a great short video (link below). notice how great vehicle aerodynamics look so incredibly clean and simple and contrast this to some of the so-called ‘aero features’ in some bikes that are claimed to help bike aerodynamics, but probably make it worse. and, while maybe we have come a long way in bike world (of course while being constantly impeded by the truly first-class idiots in the UCI), it looks like we haven’t come nearly so far in the automotive world. innovation is alive and well in the usa. but we sure do a pretty good job of squashing it.
“least wind resistance of any car ever made”
“most fuel efficient car ever built”:
I have been saying this for years that the automotive industry is in way too deep with the oil sector and have squashed any true advancement in automotive technology especially when it comes to way more efficient working engines. And yes there are similarities to the UCI squashing any bicycle technology as well.
100 mpg could have been the norm 2 decades ago which would mean that the technology would be old by todays standards if they were allowed to keep progressing. Now think about the bike industry if they were allowed to build off the bikes they were building before the UCI took over control. Imagine what Cervelo could have done if they could have kept building of this amazing bike with no rules.
Edit: I know that the UCI does not control what bikes are built but if you are building bikes that you would like to make a profit on and your marketing campaign is to use UCI controlled athlete, well you are sort of screwed. Even when you build within the rules, they are subject to change depending on your you interpret the rules and we know that the UCI is so inconsistent that when they sneeze the loose direction and go south.
US bumper standards are not so strict nowadays and most mold into the body quite nicely.
In 1973 the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) issued the first US bumper standards, requiring an automobile to be capable of sustaining a 5 mile-per-hour (MPH) frontal crash and a 2.5 MPH rear crash without damage to safety systems. In 1974, the standard for rear crashes was raised to 5 MPH. Phase I of the standard was first applied to model 1979 vehicles. In Phase II, beginning with 1980 models, the bumper itself could sustain only superficial damage in a 5 MPH crash… Initially, cars were mostly equipped with unsophisticated chunky protrusions of metal and plastic to achieve this standard in a cost-effective manner. Contemporary criticism considered them a stylistic detraction, and panned the additional weight of these bumpers on the already large 1970s American automobile. Under pressure from automakers, NHTSA revised the rules in 1982, lowering the front and rear protection standard to 2.5 MPH, and dropping the Phase II requirement altogether. At that time, NHTSA promised to conduct research and testing to provide consumers with accurate information on the quality of new car bumpers. NHTSA has not met this commitment. Consumers Union filed a 1986 petition requesting the restoration of the Phase II standard and disclosure of bumper strength information. In 1990, NHTSA rejected that petition.
By the late 1980s the design of bumpers evolved into largely hidden elements concealed by a single thermoplastic, painted fascia, again establishing itself as a stylistic rather than genuinely protective element. Protection dropped significantly and repair costs rose.
In a 1990 NIHS study conducted four crash tests on three different model year examples of the then popular Plymouth Horizon, with the following damage results (1990 labor rates and parts prices): 1983 Horizon with No-Damage 5 MPH bumpers $ 287 1983 Horizon with weaker bumpers $ 918 1990 Horizon $ 1,476
In 2008, Canada announced it would harmonize its bumper standards with UNECE and US standards, , thereby allowing Canadians to more easily import US vehicles. The Canadian standard had required impact resistance up to 8km/hr or 5mph.
please point me to what specific area of research would have allowed 100mpg cars to be the norms at the same size and performance levels the consumer expects today?
I’m not away of any engine technology that would allow this short of electrics, and I’m not aware of a battery that gives electrics sufficient range, other than the tesla which is rather expensive.
100 mpg could have been the norm 2 decades ago which would mean that the technology would be old by todays standards if they were allowed to keep progressing.
Aerodynamics would certainly help. Modern cars are nowhere near where they should be aerodynamically.
The Aptera (http://www.aptera.com/) has as much drag as the *windshield wipers *of today’s standard cars.
If automakers focused on the windtunnel nearly as much as bicycle producers seem to nowadays, there could be some huge improvements. We are always talking about how bikes should be built in the windtunnel, and not just with input from the tunnel. Well the same should be said for cars.
Or we can just continue driving bricks like the current lineup of SUV’s and wonder why gas mileage sucks so much.
