backtop

Gadgets Man Builds 105 MPG Car
Marcus Yam (Blog) - September 22, 2006 10:07 AM
Print E-mail del.icio.us 72 comment(s) - last by number999.. on Sep 28 at 10:16 PM
105MPG car for less than the cost of some of your high-end PCs

Can’t afford a Smart car? Can’t even afford to fuel a Smart car? Jory Squibb’s creation may be the solution for you. We’re guessing that Jory wasn’t happy to just sit and wait for Google’s 100MPG engine, so he made his own vehicle capable of such triple digit fuel consumption numbers. The cost for all this fuel saving technology: a measly $2,339 and 1,000 hours of labor. 

Using two old Honda motorcycles, a 1987 Elite 150 and a 1984 Elite 125, Squibb built a car capable of a 53 MPH top speed and returns over 80 MPG in the city and over 105 MPG on highway. He calls his car Moonbeam. 

Moonbeam is 79" long, 52" wide, and 56" high. The front tires have a 40" track and a 56" wheelbase. The tires are 3.50x10 and 4.0x10 on the rear. Jory Squibb must have taken Lotus’ advice and added lightness to his Moonbeam – it weighs only 386 pounds. Although it’s a two-seater, it’s best for one adult and one child. It’s practical as a grocery-getter with its space for storage behind the seats and on both sides of the engine surround. Best of all, it’s a convertible! More description of the drive from the creator himself: 

Driving the car is immediately easy, but the car is so light and agile, you need to be cautious.   It keeps pace well with traffic, accellerating (sic) smartly, and only when you travel on 55 MPH roads, do you feel you are holding up traffic and arrange periodically for others to pass.  It has no business being on an expressway, which is a tense experience.  You also have to be on your guard because the car draws so much attention.... 

Visit Jory Squibb’s Web site for more pictures, information, and even directions on how to build your own Moonbeam.

Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled
Maybe if you didn't have a job...
By shamgar03 on 9/22/2006 4:58:37 PM , Rating: 1
This car may only cost 2339$ but if you have a decent job that pays say...20$ an hour suddenly the opportunity cost of the car becomes (20$/hour)*(1000hours) = 20,000$ . So you can can make the car or you can spend 10k on a used car and save/invest the other 12339$ for gas...


But then wheres the fun in that?




RE: Maybe if you didn't have a job...
By doctor sam adams on 9/22/2006 5:53:53 PM , Rating: 2
... what?

Why do you only work half a day if you drive that car? How do 10k and 12,339 add up to 20,000?


By doctor sam adams on 9/22/2006 5:57:43 PM , Rating: 2
Oop, never mind, I missed the part about spending 1,000 hours building the car.


RE: Maybe if you didn't have a job...
By shamgar03 on 9/22/2006 5:59:48 PM , Rating: 2
You waste 20K working on the car. All that time you were working on the car, was time you could have been at work, making 20$ an hour. THUS, if you spent all the time you worked on the car (1000 man hours) at your job you would make 20K$ because you get payed 20$/hour. 20*1000 = 20,000. Plus he also put 2339$ in materials into is, so the grand total cost is 2339. I then estimated that you could get a used card for 10$, which most people would assume would last longer than THAT. So when you do the operation we call SUBTRACTION you do 22,339-10,000 (remember where the 22339 came from?) you get 12,339. Its ok, you can take out your calculater. The point is, this is cool, but it doesn't make economical sense.


By shamgar03 on 9/22/2006 6:00:28 PM , Rating: 2
Oops neverwind, I didn't mean to be a dick =p


By dwalton on 9/22/2006 6:50:17 PM , Rating: 2
Find a job making 20 dollars/hr that will allow me to work at a pace and schedule that is totally up to my discretion.

This is something he did in his spare time. 1000 hours and 2300 to produce something as constructive as that should be commended. I've spent more than $2300 and over 1000 hours just pc-gaming.


By mindless1 on 9/22/2006 8:38:30 PM , Rating: 4
Not really true, it does make economical sense. I've easily spent $2339 in computer parts, more than that in time and this only for the hobby aspect of it. This car is that fellow's hobby, and when he is done, he has something that saves gas instead of using power (as computers do).

