backtop


Print 24 comment(s) - last by titanmiller.. on Jul 1 at 9:18 PM


  (Source: Gordon Murray Designs)

T.27 EV
Car is just as ugly as the T.25

Gordon Murray is one of the most famed car designers and engineers in the world and his most famous creation in the eyes of many enthusiasts is the McLaren F1 that was the world's fastest production car for years. Murray has since turned his attention to creating cars that are green and powered by batteries rather than fuel swilling cars capable of 200 mph top speeds.

Murray has unveiled a new electric minicar called the T.27. The EV is hailed as the world's most efficient EV and is just as ungainly as its predecessor, the T.25. Murray worked with powertrain partner Zytek Automotive to bring the new T-27 to market and the new car uses a lightweight and fully integrated electric motor, control system, and battery for the best efficiency.

The T.27’s specs include a 25 kW electric motor and a 12 kWh lithium-ion battery pack. The car is very small with a length of 98 inches, width of 51 inches, and height of 63 inches. The car weighs in a 1,500 pounds with the battery and has a 70-inch wheelbase. The range on a single charge is expected to be 100 miles.

Murray said, "The Technology Strategy Board have been incredibly supportive of the T.27 programme and together we are working to keep this in the United Kingdom.  It is a great opportunity to work with Zytek Automotive and our other partners on this very exciting programme.  We always strive to lead the way in automotive design and our current goal is to maximise efficiency of electric vehicles."

Insideline reports that the car seats three and is slated to debut on November 5 at the RAC Future Car Challenge. The car was constructed with financial backing of the British Government Technology Strategy Board.

Pricing hasn’t been announced, but the T.25 sold for a relatively cheap $9,000.



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

Another dumb question -
By Dr of crap on 6/30/2011 12:23:24 PM , Rating: 2
Why do these EVs not consider the drag that their blunt noses bring into play?

Even if this is only for city driving, a slippery shape would get you that much further and make it look so much better than this Smart wannabe!




RE: Another dumb question -
By Starcub on 6/30/2011 12:39:38 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
Smart wannabe!
Well my brain exploded when I read that, but I still had enough left to have figured out that this thing is about half the cost and gets much better effective MPG than the sucker(tm) car. Not that it matters to US drivers as the car is exclusively UK, as it probably should be.


RE: Another dumb question -
By MrBlastman on 6/30/11, Rating: 0
RE: Another dumb question -
By amanojaku on 6/30/11, Rating: 0
RE: Another dumb question -
By quiksilvr on 6/30/2011 12:41:51 PM , Rating: 5
Drag isn't a real factor when you don't even hit 40.


RE: Another dumb question -
By titanmiller on 7/1/2011 9:18:20 PM , Rating: 3
Tell that to a cyclist!


RE: Another dumb question -
By amanojaku on 6/30/2011 12:44:00 PM , Rating: 5
The top speed on this car is 105kph. Aerodynamic drag is negligible. The weight is the biggest problem. Second would be the inherent instability of a car that is taller than it is wide, forcing you to keep a steady pace. This thing is a snail, and not the racing snail from The Neverending Story. Mileage isn't affected at all.


RE: Another dumb question -
By MrTeal on 6/30/2011 12:58:09 PM , Rating: 2
I can't rate you up since I already posted, but bravo sir on The Neverending Story reference.


RE: Another dumb question -
By euler007 on 6/30/2011 1:17:50 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
Second would be the inherent instability of a car that is taller than it is wide, forcing you to keep a steady pace.


Out of that 1500 pounds the motor, batteries and wheels must be at least 40% of the weight, meaning the center of gravity is just a few centimeters above the axle (judging from the sketch).


RE: Another dumb question -
By amanojaku on 6/30/2011 1:53:01 PM , Rating: 3
You are correct, but all vehicles have the bulk of their mass at the bottom of the car. Unless you count the Oscar Meyer Wienermobile. I mentioned the pace because at higher speeds the additional force is multiplied by the height of the walls, which act as levers. What's steady at low speeds becomes squirrelly at high speeds.