Yes but you can’t shape a car like the aptera and deliver the same performance, comfort, and price as a normal car.
The fact is consumers have only themselves to blame for middling MPG cars. Engines HAVE gotten much more efficient, but consumer demand has merely put bigger, safer, more luxury filled cars on top of those engines, negating the improvements in the engine.
consumers think the prius is ugly and the 300C is hot.
there is no conspiracy at work here, except human short sightedness.
Aerodynamics would certainly help. Modern cars are nowhere near where they should be aerodynamically.
The Aptera (http://www.aptera.com/) has as much drag as the *windshield wipers *of today’s standard cars.
If automakers focused on the windtunnel nearly as much as bicycle producers seem to nowadays, there could be some huge improvements. We are always talking about how bikes should be built in the windtunnel, and not just with input from the tunnel. Well the same should be said for cars.
Or we can just continue driving bricks like the current lineup of SUV’s and wonder why gas mileage sucks so much.
Agreed, much of the problem is human idiocy. I don’t care for a luxury car, and don’t need all the bells and whistles. A car is purely functional for me: something to get me from point A to point B as quickly and efficiently as possible.
But many people tend to use their car as a status symbol, and are willing to pay more money for more luxurious cars. So automakers will build to the desires of these people, as they believe it will give them greater profit in the end.
Of course, current events also go to show that the modern automaker doesn’t know jack sh*t about proper business practices, and they’re suffering for it. It seems more people are starting to lean toward more efficient cars, so maybe there will be some change ahead, who knows. But I think human stupidity will still hold back a lot of innovation.
consumers think the prius is ugly and the 300C is hot.
really, you sure about that? is that why toyota has been selling priuses faster than they can make them, and chrysler is on the brink of literal liquidation? i don’t think you got your finger on the pulse of the market so good.
and for me, getting a consistent 50mpg on long road trips at speeds near 70mph, now that’s hot. and it’ll be even hotter when gas again shoots up well north of 5 bucks a gallon …
Oil companies do not want to see a 100mpg car ever and since they are in bed with car manufacturers, you will never see it. This guy came up with a 100 mpg car 2 decades ago. If a few of the major car companies bought this technology and spent the last 2 decades refining it, do you not think that they could have surpassed this by now. We have way lighter materials to use and way better technology to use as well. Oil companies do not want a 100 mpg car to ever exist and since the manufacturers are so far up the oil companies asses, they can not see the light.
Yes, that was the state of the market when gas was up to $4 a gallon.
that is what it takes to make the consumer care about gas mileage. the price has to be high enough for the consumer to care.
when gas is $1 a gallon the consumer (on the whole) does not want a weird looking 100hp hybrid. they want pickups and suvs and corvettes
really, you sure about that? is that why toyota has been selling priuses faster than they can make them, and chrysler is on the brink of literal liquidation? i don’t think you got your finger on the pulse of the market so good.
when gas is $1 a gallon the consumer (on the whole) does not want a weird looking 100hp hybrid. they want pickups and suvs and corvettes
Jack,
Only in the U.S. - in pretty much every other car market in the world, practicality, common sense and good gas mileage rules. It’s only in the U.S., that someone who lives on a normal paved street, and drives 100% on paved roads, would buy a completely over built and over weight vehicle that is more at home on a washed out mountain trail, that never get’s ploughed out in the winter!
This is especially predominant in the newer (less crowded) parts of the country where there is plenty of space for those big vehicles. My kids and I have been watching Pixars’ “Cars” a lot lately and there is a hilarious line during the credits where the shiny Hummer H3 is ordered to do 20 miles off-road and it exclaims. “Hey, I’ve never been off-road. Ah, man, I have dirt in my rims.” Of course, in the defense of these people who are so proud of their 4x4s, I know why they don’t drive them off-road. I worked at a Marine Corps pre-deployment training facility and they had a fleet of cars that traveled exclusively on dirt. A brand-new SUV and other trucks broke down pretty fast under those conditions. Six to 12 months later they were trashed. And those were all graded dirt roads. If a truck was really used in the manner that the manufacturers love to advertise them–bouncing up and down through the mud on some mountain road–they would have to go in for maintainence every month and would not last long enough for the owner to pay them off.
Chad