If you want to talk true waste, well that's what we're both doing right now, as nothing we write about a car he made will amount to a can of beans in the end.

Why would you assme a used car will last longer? Given this fellow has the mechanical ability to do THAT, he can probably rebuild parts as necessary and have it to hand down to the grandchildren, it will outlive him.

We'd have to know his travel patterns to know if it makes sense, and to know if HE feels satisfied, because getting satisfaction from his hobby is the important part, it's not like he asked everyone else to build one based on the merits of doing so.


By 9nails on 9/23/2006 1:04:29 AM , Rating: 2
Pride, education, and a potential project for you and your son to build is worth more than the $20K that you quote your own labor to cost. The MPG gas savings is just a bonus to somthing you can do after normal working hours.

I suppose on the other foot, if you're one of those people that have sat in front of all 237 of "Friends" episodes on TV, you lost 118:30 hours of income or the same dollar figure of this car...


RE: Maybe if you didn't have a job...
By Calin on 9/25/2006 4:35:04 AM , Rating: 2
It doesn't make economical sense to be part of an accident in that car. You could buy a diesel small car (real car and at least somewhat crash-worthy) and have your 40+ mpg.
Anyway, that 4-legged motorcicle with a hood might be nice- and at $2400 and 1,000 hours of work, it isn't an expensive hobby at all :)


By ExportA on 9/23/2006 9:36:44 PM , Rating: 2
Does your argument take into account the countless manhours involved in the "reasearch & design" process? Sure it may have taken him 1000hrs to build, but once the first ones built using it's final design to make more takes alot less time.

It shouldn't take anyone whos capable of following his design anywhere near 1000hrs to complete their own.


Yawn
By Viper007Bond on 9/22/2006 11:13:03 AM , Rating: 2
A plugin Pirus EASILY gets 100 MPH, but then again, it's using electricity from the grid to get that kinda MPG, so that doesn't really count...

Standard diesel cars in the UK get like 40-50 MPG by the way (or so I hear). ;)




RE: Yawn
By JeffDM on 9/22/2006 1:37:39 PM , Rating: 2
The TDI New Beetle and the TDI Jetta get 40-50MPG real gas mileage from someone that I know that's had one, street legal for the US.

Any MPG figures from a "plug-in" hybrid should not be counted unless they compute MPG from the electrical energy equivalent of a gallon of gas, or at least give an energy cost per mile. Another thing that they do not give is life-time cost of operation. Unfortunately, for passenger cars, gasoline wins last I checked.


RE: Yawn
By Hoser McMoose on 9/22/2006 2:07:34 PM , Rating: 2
The UK version of the Toyota Yaris, when fitted with a 1.4L 4-cylinder diesel engine, is rated for combined fuel consumption of 4.5L/100KM, which works out to about 52 miles to the US gallon. The SMART fourtwo that is sold in Canada (probably the same model that will go on sale in the US soon) uses a 0.6L 3-cylinder diesel engine and is rated at 4.2L/100KM, or about 56 miles to the US gallon. The standard Prius and the Honda Civic Hybrid are also in the same sort of range. These cars have some of the best fuel economy of any mass-produced cars, so as you can see, there is still some room for improvement.

Of course, the flip side is that the above cars are all road legal, while the car from this article most certainly is not!

Side note: the story didn't mention it, but I'm assuming we're talking about US gallons, which are somewhat smaller than UK gallons.


RE: Yawn
By crazydrummer4562 on 9/22/2006 5:10:12 PM , Rating: 2
EASILY in comparison to what? a snail? It's 0-100 time would be incredibly laughable.


RE: Yawn
By Lord 666 on 9/22/2006 7:35:28 PM , Rating: 2
The Honda diesels for sale in the UK blow the doors off US Hybrids. The UK Accord (US TSX) does 0-60 in 9.4 and 52.3mpg COMBINED http://www.honda.co.uk/cars

The US version of the MB E-Class CDI is rated 0-60 times of 6.7 and averages 37mpg.

Why aren't there more diesels for sale in the US? Honda is going to be making their CDI available around 2009-2010.

http://www.autoweek.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=...



RE: Yawn
By JeffDM on 9/24/2006 7:26:27 AM , Rating: 2
Diesels aren't easily available or as easily sold in the US because of several factors. The engines are good, but it is fighting different auto emissions standards. The US standards are more concerned with particulate emissions then the EU. Even with the highest grade fuel, diesel produces more particulates.

Diesel is also fighting poor perceptions for being disgusting, slow and sluggish. Someone mentioned the fuel, which is another thing. President Bush delayed the mandate for lower sulfur fuel by five years, that sulfur is what makes the emissions smell bad.


RE: Yawn
By plewis00 on 9/23/2006 10:08:36 AM , Rating: 2
So you hear?

We get 54-56mpg on a Toyota Avensis D4-D (that's Toyota's diesel engine name) 2 litre Turbo estate with the A/C on for mixed urban and motorway. The new one is even more efficient. You have to be efficient in the UK because fuel costs are so insanely high, but I guess the fact of the matter is, it's working and people are buying greener and more efficient cars.


RE: Yawn
By davecason on 9/23/2006 1:22:11 PM , Rating: 2
Europe uses "Ultra Low Sulfur Disel" (ULSD) which may help the acceptance by consumers. The United States uses dirty diesel.

Wikipedia lays it all out...
Disel:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disel_fuel
ULSD:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ULSD

Why don't we have a hybrid diesel cars? Wouldn't that really seal it up? I imagine they would easily get 60+ MPG.


Car?
By Phynaz on 9/22/2006 10:54:47 AM , Rating: 5
I don't know what I would call it, but I wouldn't call it a car.




RE: Car?
By sirvent67 on 9/22/2006 12:13:20 PM , Rating: 4
Ugly is what i would call it.


RE: Car?
By vannguyen0 on 9/22/2006 1:02:59 PM , Rating: 4
DEATHTRAP is what I call it...


hmmm..
By Souka on 9/22/2006 11:31:32 AM , Rating: 2
1st: Typo, "a miserly $2,339 " I think "measly" was meant to be used...

2nd: This type of "car" isn't new by any means, a lotta such ideas are out there. Good luck getting it licensed, or being able to drive it on a public road...especially with a "child" onboard.


But then again, 100mpg is kinda spiffy....





RE: hmmm..
By johnsonx on 9/22/2006 12:06:02 PM , Rating: 3
Actually I don't think 'miserly' was at all incorrect in that context (though I see the author has changed it already anyway). Miserly would generally be used with a rate of consumption, and the given dollar amount is an implied rate of $2,399 PER EACH.

Certainly 'miserly' was more creative than the pedestrian 'measly': congratulations, you talked the author out of using an interesting phasing because it didn't look right to you.


RE: hmmm..
By johnsonx on 9/22/2006 12:12:51 PM , Rating: 2
damned lack of edit button!!

of course I meant 'PHRASING'


RE: hmmm..
By mindless1 on 9/22/2006 8:50:13 PM , Rating: 2
1st: When you write the article you get to choose the word. Even if it were a typo instead, reading about someone trying to correct it like that is more distracting than the typo itself (would have been, IF it HAD been).

2nd: This particular one of it's type is unique, we dont have to ignore everything in the world that is 70% like some other thing. Don't be ridiculous thinking it's hard to license something you build yourself, you can have the transportation department send you the regulations and merely adhere to them.

You will want to keep a certificate in the vehicle because the police will stop you just out of curiosity. Public road- sure, with all the immature fools out there driving SUVs because they feel it gives them better protection in a wreck, when it really makes one more likely, there is a real risk if someone drives this kind of vehicle a lot.


Doesn't look very safe.
By mellondust on 9/22/2006 11:35:19 AM , Rating: 2
You save gas but pay for it later when you get run over by someone in their SUV. I wonder if it is similar or worse that being hit on a motorcycle?




RE: Doesn't look very safe.
By VooDooAddict on 9/22/2006 2:18:35 PM , Rating: 2
I'd never put a child in one of those for day to day driving (maybe for a quick trip to the park as a novelty).

