Most economical car in the world

unkel

The Volkswagen XL1, a 300MPG car is in production now. I love it!



The latest halo car courtesy of Ferdinand Piech.

Clip

He wanted to make the fastest car in the world -> Veyron
He wanted to make the most comfortable car in the world -> Phaeton
He wanted to make the most economical car in the world -> XL1

Nice detail: the side mirrors

fletch

They had two of them in the Frank Keane VW on the Longmile road a few weeks back and were offering free test drives

Rippy

Shows what can be achieved bringing lightweight components, aerodynamics and advanced diesel engine and hybrid technology together.
Unfortunately I would say the cost will be prohibitive, hence the very limited initial production run, but soon enough some or all of the tech. will make its way into affordable production cars .

unkel

This is it Rippy. It's a halo car, for sale for well over €100,000 (but probably cost several million each to make). Interestingly it's the first car that got road approved that doesn't have side mirrors. For sure soon enough all cars will have cameras like that.

whomitconcerns

There she is on oconnell street

http://www.irishtimes.com/life-and-style/motors/world-s-most-fuel-efficient-production-car-takes-to-dublin-1.1967516

kirving

unkel wrote: »

This is it Rippy. It's a halo car, for sale for well over €100,000 (but probably cost several million each to make). Interestingly it's the first car that got road approved that doesn't have side mirrors. For sure soon enough all cars will have cameras like that.

In terms of aero drag from mirrors, camera based systems are the future, but that's only one benefit.

Wider fields of view than a standars mirror can provide, night vision, auto-dimming, auto-detection/warning of cars and cyclists, no blindspots, etc will be a great improvement.

Greenmachine

Kevin Irving wrote: »

In terms of aero drag from mirrors, camera based systems are the future, but that's only one benefit.

Wider fields of view than a standars mirror can provide, night vision, auto-dimming, auto-detection/warning of cars and cyclists, no blindspots, etc will be a great improvement.

Lots of drivers don't even use their mirrors as it is. Will improve the driving only of those who already use their mirrors as they should.

unkel

Greenmachine wrote: »

Lots of drivers don't even use their mirrors as it is. Will improve the driving only of those who already use their mirrors as they should.

If the car gives a stark warning signal when you're about to make a mistake, it will improve the driving of those who don't use their mirrors

alias no.9

Why does the car of the future look like a 1970's Citroen

Rippy

alias no.9 wrote: »

Why does the car of the future look like a 1970's Citroen

Certainly does ! Shows how far ahead of the game Citroën were in terms of styling and aerodynamics in the 70s

dogmatix

I was wondering - why do some of these novelty cars, electrics or hybrids etc, seem to have their rear wheels completely closed over? Apart from making changing a punctured tyre difficult it makes the car look a little silly, almost like a toy.

alias no.9

dogmatix wrote: »

I was wondering - why do some of these novelty cars, electrics or hybrids etc, seem to have their rear wheels completely closed over? Apart from making changing a punctured tyre difficult it makes the car look a little silly, almost like a toy.

Aerodynamics, they'd cover the front wheels too if they weren't needed for steering

Tea 1000

Wasn't Mr. David on here only recently saying how much effort was required on the wing mirrors alone on the new Jag XE to make them quieter for the inside occupants. They're one of the biggest sources of cabin noise.

unkel

alias no.9 wrote: »

Why does the car of the future look like a 1970's Citroen

A 70s Citroen or perhaps even a 30s Tatra?



Tatra T97, launched nearly 80 years ago...

I suspect you know the answer

Nody

alias no.9 wrote: »

Aerodynamics, they'd cover the front wheels too if they weren't needed for steering

And it really adds up; in trucking adding side wings like this one has

Saves you 10% fuel or more going at 80km+ an hour (but they do worse at lower speeds).

jiminho

Wonder what the real world fuel consumption is because there's no way that it's getting 300mpg.

m5ex9oqjawdg2i

Greenmachine wrote: »

Lots of drivers don't even use their mirrors as it is. Will improve the driving only of those who already use their mirrors as they should.

Stick the input from the video mirrors on the windscreen in HUD style

Boskowski

Kevin Irving wrote: »

In terms of aero drag from mirrors, camera based systems are the future, but that's only one benefit.

Wider fields of view than a standars mirror can provide, night vision, auto-dimming, auto-detection/warning of cars and cyclists, no blindspots, etc will be a great improvement.

I'm actually amazed that you supposedly save more energy from the reduced drag than you waste on powering the cameras. Kinda hard to believe but they must have done the maths.

Interslice

Boskowski wrote: »

I'm actually amazed that you supposedly save more energy from the reduced drag than you waste on powering the cameras. Kinda hard to believe but they must have done the maths.

Stick your hand out the window on the motorway you'll get an idea of it .

Special Circumstances

Boskowski wrote: »

I'm actually amazed that you supposedly save more energy from the reduced drag than you waste on powering the cameras. Kinda hard to believe but they must have done the maths.

At urban speeds probably no benefit, I can well imagine it does work out at say 80km/h plus.

When can we expect these trends to trickle down to your local VAG modder? Rear wheel spats the new RS4 alloys? No mirrors the new "shtick on as much chrome as she'll take lad"?

b318isp

Boskowski wrote: »

I'm actually amazed that you supposedly save more energy from the reduced drag than you waste on powering the cameras. Kinda hard to believe but they must have done the maths.

The vast majority of the power of an engine is wasted in overcoming internal friction of moving parts and external drag.

Drag goes up with square of speed, so every doubling of speed quadruples the drag. Think what that means in terms of going from 5 to 10 to 20 to 40 to 80 to 160kmh, in terms of the drag.

The faster you go, the more of the engine's power is consumed in overcoming air resistance. Even a 5kmh to 80kph (which isn't too fast) change means 16 times more drag, all other things being equal.

The power for running cameras would be tiny in comparison to this. Think about a mobile phone's requirement for a camera and screen, versus a fuel tank and an internal combustion engine.

kirving

I was in a Volvo recently that had their blind spot warning system (BLIS) fitted. It uses cameras to monitor the blind spot for other cars, and warns the driver by means of an orange light. Really handy system I thought. All this is doing is feeding that same video to a display for the driver to see. Of course a failure, or a laggy video is very dangerous, so they must have been doing their homework to get this technology approved.

Aside from drag which is the biggest thing, I'm terrified to think what a mirror for my car would cost if I hit it, and its almost 7 years old.
It's got adjustment motors, heater, glass, temp sensor, indicator, ground light, power fold motor and god knows what else. I imagine that the camera based system is cheaper too!

H3llR4iser

Nody wrote: »

And it really adds up; in trucking adding side wings like this one has

Saves you 10% fuel or more going at 80km+ an hour (but they do worse at lower speeds).

I do have a soft spot for the concept of side covered wheels; They look quite futuristic with the right body shape. But forgive me if I cast a little bit of doubt on the actual effectiveness of the solution when it comes to drag reduction.

Fact is, quite a few civilan jets have no wheel well doors - most notable example being the Boeing 737:



The reasoning behind this is that the weight of the doors would negate the reduced drag advantage and then some more, when it comes to fuel consumption. In stead of the doors, there's a seal around the wheels (the slightly darker part you can see in the picture) and the rims have aerodynamic covers. It is true that a 737 flies through much less denser air at 38.000 feet than it is at sea level, but it also steadily goes rockets around at .785 Mach, which would equal to 850 to 900 Km/h depending on altitude and air pressure.

A car moves on the ground through much denser air, but it also travels at less than 100 Km/h most of the time. I suspect the gain from the covered wheels to be minimal. But I like them

Interslice

Cars don't have the same battle with gravity as planes

ironclaw

Surely to be the most economical car in the world it would have to be also the cheapest? If you took a €150k investment say, assuming this car costs €100k on the road, how much further would you get in a car costing €1k with €149k versus €50k in fuel to spend? Talking in big numbers but this seems daft to me. A lovely piece of engineering but its just column inches as opposed to solving real problems.

Greenmachine

unkel wrote: »

If the car gives a stark warning signal when you're about to make a mistake, it will improve the driving of those who don't use their mirrors

Back when I rode motorcycles. I have occasion for driver to look right at me before pulling out. If that doesn't stop stupidity a beep won't.

Stheno

All of the first production run have been sold already iirc

HandsomeDan

Boskowski wrote: »

I'm actually amazed that you supposedly save more energy from the reduced drag than you waste on powering the cameras. Kinda hard to believe but they must have done the maths.

Cameras consume a tiny amount of power... in the order of single watts vs the 10s of thousands of watts required to cruise a car at motorway speeds.

How could you be 'amazed' when you don't have the foggiest?

H3llR4iser

Interslice wrote: »

Cars don't have the same battle with gravity as planes

Ehr...no, it's exactly the same, especially where drag is involved. Planes do not fly due to a magical anti-gravity device:P , they use a physical characteristic of the fluid they move through (air) to their advantage. Lift is the byproduct of moving forward, it's not the engines that keep the whole contraption in the air; At least that's the case of civilian and military transport ones - some fighters do actually have dynamics more similar to those of a rocket.

Seweryn

unkel wrote: »

A 70s Citroen or perhaps even a 30s Tatra?

Tatra T97, launched nearly 80 years ago...

I suspect you know the answer

Well, someone else used these tricks before including lightweight exotic materials. Yep, the first Supercar it is .

Thargor

ironclaw wrote: »

Surely to be the most economical car in the world it would have to be also the cheapest? If you took a €150k investment say, assuming this car costs €100k on the road, how much further would you get in a car costing €1k with €149k versus €50k in fuel to spend? Talking in big numbers but this seems daft to me. A lovely piece of engineering but its just column inches as opposed to solving real problems.

Ummm... its fuel economy they're talking about when they say economical, not household budget economy...

Turbulent Bill

H3llR4iser wrote: »

The reasoning behind this is that the weight of the doors would negate the reduced drag advantage and then some more, when it comes to fuel consumption. In stead of the doors, there's a seal around the wheels (the slightly darker part you can see in the picture) and the rims have aerodynamic covers. It is true that a 737 flies through much less denser air at 38.000 feet than it is at sea level, but it also steadily goes rockets around at .785 Mach, which would equal to 850 to 900 Km/h depending on altitude and air pressure.

A car moves on the ground through much denser air, but it also travels at less than 100 Km/h most of the time. I suspect the gain from the covered wheels to be minimal. But I like them

The thing with aerodynamics like this is that the flow is turbulent - it doesn't 'stick' to the surface of the metal, but breaks away upstream. At a guess, Boeing saw this on the 737 and decided there was no point streamlining the wheels; they also put some exhaust vents forward of the wheels, probably for the same reason. For a particular car shape though, covering the wheels might give a reasonable drag saving.

And besides, it looks futuristic!

alias no.9

H3llR4iser wrote: »

Ehr...no, it's exactly the same, especially where drag is involved. Planes do not fly due to a magical anti-gravity device:P , they use a physical characteristic of the fluid they move through (air) to their advantage. Lift is the byproduct of moving forward, it's not the engines that keep the whole contraption in the air; At least that's the case of civilian and military transport ones - some fighters do actually have dynamics more similar to those of a rocket.

The retracted wheels on a plane can sit snugly in their housings. The wheels on a car sit in larger openings to accommodate suspension travel. The larger openings create more drag.

Boskowski

HandsomeDan wrote: »

Cameras consume a tiny amount of power... in the order of single watts vs the 10s of thousands of watts required to cruise a car at motorway speeds.

How could you be 'amazed' when you don't have the foggiest?

Sorry if I offended you.

I'm 'amazed' purely from a gut feeling point of view.
I would have thought that the increased drag from an already aerodynamically designed mirror compared to the overall drag that's there with or without mirror may be negligible. As a previous poster already said surely its depending on speed whether this ends in an overall energy saving.

And that's not even looking at the energy spent on producing lenses, graphic chips, circuit etc.

I mean your answer is basically the same line of thought only your coming from the other angle. A line of thought that's about as deterministic (or foggiest) as my one in fairness.

Andrewf20

Rear wheels covered - horrible. Other than that, it looks well. Wonder if they are standard rims underneath like the front.

Special Circumstances

Andrewf20 wrote: »

Rear wheels covered - horrible. Other than that, it looks well. Wonder if they are standard rims underneath like the front.

Ultra slammed lad, wheels halfway disappearing in the arches. Shtance lad!

HandsomeDan

Boskowski wrote: »

Sorry if I offended you.

I'm 'amazed' purely from a gut feeling point of view.
I would have thought that the increased drag from an already aerodynamically designed mirror compared to the overall drag that's there with or without mirror may be negligible. As a previous poster already said surely its depending on speed whether this ends in an overall energy saving.

And that's not even looking at the energy spent on producing lenses, graphic chips, circuit etc.

I mean your answer is basically the same line of thought only your coming from the other angle. A line of thought that's about as deterministic (or foggiest) as my one in fairness.

Nothing foggy about my thinking mate

To factor in the tiny power drawn by a camera when talking about a car is laughable.

Boskowski

HandsomeDan wrote: »

Nothing foggy about my thinking mate

To factor in the tiny power drawn by a camera when talking about a car is laughable.

