new level but also about performance, safety, regulations, and simple things like liscence plates.
As for the safety concerns, millions of people the world over ride motorcycles while plenty of you treehuggers feel safe enough riding your bikes everywhere. Why wouldn't you feel safe enough to ride around in a vehicle surrounded by a composite shell and protected by a 'crash box' modeled after those in a formula racer?
Sure, your car may be totaled after a collision with a Hummer - but then again, who's wouldn't - but you'd be safe and sound inside your crash box.
Also, plenty of Treehuggers got excited about the Honda Insight and I can't imagine that this vehicle is any less safe than the Insight which is about the same size and made of similar ultra light materials.
Finally, the most exciting part about this vehicle is that it pushes the limits of what we think is possible for a vehicle to obtain. 330 mpg! How can we get excited about GM's 70 mpg boxfish-styled diesel concept (also with video instead of side mirrors for aerodynamics) when this baby is out there?
Even if this vehicle never makes it on the roads (and I dearly hope it does), or if when it does, it only gets 150 mpg or some such, it will still be a testament to what is truly possible when you are willing to innovate and to let form follow function.
The designers at Accelerated Composites have moved the goal posts and pushed the edges of what we thought was possible and I hope that their design serves to inspire vehicle designers elsewhere to imagine what else might be possible, to truly innovate, and to begin designing the cars of tomorrow today.
I was about to write a comment addressing the safety concerns many have raised after initially viewing this vehicle (myself included) but it seems someone (the anonymous first commentor) has already copied part of my comments at the discussion over at the Green Car Congress about this vehicle. It seems that Accelerated Composites (AC) own Steve Fambro has also addressed some of these concerns (see above comment and more at GCC).
After reading more of AC's press release on this vehicle (an excerpt of which was copied in the above anonymous comment), it truly seems like Accelerated Composites is designing this thing with mass production in mind - i.e. thinking about not just pushing fuel economy to a new level but also about performance, safety, regulations, and simple things like liscence plates.
As for the safety concerns, millions of people the world over ride motorcycles while plenty of you treehuggers feel safe enough riding your bikes everywhere. Why wouldn't you feel safe enough to ride around in a vehicle surrounded by a composite shell and protected by a 'crash box' modeled after those in a formula racer?
Sure, your car may be totaled after a collision with a Hummer - but then again, who's wouldn't - but you'd be safe and sound inside your crash box.
Also, plenty of Treehuggers got excited about the Honda Insight and I can't imagine that this vehicle is any less safe than the Insight which is about the same size and made of similar ultra light materials.
Finally, the most exciting part about this vehicle is that it pushes the limits of what we think is possible for a vehicle to obtain. 330 mpg! How can we get excited about GM's 70 mpg boxfish-styled diesel concept (also with video instead of side mirrors for aerodynamics) when this baby is out there?
Even if this vehicle never makes it on the roads (and I dearly hope it does), or if when it does, it only gets 150 mpg or some such, it will still be a testament to what is truly possible when you are willing to innovate and to let form follow function.
The designers at Accelerated Composites have moved the goal posts and pushed the edges of what we thought was possible and I hope that their design serves to inspire vehicle designers elsewhere to imagine what else might be possible, to truly innovate, and to begin designing the cars of tomorrow today.
This is the result of TT / Prius cross breeding.
;-)
Echoes of Amory Lovins's Hypercar project. It's going to take some mighty big wedge to bring this about. Where's the wedge?
"Echoes of Amory Lovins's Hypercar project. It's going to take some mighty big wedge to bring this about. Where's the wedge?"
Maybe peak oil will be the wedge..
Peak Oil? The Wedge? By then we'll all be living in air conditioned malls, those of us who can afford the designer oxygen that is... others will just have to fend for themselves in scorched deserts with reduced lung capacity. Mutations, mutations, mutations.
Now back to the real world:
How does it handle crosswinds at turnpike speeds?
How's the road-holding with so little weight per tire?
What's the tire life with the soft compounds that would probably be needed to give it the traction it needs for manuvering?
Even more to the point, how does that 850 lbs. of composites handle collisions with two and a half ton SUV's?
I'll stick to real cars that have passed crash tests for now, thanks. There's a lot about this concept that makes me nervous.
Safety wouldn't be an issue. Think of Formula1 cars hitting walls at speeds upwards of 200 miles an hour. If you're hit by an SUV you might bounce off the highway but with composites you could be okay. Composites do an excellent job of absorbing impacts and isolating impacts to a certain area.
They got the futuristic concept. But they're right. Safety still do matters on driving. I still stick with the old cars. http://iluvmyford.blogspot.com/2005/11/start-up-safety-precautions.html
It all sounds good to me. I'll retire to Hawaii and buy one. But in Chicago I'm afraid you'll need skyhooks to pull the car out of the snow banks that the plows create.
As the driver of small efficient cars such as the miata, especially in Texas I am used to going unseen on the road. It has really become a non issue to me. Just as with smart cars, beef this thing up a bit with a rollcage and I'll be happy to drive it.