Both a motorcycle and that bubble would suck in an accident. I'd rather be on a motorcycle. Much nimbler to avoid inattentive SUV drivers, can get 60+mpg easily, and cooler.


RE: Doesn't look very safe.
By rcc on 9/22/2006 5:14:52 PM , Rating: 3
I'd say motorcycle, at least you can jump.


RE: Doesn't look very safe.
By jive on 9/25/2006 3:12:55 AM , Rating: 2
Here's an idea:

Why don't we ban SUV's and vehicles weighting over 500kg's or 1000lbs? You probably won't even kill the porr little pedestrian if you dare to run into one with this kind of vehicle. With those ridiculous SUV's you probably don't even notice you just ran over a cyclist or a pedestrian.

You guy's have your values all screwed up.

The modern day traffic conforms to the rules of the cold war. The one with the biggest and 'safest' car will be out of harms way util someone comes uå with someting even bigger. Can you notice the analogy? I call for SUV profileration act and some common sense for consumers.

Nice to see that the potential of the new hybrid and diesel technology is gaining recognition on the other side of the Atlantic too.


meh
By Lazarus Dark on 9/22/06, Rating: 0
RE: meh
By johnsonx on 9/22/06, Rating: 0
RE: meh
By oscar6 on 9/22/2006 5:30:41 PM , Rating: 2
That's funny... my dad told me that exact same story and he believes every word of it.


RE: meh
By doctor sam adams on 9/22/2006 5:47:57 PM , Rating: 3
My dad is the one who made the car... he said he lived down the street from two guys with big mouths.


RE: meh
By johnsonx on 9/23/2006 2:20:58 PM , Rating: 2
LOL!!!!!


Isn't that Red Green?
By marine73 on 9/22/2006 11:47:09 AM , Rating: 5
I could've sworn that was Red Green in one of his homebuilt "Possum Garage" creations!




RE: Isn't that Red Green?
By reactor on 9/22/2006 1:24:47 PM , Rating: 2
Nah, not enough duct tape.


Heh
By RandomFool on 9/22/2006 11:29:29 AM , Rating: 2
My girlfriend's parent think my ford escort is unsafe, I wonder how they'd feel about me driving her around in this...




RE: Heh
By retrospooty on 9/22/2006 11:57:44 AM , Rating: 2
She wouldn't fit, she would have to be on your lap :D I am SURE they wouldnt like thinking about that. hehehe


RE: Heh
By GhandiInstinct on 9/22/2006 4:06:47 PM , Rating: 2
No, but I'm sure she'd get a "kick" out of it ;)


Safety a concern?
By mezman on 9/22/2006 2:23:02 PM , Rating: 3
That thing looks like a deathtrap. Even with a top speed of 53mph, if one were to hit anything it looks like it'd fold right up on you and crush you to death or lop off a limb.




RE: Safety a concern?
By Ardan on 9/23/2006 12:04:49 AM , Rating: 2
Cars in general are a death trap, not just this one. The key is to not suck so badly at driving like most people do. :P


So you don't like it? Then what are you doing?
By Micah on 9/22/2006 3:22:06 PM , Rating: 3
I see all these posts (trolls?) just poo-pooing on the idea. "It's ugly! It's not safe! It can't go as fast as my super-mobile!" Well, what are you doing for alternative transportation? Bitching about gas prices, I bet.

I ride my bike 9 miles each way to work, and ride the subway when I can't bike. Some of my ride is on busy streets, so I understand the safety argument. However, I don't think it's justified. I hear people say, "I'll give up my SUV when everyone else does. Until then, it's not safe." I put my neck on the line because I think oil consumption is killing our country, and I'm willing to do something about it.

Until you're ready to make even the slightest lifestyle change, you should be thankful there are people like this car inventor out there. Every gallon he saves is one more that you get to dump into your guzzler.




By Ardan on 9/23/2006 12:07:27 AM , Rating: 2
Your post is quite commendable. Good job! The other good thing about riding your bike to work is all the great exercise you get in the process! :)


D@mn hippies...
By jskirwin on 9/22/2006 1:20:36 PM , Rating: 2
Top speed of 53mph... Even the old people drive faster than that in my neck of the woods.