You don't quite seem to get it.
The cameras in this whole saving fuel exercise only make sense if it takes less energy to power them than you'd save from the reduced drag from the missing mirrors.
I know they don't cost a lot to power. Most power probably is on the displays. The point is it less than what you save from not having mirrors?
Sure the drag of the mirrors compared to the drag of the whole car is minuscule too.

unkel

With respect, Boskowski, you don't seem to get the relative energies used

The car even at a relatively modest speed, say 100km/h, uses say about 20kw (or so). Even if putting mirrors on would only make a 3% difference (in practice this would be way more), it would use another 600w

Powering the cameras and displays would probably cost about 10w...

(all figures are made up by me, but I doubt I would be very far out)

HandsomeDan

Boskowski wrote: »

You don't quite seem to get it.
The cameras in this whole saving fuel exercise only make sense if it takes less energy to power them than you'd save from the reduced drag from the missing mirrors.
I know they don't cost a lot to power. Most power probably is on the displays. The point is it less than what you save from not having mirrors?
Sure the drag of the mirrors compared to the drag of the whole car is minuscule too.

I get it it. Don't worry about that.

Given the huge amounts of power required to cruise a car, the reduction in drag would need only be minuscule to cancel the power draw of camera, etc...

The reality is the reduction is quite significant.

You don't need to know the exact figures, only that electronics consume vastly less energy than a car's motor.

Boskowski

Not sure how the motor comes into it. One thing saves X watts, the other thing consumes Y, doesn't matter where it comes from. The motor powers the electrical systems too obviously.

And 100km/h is not relatively modest speed. There's a lot of cars that hardly ever come near 100km/h as they're being driven around cities all days long, more like 30 km/h on average for them.

I don't think anyone will argue that at 0km/h the cameras and displays etc consume more than they save from the reduced drag. At 0km/h the reduced drag is obviously 0 as the drag itself is 0. Y is a constant, X is a function of speed. I wonder at what speed becomes X smaller than Y. Is it 1km/h, 5km/h or is it 20km/h or is it 40km/h?

HandsomeDan

Boskowski wrote: »

Not sure how the motor comes into it. One thing saves X watts, the other thing consumes Y, doesn't matter where it comes from. The motor powers the electrical systems too obviously.

And 100km/h is not relatively modest speed. There's a lot of cars that hardly ever come near 100km/h as they're being driven around cities all days long, more like 30 km/h on average for them.

I don't think anyone will argue that at 0km/h the cameras and displays etc consume more than they save from the reduced drag. At 0km/h the reduced drag is obviously 0 as the drag itself is 0. Y is a constant, X is a function of speed. I wonder at what speed becomes X smaller than Y. Is it 1km/h, 5km/h or is it 20km/h or is it 40km/h?

The motor rating comes into as it gives you an idea of the kind of scales you are dealing with.

At cruise the motor is working only to overcome drag. Even a small reduction in that drag will result in significant saving given what you know about the rating on the motor.

Edit. Sorry hadn't read your full post. Given that your benchmarking the saving against the 1 watt a camera use. I'd say you would be ib the black after 1km/hr. I have check this and it is correct

Boskowski

I'd say with chips and circuits and displays it's more than 1 watt. I'm not arguing that it makes sense just wondering at what speed the equation works out for the cameras.

apoeiguq3094y

Boskowski wrote: »

I'd say with chips and circuits and displays it's more than 1 watt. I'm not arguing that it makes sense just wondering at what speed the equation works out for the cameras.

Considering your phone works on considerably less than a 1 watt (*when you are using it) - and that has to power a mobile antenna, wifi antenna, fancy graphics etc - compared to a single use camera and display system. I think about 1 watt would be a generous estimate.

Opening your windows on a typical car can increase drag by about 20%
http://auto.howstuffworks.com/fuel-efficiency/hybrid-technology/driving-with-windows-down1.htm

A car engines power is in the range of 100 kW

Car engine output : 100,000 W
Camera mirror system: 0.5 W
Guestimate of opening windows: 5,000W - 20,000W depending on speed

Special Circumstances

I think you're comparing apples with oranges via the medium of interpretive dance there apoiguerandom.

Boskowski

I'd say the maths are quite complicated on this one.

At lower speeds most of the engine power goes into overcoming inertia, mechanical friction and rolling resistance. The faster we drive air drag becomes a bigger factor, exponentially I guess.

I don't think any of us us willing or even able to come up with a conclusive answer here but just from 'gut feeling' I'm coming around to thinking that the power consumption of the camera systems becomes probably negligible quite soon while we accelerate.

Just got a little offended at the notion that my thought was so ridiculous when the people answering weren't very conclusive themselves to say the least.