Folks I've been sharing my 800 MPG vehicle with people on California roadways for over 30 years, its called a bicycle. Everyone is required by law to avoid collisions so why does everyone obsess about being hit by a tank. If we all share the roads effectively and perhaps slow down a bit, life will be cool. Enjoy the ride. Share the Road.
No way this or any other road-going, street-legal vehicle will have a Cd of 0.06 - I've seen engineers' quotes of a 0.12 minimum for anything like that, and by then, the aero guys have knocked their brains out to shave a thousandth of a point or less with each new innovation.
The only comment I'd like to make, though off topic slightly and also contributing to the whinning and bickering that makes these blogs insufferable, is in reference to the comment about the electric vehicle, SAM cree, and that the Aptera "ripped it off".
First off, where the poster admitted it was electric, to me that point alone puts the two vehicles on separate planes. If they were referring to the tear drop shape as being ripped off, yeah, well, apparently the box design didn't fare as well in drag tests- who knew!?
My next point is regarding the fuel milage at 500-600 mpg. How does one calculate the miles per "gallon" provided by a battery? That would depend on what made the electricity that charged that battery, which brings me to the real reason I'm adding this post.
I've never heard anyone discuss this so I've a concern that there may be some people out there who are confused when it comes to battery powered vehicles. Sure at a glance the battery power seems great. It's "CLEAN" transportation.
With an electric car you can commute to your posh job at the green party lobby in futuristic and progressive style- the envy of every fellow treehugger! Then you go home, plug it in, and it's ready to deliver you again in "pollution" free transport. But where is that electricity coming from?
The vast majority (over 50%) of America's energy comes from the burning of hydro- carbon fuels (meaning it creates CO2 in the process), and over 30% from coal (probably the most polluting in terms of CO2/BTU excepting maybe trash, and probably more polluting than a modern diesel engine).
I agree that electrics can be good (though not as good as this Aptera, if it does what it promises). They lower localized emissions in crowded cities and the energy they use, even if in part from a coal plant and other polluting sources, is probably more efficiently used than an SUV.
Every little bit we as individuals do to reduce our environmental footprint can and will make a difference to some degree- of course everyone reading this knows that already. However, there's a bigger picture to look at too, and electric cars aren't the answer by themselves but this is a different soap-box.
What I like about the Aptera concept, though I may be misled by my love of diesel, is that it takes one of our most efficient (in terms of heat conversion into mechanical energy) combustion engines and uses that power developed many times more efficiently (in terms of mpg) than conventional vehicles. If I drove that car I would know without a doubt that I was making a significant contribution to environmental conservation, instead of an electric, where all I know for sure is that where my exhaust pipe was taken away, some power plant miles away has to put a few more particles of emissions out it's stack for me.
That being said, I am aware that a power plant burning petroleum based fuel probably is more e- friendly than any petroleum burning vehicle, at least with the car I know it doesn't burn coal.
I've probably said enough, but as a last and final note, I'm really interested in Gas Turbine- Electric technology being employed in autos. I think it could be a contender in the coming years. If anyone has/ knows where to get any info on this sort of thing please post. If there already is something in these blog pages, I wouldn't know because I just stumbled here today-
Anyway, thanks for listening to me vent.
-Andrew
andrew, in his objection to the pure electric car, has failed to realize a currently functioning technology: photo-voltaic direct charging of fuel cells that power a pure electric car. note that the space station completely avoids all fossil and bio-fuels by converting sunlight directly into elctrical energy. we can do the same in our deserts and use the electrical energy to charge fuel cells, which we then put these fuel cells in our cars to drive the electric motors that empower all the functions of our cars. no internal combustion engine, no turbine engine, no burning of fossil or bio-fuels. cut air pollution by about 50%. if is entirely possible. we simply need the national will!
I just want to know how people raise so much money to build a car that you can't even get in or out of in a normal comfortable fashion, not to mention the money raised was based on nothing more then a computer drawing and no real car, have any of you looked at the ale' (LA) that was at the SEMA show last year, it was quietly produced by two guys in there garage, it is actually running on gasoline fuel vapor and getting over 90mpg with emissions co2 levels of 75% less then the cleanest running Honda, and on top of that it goes O-60 in under 5 seconds, now that's a company people should be investing in, check out fuelvaporcar.com
This car is made like an airplane fuselage which is designed to crash land and I guarantee there is nothing heavier than the earth. A collision with and Escalade would most likely send the little car bouncing off. In an accident, your own mass is your enemy, not your friend. I would feel safer driving this car in any accident situations except a semi jack knifing on top of me and in that situation, it wouldn't matter what car I was in, I'd still be screwed. Plus I think we're all missing the point, in a future of $5+ gallon, everyone will be driving smaller cars and the road will get progressively safer. Sell your giant suv's now while they still have value and share the earth with the rest of us and maybe, just maybe, your great grandchildren may be able to see blue skys and breathe clean air.