Do 80 and we'll talk.




RE: D@mn hippies...
By exdeath on 9/23/2006 11:27:58 PM , Rating: 2
And do it before you get to where you are going lol.

Must suck cruising at 55 finally and then the light ahead turns yellow....


It's not a car...
By jskirwin on 9/22/2006 1:23:53 PM , Rating: 2
m-w lists an automobile (car in the vernacular) as
quote:
a usually four-wheeled automotive vehicle designed for passenger transportation




RE: It's not a car...
By dwalton on 9/22/2006 7:11:40 PM , Rating: 2
passenger can = driver


In the top pic...
By RockfordFile on 9/22/2006 11:58:40 AM , Rating: 2
...he looks like the guy from the Red Green Show...in fact the project looks like something from a Red Green skit.

But kudos to his work. It's the start of what seems to be a very useable little commuter. Now to figure out how to convince people to drive this instead...




Not legal
By drank12quartsstrohsbeer on 9/22/2006 12:47:50 PM , Rating: 2
This contraption wouldn not meet ANY of the safety regulations required for an automobile in the US.




By Alexvrb on 9/22/2006 12:56:10 PM , Rating: 2
If the Geek Squad sees this, they'll want to replace all their beetles with it!




Sad
By cubby1223 on 9/22/2006 4:32:18 PM , Rating: 2
Really, if our government would just let Audi sell their A2 in the US, you wouldn't see any need for these crazy contraptions. It just doesn't make any sense to me...




Those aren't motorcycles
By jmunjr on 9/22/2006 4:58:30 PM , Rating: 2
"Using two old Honda motorcycles, a 1987 Elite 150 and a 1984 Elite 125"

How insulting. Those things aren't motorcycles, they are "scooters", which are even more nellie than mopeds.

We used to beat up the guys who parked their scooters next to our motorcycles in high school.




heh..
By AxemanFU on 9/22/2006 6:07:02 PM , Rating: 2
Isn't that that car that Steve Urkel drove in that Family Matters TV show?

That's a kind of cool garage project. I bet you could get similar results with a small 4 cycle gocart engine and very lightweight aluminum and composite construction. I'd be Very afraid to drive it on the same streets with conventional autos. Imagine a motorcycle that you can't get out of in a wreck. Motorcylces are bad enough as it is...this car is frightening. If they had dedicated lanes, or were used only in suburban and urban areas in designated lanes with slow speed limits, something like this could be useful for conserving gas.

We can already make full size gas cars with phenominally low emissions, so I'm not sure this kind of vehicle would do anything much useful for environmental issues. It's already far too late to do anything much useful working against global warming anyways, so we might as well worry more about long term fuel supplies than warming anyways.

I take it that it doesn't have a trailer hitch....




105 Mpg is that all?
By Ixion on 9/23/2006 6:56:08 AM , Rating: 2
People have been disigning inpractical high MPG cars for years, http://www.paccar.ethz.ch/pac_car_nogaro?hires is a car attempting to break 10,000 MPG, something more of an achievement even if it did cost rather a lot more!




fuel efficient cars
By Alexstarfire on 9/25/2006 12:46:02 PM , Rating: 2
First off you should know that you can't directly take the amount of time spent working on the car to time that could have been spent working. Chances are if you can get a job that pays $20 an hour it's going to be a salary job, so that'll be about 40 hours a week unless they allow overtime. Even if you spent 40 hours a week working that's 25 weeks worth of working. I believe that if you truly wanted the car that you'd work more than 40 hours a week on it.

Not only that I'm pretty sure most people would work on the car in their spare time anyways.

Very impractical anyways. Not only is the top speed crap, I'm sure the torque is crap as well. You put anything heavy on that thing and it'll probably slow down to a snail.

Only thing that would really help cars are hybrid cars that harness solar power. Hybrids are great, but if they had solar power the battery would last longer and you could get some extra gas milage out of it. Maybe not a lot, but eve 5 more MPG would be helpful. They could then add a more powerful electric motor.

Anyways, the key to more fuel efficient cars are both making them lighter and harnessing solar power, or some other natural fuel alternative.