Not that I expect anyone to be in this kind of danger. With a top speed of 65mph in 15 seconds, and a weight-power ratio of about 44lbs/hp this car would be lucky to hit 45mph. No sane person would take this on a highway. This is likely intended for those little towns in Italy and such where the streets are literally 10 feet wide or less.


RE: Another dumb question -
By quiksilvr on 6/30/2011 3:54:21 PM , Rating: 2
This car is clearly intended for European roads. But then you ask yourself...why not just get the Fiat 500?! It's cheaper, faster, looks better and AWESOME.


RE: Another dumb question -
By kraeper on 6/30/2011 5:53:00 PM , Rating: 2
Or a bicycle..


RE: Another dumb question -
By ekv on 6/30/2011 10:50:25 PM , Rating: 2
Or a BPG Uno 3

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x2DgwY5QQBk

All you need now is Megan Fox ...


RE: Another dumb question -
By euler007 on 6/30/2011 9:56:29 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
You are correct, but all vehicles have the bulk of their mass at the bottom of the car.


I don't particularly agree, except for boxer designs the center gravity of most inline or V engine is significantly higher than the T.27 design.


RE: Another dumb question -
By Dr of crap on 7/1/2011 8:26:03 AM , Rating: 2
My point - maybe not drag, but the top heavyness also.
I much rather have a wide and lower car rather than a narrow and high standing car.

The Civic comes to mind.
That car has it right sizewise - wide and low.


RE: Another dumb question -
By RedemptionAD on 6/30/2011 12:51:21 PM , Rating: 3
I call smart cars, Not-so-smart cars. In real world usage a fiesta or a focus will get better mileage. The only way a Not-so-smart car makes sense is in areas that space(or smug) is a higher priority than absolute fuel economy.


RE: Another dumb question -
By JediJeb on 6/30/2011 3:29:22 PM , Rating: 3
One morning driving to work I was behind a Smart Car that had a personalized plate that read SIPGAS. Of course following it through town I was getting irritated just from the smug factor the guy was giving off. Then about half way through town he turned into a gas station, and the car that had been in front of him I could now see. It was a Corvette, and it has a personalized plate that read BGDEAL. I think I laughed all the way to work after that, and wish I had had a video camera, you just can't make something like that up as much as I wish I could.


RE: Another dumb question -
By JediJeb on 6/30/2011 3:32:29 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Why do these EVs not consider the drag that their blunt noses bring into play?


Seems I read somewhere that one of the most aerodynamic shapes is a tear drop, where the large end is pointed forward and the tapered tail is what causes the best reduction in drag. The drag comes more from a vacuum being created behind the vehicle than a blunt nose. If you look at the first Bonneville Salt Flats racers that build cars out of discarded external fighter plane fuel tanks from WW2 you will notice that is how they look also.


RE: Another dumb question -
By Solandri on 7/1/2011 7:57:04 AM , Rating: 3
Well, if you want to delve into the aerodynamics of it... There are two major components to drag (these are not the only ones, they're just the major ones):

Surface drag - basically friction between the skin of the car and the fluid (air in this case) running past it.

Form drag - energy expended by the car to displace the fluid, and as the fluid returns after the car has passed. (On ships, this wasted energy shows up as ship's wake directly behind it.)

At high velocities like what a plane travels at, the form drag dominates. So the teardrop shape helps a lot for planes.

A low velocities, as long as your shape is relatively smooth (no big, flat appendages sticking out), the surface drag dominates. In particular, cutting off the tail end abruptly can actually result in lower drag. Doing so increases your form drag, but the loss of all the surface area associated with the long teardrop tail means a larger reduction in surface drag. Your net drag is thus reduced.


"What would I do? I'd shut it down and give the money back to the shareholders." -- Michael Dell, after being asked what to do with Apple Computer in 1997

Related Articles













botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki