Sure, you'd think that major automakers would want to get in on the
Automotive X-Prize challenge, a contest seeking to help create the first 100 MPG car, if only just to show off their engineering prowess and interest in future technologies. Of course, you'd be wrong. Not a single, big commercial carmaker has thrown its hat in the ring, and X-Prize organizer Donald Foley has a theory: fear of losing the game to a small start-up. Obviously, all the major players have an excuse when it comes to their lack of participation; Ford is busy with its EcoBoost program, GM is working with Carnegie Mellon University on similar technology. Unfortunately, the loser here is the consumer, who'd get another push towards more fuel efficient vehicles, resulting in less money spent at the increasingly pricey pump. It looks like another sign that the innovation which used to come from monolithic corporations is now emanating from the little guy. Can the Linux Car be far off?
posted February 4th 2008 3:31AM
First
to realize that their existence is meaningless?
how hard can it be? the Lupo does about 75mpg as it is.
exactly, the prize is up for grabs by whoever has the best luck (or tailwind) that day. The requirement that it be "economically viable" will not disqualify anyone...could you imagine the lawsuit over the meaning of "economicaly viable" with 10 million at stake? The race will be interesting in a comic sort of way. The litigation afterwards will be just sad.
Is this at all surprising?
...or even noteworthy?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volkswagen_1-litre_car
That VW is pretty cool. I wonder, if it can get 235 MPG in that configuration, if VW could make a version that seats four people and has a reasonable amount of cargo space that gets at least 100 MPG. Whenever I see these ultra-fuel-efficient concept cars, I can't help but think that people who are really concerned about efficiency might be more inclined to have a car with more utility. If I'm just going somewhere by myself, and not loading up on groceries or whatever, I prefer to take the Metro, rather than driving. Personally, and I think there are probably a lot of people like me out there (though they may not be the kind of people who usually post on Engadget), if there was an affordable 100 MPG minivan out there, that would be my dream car.
seems like the 3-wheel, streamlined, cameras and no mirrors, 2 seater is THE design for ultra efficient motor vehicles. Is this aptera inspiration or is everyone coming up with the same idea?
hm... i wonder... why is production to be limited? when a major manufacturer doesn't think it would sell, i guess we just have to take their word for it. seriously, people, wake up and smell the coffee. there is no such thing as a free market, and we're all getting screwed. if not now, you'll start caring when your beach house is under water.
Evil oil companies! Carburetor that runs on water! Etc, etc, ad nauseam.
douchebag comment of the thread? Should we print you a certificate so that you can show off to all the other 2nd graders?
Amazing, how quickly people like to turn against the big companies of the world...or in this case the big car companies...It would seem to me the big companies (which also include toyota, and perhaps even honda, but failed to be called out here) have better uses for their engineering resources than some useless "prize" with rules that do not reflect the average customers' desires in a vehicle.
I think if the average customer knew that they could find a 100mpg car, they'd definitely have a desire for it.
"I think if the average customer knew that they could find a 100mpg car, they'd definitely have a desire for it."
I don't think so. You can already get cars with much better MPG in Europe. But Americans don't want them because they are small and don't have much power. Try to sell a soccor mom a Fiat 500.
Of course they would, I agree 100%...and if they could afford a car averaging $50,000 we would have them already. The fact of the matter is that big companies have to target big enough markets. Small companies can go after niches for vehicles. But to claim that only small companies are innovating in this space is just wrong. While not meeting the 100 MPG criteria of the above stated competition, the following vehicle comes close without compromising on the real (proven) desire to have the ability to travel safely and comfortably.
http://media.ford.com/newsroom/release_display.cfm?release=25286 - FUEL CELL HYBRID ELECTRIC VEHICLE WITH PLUG-IN CAPABILITY
Sadly, that soccer mom isn't being given a choice. The average consumer can't afford to custom import a car from Europe.
http://www.autobloggreen.com/2007/11/25/popular-fiat-500-not-likley-to-make-it-to-america-fiat-boss-say/
A major part of the contest is for winner to be economically viable.
i'm guessing that when you participate in one of these, any new technologies you invent or patents you apply for become property of the xprize corporation? that might keep any big corporation from competing.
the auto makers are struggling with numbers as it is. paying engineers to produce a car that is not marketable, and then (possibly) being required to give away the technology they invent in the process, is not a real attraction for a financially ailing company.
Hmmm, I don't think that's the case. The space x-prize resulted in several companies developing tech for commercial flights to space. Afaik, those companies don't owe a dime in royalties to x-prize, and have retained corporate ownership of their designs. Otherwise, the incentive to the small start ups is zero - the cost of development exceeds the prize itself.
Ah, it's OK... The big automakers are saving some time and sweat and just letting some startup or cobbled-together entry do all the grunt work. Then they'll buy the design from the top five entries afterwards. If you can't do it yourself, buy it!
Come on now, tell me you didn't already see the writing on the wall?
No major manufacturer will even attempt to compete for the prize, they will use phrases like:
“Market research has shown that there is not sufficient interest”
“Not economically engineerable ”
“Will cost too much to the consumer”
“Focus groups say they think any such vehicle will be flimsy”
“Batteries take up too much space / not enough cargo space”
or anyone of a hundred other things that mean the same thing, “Tough Luck, We Ain't Doin' It!”
Then, when two companies are neck-and-neck, nearing to the goal, how much do you want to bet that either the competitors will be bought out by a major manufacturer or the staff will be hired by a major manufacturer and have to sign over all intellectual property to their new lords and masters.
Go see the movie “Who killed the electric car?”
I'm thinking the only way they could get a prize winning car on the road, is to make it open source from the start, all components must be OTS, nothing custom or proprietary. Then everyone who has the mechanical ability to do so could buy the parts themselves and build it themselves.
Then I see the major manufacturers lobbying each state to toughen their inspection requirements to a point where this or any DIY car won't be street legal. Sure they might find that their entry level products aren't passing inspections either, but to them, better to loose the loss-leader then to loose the profit makers.
As someone else said in a previous thread... If you believe "Who Killed the Electric Car?" you shouldn't be allowed to comment in a tech blog. Or any place where sane and rational people hold intelligent discourse.
Manufacturers aren't falling all over themselves to sign up for this because they're already doing it on their own, as the synopsis mentioned. Corporations are in business to make money; they know the consumer wants high-efficiency vehicles and so they're researching them. They don't need to waste time and money on this meaningless prize.
The problem really isn't how much fuel you're burning. It's what kind of fuel you're burning. Raising the MPG of a normal car is just a painful short term solution. Efficiency wouldn't be much of an issue if cars were burning an affordable, clean, and renewable alternative.
"Efficiency wouldn't be much of an issue if cars were burning an affordable, clean, and renewable alternative."
Sure it would. I take your point, but efficiency is a longstanding goal of engineering for its own sake. No matter how clean a fuel one uses there is still some cost, and minimizing that cost is worthwhile.
I think a better argument is that with a clean enough fuel efficiency would be a lower-priority goal than some others (like power, safety, driving dynamics).
@TheChaz
Thanks for rephrasing part of what I said for me in a more complex and pedantic way. I don't really see an argument there though.
If you then continued on to add to that by stating that increasing the efficiency to benefit affordability is counter productive for the higher priorities (like power, safety, driving dynamics) in that it generally makes a car less desirable in all other ways, and that car companies already know how to make a 100MPG car, they just know you won't want to buy it (I see those solar cars selling like hotcakes), and that the current gas efficiency is reasonably affordable, and that the only real need for higher fuel efficiency is to stave off the socio-economic disaster that awaits us if we continue to burn fossil fuels, and that only reasonable way to avoid the pending disaster is to convert to an alternative fuel economy, which would negate the need for an anemic vehicle, and by acknowledging these things one realizes that the car X-Prize is a fluffy, pointless effort with only minimal marketing value, you would have restated and elaborated on everything I said.
The reason big companies don't participate is that there is no incentive for them to do so. The monetary prize is a pittance for any of the major automakers. They do this on purpose - there was a Nova program on the original X-Prize and the organizers stated that they wanted to make the prize big enough to attract lots of small, innovative companies, but not so big that Boeing or Lockheed would get involved.
There is no money in fuel efficiency. I believe the demand is there and that the car would sell, but the long term is the problem. If a car that get's 100mpg is possible what else is possible. You can't have consumers on whole asking these types of questions because eventually they start wondering if they need gas at all. Which I believe we don't. I also happen to believe that most of the automakers already hold patents for cars and parts which can get 100mpg. But they purchased those patents specifically to keep them off the market. Anybody ever heard of the vaporization carburetor?
here is a pretty good discussion
"http://www.phact.org/e/dennis27.htm"
Saying "There is no money in fuel efficiency." is like saying "There is no money in saving money." Maybe there wont be extra but you sure have a lot more of what you dont waste.
And then promptly send it to collect dust.... easier to squelch competition than to compete themselves.
Woops, that was meant as a reply to Tony C.
Even though the majors are not participating, there are still plenty of interesting cars that the little guys are fielding - check them out here:
http://xprizecars.com/
If consumers really wanted a 100 mpg, they wouldn't be buying the bigger cars/SUVs they have today. They would replace the gas engines with diesel that uses 20-40% less fuel, while providing 30-50% more torque (which is better for towing and pulling heavy weight in SUVs and trucks). There are many advances for cleaner diesels. But why does no one buy diesel? Because the trade-off is slower acceleration and lower top speed (like anyone ever drives over 100 on a daily basis).
Every car company knows that to obtain better gas mileage - decrease vehicle weight, decrease engine power, and don't step on the gas so hard (try never exceeding 2500rpm). The question is - who wants to buy this car?
Check out the Smart fortwo - http://www.smartusa.com/. For $13,600, you have a two-seater car that gets 33/41mpg (40/45 based on EPA 07), with auto transmission, A/C, CD player, and all the usual safety features. If consumers really want to use less gas, they'll look into buying a car like this, which has been out in Europe for 10 years and has a 4-seater.
True, everyone wants to be fast and furious.
@Josh L
So are you saying that Stan Ovshinsky was or was not issued a patent for the NiMH battery, said patent was or was not purchaed by GM, and that GM continued to use Lead Acid batteries, despite the fact that NiCad and NiMH batteries were available even for research purposes?
Do you dispute the power to weight ratios of Lead Acid, NiCad, and NiMH batteries? Are you saying that the latter two were not available at the time?
Are you also saying that GM did or did not offer the leasors of the EV1 the option of purchasing said car?
I contest that if GM did allow the purchase of the EV1 by the people who were leasing it, they themselves would have found ways to overcome the cars' pontential problems.
GM simply did not want to open themselves to the potential law suits that could have resulted from unsuported modifications. I think it will take a century or more to get over the impact that Ralph Nader had on them because of the Corvair. The funny thing is that 30~ish years later, Ford only severed ties to a tire manufacturer over same basic issue.
Finally, do you still work for GM?
and people wonder why michigan is in a recession? toyota and honda pull further ahead with each passing day. let's see how stupid this idea looks in 10 more years, shall we?