Hmmk
By Crusader on 9/27/2006 5:49:34 PM , Rating: 2
1,000 man hours to build...
$2300 in parts...

Total cost when getting in a fatal accident with 4 wheel motorcycle and tarp roof?

Priceless.




By lemonadesoda on 9/27/2006 7:40:13 PM , Rating: 2
I've just finished my latest project: a 100 miles per hour bicycle.

Construction materials:

1x bicycle
1x short chain, approx 3 yards
1x large and very strong magnet

Instructions:

1./ Attach bicycle to chain to magnet to passing sports car.
2./ Hold on tight!

Cost $500 in materials,
About 30 minutes welding
About 1 hour drinking to "get enough courage"
About $20,000 in hospital fees




Yehaaa
By Dfere on 9/22/06, Rating: -1
RE: Yehaaa
By Dfere on 9/22/06, Rating: -1
RE: Yehaaa
By Chernobyl68 on 9/22/2006 11:29:23 AM , Rating: 2
what good is it if it isnt street legal?
its hardly a quantum leap in tech...looks basically like a gas powered golf cart, that is only built for 1 though.
and if limited to 53mph its of hardly practical use, you won't want to get on a freeway with that.


RE: Yehaaa
By RandomFool on 9/22/2006 11:31:20 AM , Rating: 2
It's got maine licence plates on it in the pictures and he specifically mentions not using it on the highway. It'd be fine driving around town, as long as you're careful of course.


RE: Yehaaa
By Micah on 9/22/2006 3:09:35 PM , Rating: 3
The person per vehicle ratio in the US is something like 1.1 or 1.2, meaning that the majority of cars are only carrying 1 person anyway.

So, why not build a cheap commuter-car that is specially made for that sort of thing? Perfect for 5-20 mile trips to and from work. Personally, I think electric is better for it, but 100+MPG gas car is pretty nice too.

I'm sick of people dismissing alternative transportation methods because they aren't 100% exactly like current cars. "It doesn't have 10 million horsepower? Hah, forget it! I'll keep driving my 10MPG manly-mobile."


RE: Yehaaa
By masher2 (blog) on 9/22/2006 3:49:20 PM , Rating: 2
> "So, why not build a cheap commuter-car that is specially made for that sort of thing?"

Primarily because, for most people, it doesn't makes good financial sense to purchase a car for commuting and a second car for those times you need to carry more than 1 passenger, or more cargo than two bags of groceries. So what if your single all-in-one vehicle gets less MPG, when you add up total costs, you save money with the approach.

A large part of the problem is the way insurance rates are structured. When I purchased a cheap commuter vehicle to save wear-and-tear on my sports car, I had to pay for yet another vehicle. So my rates went up, even though the Insurance Companies exposure went down...due to my risky, expensive vehicle spending most of the time in the garage.


RE: Yehaaa
By number999 on 9/28/2006 10:16:30 PM , Rating: 2
Actually studies have shown that most people really don't need the bigger cars but then most people don't care about what they really need and buy what they think they need.

What enforces what they think they need... Marshall McLuhan said the message is the medium and in this case all those lovely advertising tidbits from the car companies themselves reinforcing how much you can do in your bigger car when all most people do is go to the store and to work.

Think about the size of the american family, how much food do you really eat or better, should eat. An if you go to the store constantly, you got real problems as well as too much time or you got yourself an old fashioned Mormon family with a f@&^load of kids.

That is the unfortunate state of affairs. If it was cool or hip, that may sell it but otherwise it dies. Volkswagon release the TDI Lupo diesel in Europe. It got 75-80 MPG, yes a non-hybrid getting this type of milage. It was taken off the market due to poor sales, although I think the gas version is still on the market.

As a caveat, I have to say that I've been in luxury vehicles and yes they feel great but I'm not in real estate and given the choice between a sable coat and a survival parka, I'd take the parka. I guess I'm a low maintenance pragmatist. Also to me, there is a cool factor to the efficiency rather than the power.

The Lupo info was taken from Popular Mechanics Aug, 2006 article "100 MPG car", which is something I see far too little of... supporting information.





