31–40 of 53 posts
Very cool car, very poor quality article. It reads like it was written by a syndication algorithm that throws in weirdly subjective statements at the end of every paragraph. Here's a slightly better one with a video: http://wonderfulengineering.com/new-car-designed-by-french-s...
"That’s pretty amazing, isn’t it? Yes, it is!"
Here are the detailed results of the contest (and yes, the original results are in km/l): http://s08.static-shell.com/content/dam/shell-new/local/corp...
Without getting into a long argument about how science and collaboration works, narrow sighted articles that cover events like this do a lot of damage.
Amazing. Anyone has an idea what kind of bearings used in the wheels? The if you would spin its wheel, it would not stop spinning for almost 2 miles , whatever that actually means, makes it sound like they are something special. Also somewhat funny how such competitions are usually sponsored by fossil fuel companies. It's like they are preparing for the future with a business model idea like 'so, within x years there…
Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't moving the same distance using less fuel cleaner?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> And why describe fuel economy in miles per liter? err, why not?
The most common fuel efficiency ratios are expressed either in miles per gallon or kilometers per liter (or liters per 100 km). Mixing imperial and metric units is pretty unusual.
Amazing. Anyone has an idea what kind of bearings used in the wheels? The if you would spin its wheel, it would not stop spinning for almost 2 miles , whatever that actually means, makes it sound like they are something special. Also somewhat funny how such competitions are usually sponsored by fossil fuel companies. It's like they are preparing for the future with a business model idea like 'so, within x years there…
Regarding the sponsoring by Shell, I doubt Shell cares. They are paying for this with pocket money, and they get some greenwashing in return. Doesn't sound bad.
A nice engineering project, sure. But it has nothing to do with cars. They only thing that their results show is that you can get vastly different results for vastly different constraints and requirements.
Amazing. Anyone has an idea what kind of bearings used in the wheels? The if you would spin its wheel, it would not stop spinning for almost 2 miles , whatever that actually means, makes it sound like they are something special. Also somewhat funny how such competitions are usually sponsored by fossil fuel companies. It's like they are preparing for the future with a business model idea like 'so, within x years there…
Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't moving the same distance using less fuel cleaner?
I think the point being made was more about local minimums versus global. The most optimized ICE car possible will be impressive, but the emissions will never beat electric (assuming clean electric sources, obviously), and the rolling resistance will probably never beat trains or canals (which are of course only useful for arterials, and possibly only freight).
A nice engineering project, sure. But it has nothing to do with cars. They only thing that their results show is that you can get vastly different results for vastly different constraints and requirements.
It does have something to do with cars - it shows that if we changed our requirements we could be driving much more efficient cars. Even if safety and comfort meant than we could only get 1/10th of the demonstration, that'd still be a good deal better than what we have now.
I've got some family in the auto industry, and their consensus is that we are either really rapidly coming up on the point where we've got just about all the safety and fuel economy we can have without sacrificing safety, or we're already there. You're getting into the space where arguing for increased fuel economy is going to be directly arguing for killing more people. You may find this a tough sell. Especially since telling the automakers to "make less safe cars" is also going to have to come with an ironclad guarantee that when people die in these cars, the car companies won't be sued. And getting that law passed is going to be a tough sell, too, for a lot of reasons. The safety advocates aren't exactly going to stand passively by while you try to tear their stuff apart.
Basically, you can't have it all. Not even if you pass a law saying that you have to have it all.
And while we're at it, let us also not forget that "grossly raise the price" also is not something you can just wave into being. The Democrats can hardly try to make "inequality" into a major issue, then do something that unambiguously makes cars much more expensive for everybody.
Very cool car, very poor quality article. It reads like it was written by a syndication algorithm that throws in weirdly subjective statements at the end of every paragraph. Here's a slightly better one with a video: http://wonderfulengineering.com/new-car-designed-by-french-s...
Ha. Its not even a car - it's a tricycle[1] ! The distinctin may sound pedantic but legally speaking they are quite distinct: It’s lack of a four wheel, and low production volume, exempt the Morgan from most safety and emissions regulations. At least in the US...Quite Ironic. [1] see, eg> http://www.digitaltrends.com/cars/morgan-three-wheeler-is-it...
For example in the UK we had a mass-market three wheeler called the Reliant Robin, which was culturally considered to absolutely be a car (albeit a car worthy of having jokes made about it). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reliant_Robin
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It does have something to do with cars - it shows that if we changed our requirements we could be driving much more efficient cars. Even if safety and comfort meant than we could only get 1/10th of the demonstration, that'd still be a good deal better than what we have now.
You need to drop a lot of the safety, grossly raise the price, or both though. I've got some family in the auto industry, and their consensus is that we are either really rapidly coming up on the point where we've got just about all the safety and fuel economy we can have without sacrificing safety, or we're already there. You're getting into the space where arguing for increased fuel economy is going to be directly…
The challenge to overcome is that driving a small and light car is actually more dangerous while big and heavy cars are still on the road. So we have to get rid of them. That's actually very easy too - ramp up taxes on fuel to the point where people actually give a damn.
It's what we're doing here in Europe, and the proliferation of small, light cars is very noticeable.