RE: Yehaaa
By gentryfunk on 9/23/2006 8:25:01 AM , Rating: 2
I ride my bike to work 1/2 the time...is it "street legal"....well, technically, it is not...I cannot take it on a freeway, for example. However, it makes my Xterra that I drive 2.5 days per week go from a vehicle costing $50/week in fuel to $25/week in fuel...while MPG doesn't change actual fuel costs do....so I am producing roughly 1/2 the emissions, costing me around 1/2 the money (bike tires and maintainance cost a little...about $5/week excluding time)...and that;s my bike...over the longterm a car like this will make a big impact on emissions, fuel consumption, etc....not too different from riding a bike in that sense.


Even if the eco-terrorists are right...
By therealnickdanger on 9/22/06, Rating: -1
By obstreperous on 9/24/2006 2:28:09 AM , Rating: 3
It's redneck attitudes like this that's screwing this planet. Nobody can rip through resources like you Americans can. Your consumptive ability is simply staggering. You guys have been driving excessivley large cars for way to long. And it's not as though you manufacture hi-tech or efficient cars. Your homegrown cars are marked by their engineering mediocrity. Obese not only decribes a large portion of your population it's also an apt description for America.


only 105mpg?
By johnsonx on 9/22/06, Rating: -1
RE: only 105mpg?
By isaacmacdonald on 9/22/2006 4:58:11 PM , Rating: 2
I agree -- this isn't technologically interesting. It's perfectly obvious that one method of saving fuel is to cut the curb weight down, but that's a factor that is typically weighed against safety, comfort, and sometimes sportiness. If a 2700 lb hybrid capable of highway speeds can get north of 50 mpg, there's nothing particualrly compelling about something weighing 1/6th of that approaching twice the fuel efficiency.

Nonetheless, it is fun to see little projects like this, and I would probably love to make/ride around in one if I lived in a sparsly populated area.


RE: only 105mpg?
By mindless1 on 9/22/2006 8:54:36 PM , Rating: 2
Well we could equally say it's not interesting to just slap in an engine that's twice as efficient to get there instead. Sure, the way that engine differed to gain the efficiency could be interesting, but so could the construction of this car to lose the weight.

So you're wrong, and you merely meant you don't like it. Technology is not only some cutting-edge-nobody's-done-it-before, topic. Technology is everyday stuff all around you, put to a different use.


RE: only 105mpg?
By johnsonx on 9/23/2006 2:18:34 PM , Rating: 2
Well I didn't say what the guy has done isn't 'neat'. But it has no pratical application that we don't already have numerous solutions for. There's nothing at all in this vehicle applicable to 'real' cars. He didn't do anything to make engines more efficient, he just used two little tiny engines. He didn't do anything to make car structures lighter, he just built a tiny little one. This has all already been done.

None of that invalidates his project. I'm simply saying, to use the words of the first reply to my post, there's nothing technologically compelling here.


RE: only 105mpg?
By mindless1 on 9/23/2006 3:28:36 PM , Rating: 2
I didn't think he was trying to compell you. Read more carefully and you might have noted that he never claimed "this will replace the modern car". Nor is he trying to see these as a finshed product.

What he "just" did, is more than you are doing. Anyone can sit back and pretend to know it all, but then actually doing? Let's see your better alternative, actually built and working.

He did do something to make engines more efficient- using only the size needed for his goal. He did make the structure lighter, by only building towards his goal. You are grossly misunderstanding the entire article - this was a guy with a set goal and what he did to achive it. He was not:

- Trying to impress you
- Trying to win the nobel prize
- Trying to split atoms or invent a new propulsion system
- Trying to sooth environmentalists by making something exactly like a large commercial car but with higher MPG.

Once again you fail to grasp the issue here. Almost nothing being made is using some invented out of thin air technology, its all about new combinations of technology already available, even that when some new technology sufficiently enough like magic to wow you, is presented- it's just the same thing, taking bits and pieces of the past and recycling them while adding to it.





"Vista runs on Atom ... It's just no one uses it". -- Intel CEO Paul Otellini









botimage
Copyright 2010 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki