Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Science Technology

8128 miles Per (US) Gallon 155

Posted by timothy from the how-many-oil-changes-is-that dept.
idletask writes: "Yes, you read well. This is the new record established this year in the Shell International Mileage Marathon (NOTE: English link, their figures are calculated using UK gallons), held this year on June 1st and 2nd on the Circuit of Nogaro, by a team from Université Paul Sabatier in Toulouse, France. This yearly contest, sponsored by Shell since 1977, consists in travelling the longest distance with only one liter of gas (the record is therefore actually 3494km with 1 liter), at a minimum pace of 25kph (~15mph). Full results of the contest can be found in a PDF file. The only US team who participated this year scored 69th, with 1136mpg (483km with 1l)."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

8128 miles Per (US) Gallon More

8128 miles Per (US) Gallon

Comments Filter:

  • Go U.S.! (Score:4, Funny)

    by tchdab1 ( 164848 ) on Tuesday July 02, 2002 @02:40PM (#3809183) Homepage
    "The only US team who participated this year scored 69th, with 1136mpg (483km with 1l)."

    Yes, but the US team's Sport Utility Test Vehicle pulled an ultralight trailer with a teeny boat on it.

    • Sport Utility Test Vehicle pulled an ultralight trailer with a teeny boat on it.

      [grin]

      Did you see how tiny these silly things are?

      If I had one of these things kicking around the garage, I'd probably accidentally end up using it as a tire chock for my 1976 Dodge Ram.

  • Measurements (Score:5, Funny)

    by Wrexen ( 151642 ) on Tuesday July 02, 2002 @02:41PM (#3809202) Homepage
    I know some of you are having a tough time with the miles-per-gallon or kilometers-per-liter measurement, so I've taken the liberty of converting this to a useful measurement we can all relate to.

    Simply put, 483km/1L is 1.2425 x 10^-6 earth-moon distances per cubic centimeter of fuel. I think that puts in it perspective
    • I would like to know what it is in lightyears per hogs head. Thank you.
    • I know some of you are having a tough time with the miles-per-gallon or kilometers-per-liter measurement, so I've taken the liberty of converting this to a useful measurement we can all relate to.

      Simply put, 483km/1L is 1.2425 x 10^-6 earth-moon distances per cubic centimeter of fuel. I think that puts in it perspective

      but how many library of congresses is it!?!?

    • Re:Measurements (Score:3, Funny)

      by uradu ( 10768 )
      I'm afraid the standard journalism unit of measure is the length of a football field. How many football fields would that be?
    • Oh man thats exactly the shit my physics professor would do to us, he really loved dimensional analysis.

      I remember on one midterm being asked to convert a measurement in miles per gallon into "furlongs per fortnight" which is pretty easy if you know that a god damn furlong is 220 yards, and a fortnight is 2 weeks. Needless to say furlong was *not* among the unit conversions I had choosen to memorize.

      Bonus points if you can convert furlongs per fornight into granpa simpsons "rods per hoghead" (40 rods in one furlong) :)

      Although to this day I still remember the conversion for furlongs, I think what I really learned in that course is not to take classes from assholes :)
      • I remember on one midterm being asked to convert a measurement in miles per gallon into "furlongs per fortnight" which is pretty easy if you know that a god damn furlong is 220 yards, and a fortnight is 2 weeks.

        You'd still need a conversion for gallons to weeks, unless you meant to say "miles per hour into furlongs per fortnight".

  • Ummm (Score:5, Insightful)

    by snubber1 ( 56537 ) on Tuesday July 02, 2002 @02:45PM (#3809234)
    Of course 2171 actual miles on one liter of fuel would probally NOT scale very well when you are carying 4x the fuel at the beginning (One gallon instead of one liter). With numbers like this, weight must be a very important consideration.

    • Re:Ummm (Score:3, Interesting)

      by kevin lyda ( 4803 )
      but then even if a full tank of petrol and other weight led to 1/20th of the fuel efficiency that means you'd get a bit over 100mpg. oh and look, here comes the vw lupo.
  • The only US team who participated this year scored 69th, with 1136mpg (483km with 1l).

    As a European, why doesn't that surprise me?

    Hmmm. The US "gas" would still cost approximately the same as the UK "gas" per km.
    • So "why" does that "surprise" you?
    • ...you are virtually pickled in a vat of daily "this is why we Europeans are actually better than Americans" hogwash, resulting in countless superficial analyses such as this.

      This is a cool European engineering competition with about the same level of practical significance for US transportation problems that battle robots competitions have for US manufacturing. Maybe more than zero, but not much.

      But, as a European, you're not required to think about an issue beyond the point where you think you've found a way to employ it in the service of proving your superiority to Americans. You're not likely to want to, either, because often the deeper you go the less superior to Americans you might feel, and European self-esteem seems to be on such thin ice as it is.

      • I was simply pointing out that this is further (completely tongue-in-cheek, unsubstantial) proof that that the Americans (as a generalisation) don't care about the environment. (...at least enough to worry about having efficient cars, anyway.)

        I own a car in California that does 28 miles to the gallon (after conversion to UK sized units) and that was actually adevertised as being extremely efficient. My car in the UK does 34 miles to the gallon and no one there would consider that to be particularly efficient.

        Don't even get me started on the amount of electricity that gets needlessly wasted in California. But it's cheap, right? And I won't be on this planet in 80 years time, right?
        • Ummm, Europe deals with feul efficiencies better than the united states for a simple reason: Gas is very expensive.

          The fact that very few Us teams entered a EUROPEAN contest says very little.

          I own a car in Georgia, and it gets 42 miles to the gallon, andit is considered pretty efficient, but I miss your point.

          I'm sorry, that is incorrect. You must state your post in the form of a reasonably intelligent statement (not just a bunch of random thoughts that occured to you.)
          • Ummm, Europe deals with feul efficiencies better than the united states for a simple reason: Gas is very expensive.
            Yes, that is one reason. Another reason is that the European consumers care about pumping the environment full of CO2.

            The fact that very few Us teams entered a EUROPEAN contest says very little.
            I don't dispute that. My comments, generally, say very little too.

            I own a car in Georgia, and it gets 42 miles to the gallon, andit is considered pretty efficient, but I miss your point.
            My point being that the subjective view of what is considered efficient is warped somewhere mid-atlantic.

            I'm sorry, that is incorrect.
            Presuming that you refer to the final paragraph of my post, then no - it is not incorrect.

            You must state your post in the form of a reasonably intelligent statement (not just a bunch of random thoughts that occured to you.)
            What on the slashdot forums? (Actually I believed, and still do, that that comment was very relevent to the thread)
            • Another reason is that the European consumers care about pumping the environment full of CO2.

              Maybe you should stop breathing then...

            • Yes, that is one reason. Another reason is that the European consumers care about pumping the environment full of CO2.

              So you must only care about the environment when you are in Europe? You don't seem to care in America.
              • Hardly! Although I must admit that it is much easier to be less wasteful of resources and more ecologically aware whilst in Europe.

                I could have bought a huge SUV or truck, but I chose not to (of course, many people need those but many more, like me, don't). Regardless, I walk, bike or catch a bus to work everyday instead of driving. I consider myself to be responsible member of this _global_ society; for example, I expend considerable effort to recycle my garbage which, believe me, is not easy around here. Maybe other parts of the US are different?
            • I find it difficult to beleive that somehow Europeans are societally more environmentally conscious because of (even partially) moral reasons, as European morals have been shown to be about par for the course over the last century.

              There is no reason to beleive that European consumers are more thoughtfulthan Americans, especially because our consumer cultures are nearly identical. I do not deny our cultural imperialism or incredible ethnocentrism, but I fail to see how our environmental defects reflect this.

              No, I was not referring to the final paragraph of your post, I was in fact parodizing a well known television show, named Jeopardy.

              The randomness I referred to isn't referring to the relevance, but the degree of organization and coherence.

              I award you no points, and may god have mercy on your soul.
              • I find it difficult to beleive that somehow Europeans are societally more environmentally conscious because of (even partially) moral reasons,
                We will have to continue to disagree on that point then. (And I disagree strongly. Just look at the amount of environmental activism in Northern Europe and compare that to the US).

                No, I was not referring to the final paragraph of your post, I was in fact parodizing a well known television show, named Jeopardy.
                Oh. I've never watched that.

                The randomness I referred to isn't referring to the relevance, but the degree of organization and coherence.
                Okay, fair enough. I have a habit of making what appear to me to be obvious jumps.

                Anyway, I'd better go and celebrate the US independance from the British now ;-)
        • Yes, despite the claim of "completely tongue-in-cheek", you say you were "pointing out" "further proof" of European stereotypes of Americans and you go on to offer even more "proof". Regardless of the putative position of your tongue, you clearly meant what you implied.

          And what stereotype were you offering further proof of? That "Americans (as a generalisation) don't care about the environment". Your evidence? That *you*, a European, own a lower gas mileage car in America than you own in Europe. So, if an American stole money in Paris but not in New York, would that be further proof that Europeans were thieves?

          • Your evidence? That *you*, a European, own a lower gas mileage car in America than you own in Europe. So, if an American stole money in Paris but not in New York, would that be further proof that Europeans were thieves?

            No, my little anecdote was highlighting the undeniable fact that what consitutes an efficient car is not considered equally in Europe and the US.
            • Now that I think the wave has passed and people are off reading other articles, I can speak to you almost privately, leastsquares.

              I think we both believed what we said, but we also both earned our "Flamebait" mod points. ;-)

              I want to add that though I believe the things I said, those aren't my only beliefs. I've lived and worked in many countries and have seen with my own eyes that great ideas and smart, talented people are widely, if not quite evenly, distributed around the world.

              It's obvious to me that all countries have a lot to learn from other countries, and this absolutely includes Americans having a lot to learn from Europeans (lumping Brits, for better or worse, into the latter category.)

              I assure you that I spend a great deal more time recommending to my fellow Americans that they pay more attention to ideas from Europe (and elsewhere) than I spend in debates with Europeans such as this one.

              I also like Europeans, in general. I've worked in Europe, and will happily do so again, and even here in the US I work in a department with three Europeans for every American. I like that.

              Frankly, though, there's an impediment when trying to persuade Americans to pay more attention to Europe that I don't face when trying to get them to pay more attention to Japan, for example. That is that the European ideas are so often presented to us as "further proof of our European moral and intellectual superiority to you disgusting Americans", while the Japanese ideas tend to be presented as "here's how we're solving this problem".

              In the former case, we have to wonder how much credibility to give the idea, given that clearly some part of the goal of the presenters isn't to help us solve a problem but to gain some sort of competitive advantage over us, even something as petty as "see, Europeans good, Americans bad".

              Nevertheless, there are just too many good ideas and smart people (and people I like) in Europe for me to stop paying attention, and I'll continue to make that point to my fellow Americans.

              • ...we also both earned our "Flamebait" mod points. ;-)
                Indeed.

                Before I respond further, I would like to reiterate the fact that my very first comment "As a European, why doesn't that surprise me?" was refering to the genuine belief in Europe, rightly or wrongly, that Americans drive huge gas-guzzling monster vehicles. It wasn't intended as a dig at the US or its peoples. To be honest, I found your initial reply to that email fairly offencive. But moving on...

                I work in a department with three Europeans for every American. I like that.
                I work with 3 Asians for every American. I would like that if I could convince them to drink some beer ;-)

                That is that the European ideas are so often presented to us as "further proof of our European moral and intellectual superiority to you disgusting Americans", while the Japanese ideas tend to be presented as "here's how we're solving this problem".
                This is a cultural issue. Us Europeans use this tone even when (or maybe especially when?) debating within the European communities.
                When discussing Americans, the word "disgusting" should probably be replaced by "selfish" to make it correlate with the honest opinion of an average Briton. Of course, this is nothing more than a gross stereotype. Unfortunately for the US, there are significant issues with outsider's opinions of it. This is a important problem since the US is now the world's dominant super-power. My belief that these opinions stem from (a) the selfish political behaviour of the US (i.e. the Kyoto agreement) (b) the disdain seemingly-exhibited by the American people for anyone that has morals or culture which are considered non-American.

                Now this discussion is definitely far far offtopic!!! So I'll just say that I like the US and its peoples, even if I do not like the way that it is currently screwing with the planet. Likewise, I like the Europeans, even if the British are stuck up their own arses and the French smell of garlic ;-)

                PS All Americans drive inefficient vehicles. ;-)
        • Just to mention a minor thing. There is a larger emphasis placed on safety and comfort (and honsetly, safety is very far up there) in vehicles in America. And it's not that Americans are worst drivers than anybody else in the world, it's just more of a obsession.

          My first proof would be looking at the approxiamtely once/week story on either national or local news about the latest crash tests of some vehicle, and the fact that many adds actually state a safety rating.

          Now, if gas were a lot more expensive, maybe this would begin to take a backseat to fuel efficiency. However, as safety standards are now, many of the "ultra-efficient" european cars are not even road-safe for the US.

          When I was in Italy (which is how I know that US drivers are not the worst), I really thought some of the micro and mini and Smart cars were great. I even looked into buying one and getting it shipped. However, the amount of modifications needed to make it pass the lowest safety standards pretty much doubled the cost of the vehicle. Also, I got to thinking that driving it next to LandCruisers would soon be a source of nightmares.

          So, no, American cars don't get good gas milage, but it isn't necessarily because Americans want to spend money to use gas.
          • You also have to think about the reliability vs distance in America vs europe. I can buy say a Geo Metro in the UK and it would be fine, at city speeds (Probably no more then 35-55), and with no further then what i would be driving it, say around London, it would be a dependable automobile. But take that car to the US and drive from say Palmdale Ca to somewhere in Orange county every day (Aprx 120 mi), I bet that the little Geo metro dosent last a year.

          • European safety is in many ways far tougher than in the US - the Smart Car you mention is probably the safest small car in the world [smartcarofamerica.com] - if crushed it would probably stand up better than many larger vehicles.

            If you import a car from the US to the UK it will have to pass an SVA [dft.gov.uk] test. I have been told that there are some vehicles sold new in the US that have no hope of passing the SVA without costly modifications (and we're not talking amber tail-lights here - major brake modifications!) Apparently even the emblems on the hood of some Limos are too *tall* to pass, though you could remove it for the test and re-fit it afterwards!

            Gareth

            • From the SVA site:

              There are also some standards in other countries that are recognised as being sufficiently similar to those that apply in Europe, such as the safety standards that apply in the United States, Canada and Australia.

              So I am not convinced of your claim yet. Also, appearances, although deceiving, are important, and that Smart car will never look 'safer' as compared to an SUV tank. And exactly why isn't the Smart car in the US yet?

              I was looking for the standards that US cars don't necessarily meet, and the only ones I found were the theft deterrence (optional in US), and the side impact protection (I'm guessing side impact airbags, also optional in US).

              As a friend mentioned, the other reason for small, and thus more efficient, cars in Europe is the smaller and narrow streets of so many towns. I don't think one SUV would fit through some of those lanes, let alone 2.

      • It is a simple, indisputable fact that Americans (meaning residents of the US, not all North/South Americans) use MUCH, MUCH MORE ENERGY PER CAPITA (that is per human being) than ANY OTHER COUNTRY ON THE GLOBE [ecoworld.com]. In fact, more than twice as much as the nearest contender, China.

        Now what I want to know is, why do Americans take themselves so seriously? Is it genetic or cultural?
        • PER CAPITA (that is per human being)

          I particularly liked how you pointed out the definition or per capita ;-)

          Is it genetic or cultural?
          Definitely cultural.

          :-( [economist.com]
        • It is also indisputable that America is ENORMOUSLY larger and less densly populated than any country in Europe, leading to vastly greater distances to be crossed to accomplish normal business and making the European's favorite solutions of trains and buses utterly impractical for getting around.

          On top of this, America accounts for a huge amount of the world's industrial production. A great deal of that energy is actually being used for something. While I will not argue that the USA couldn't do quite a bit to increase efficiency in all parts of the economy (just about everything I've tried to check in depth makes it appear that 2x is quite realistic for most applications not involving direct conversion of electricity to heat), there are excellent reasons why the USA is always going to have higher energy consumption per-capita than the "good folks" of Europe even if they are employing the same technologies just as well.

        • (1) the US does waste energy

          (2) The US is huge. You don't understand it unless you have lived here...in particular the west. I have driven 43 miles today already and I still have not gone home from work. That is driving to work and two errands. Why don't I take public transportation? It would add two hours to my day. I already work 8-10 hours per day, with only two weeks off a year. Another 2 hours I cannot handle. Perhaps if I had a 30 hour work week and 1-2 months of vacation I would feel differently, but the extra fuel is nothing to me if it allows me another two hours of life per day.

          (3) The dense US cities are much more efficent, because everything is close by, like Europe. Also, it is 38C where I am right now. That's bloody hot. That means I run my air conditioner. If it never got over 25C I could save a lot of energy, but it does not work that way here.

          (4) Citizens of the US are not of one genetic group. We are comprised of people from nations and cultures all over the world...I am surprised you don't know that. But for the last 20-or-so years we keep hearing "you are Americans, therefore you are, by definition, violent and bad." I find this amusing from Europe, who did their best to self destruct not once but twice in the last century....one duke gets shot so you decide to kill 8.5 million people to make up for it.

          (5) The US does need to work on its energy use, I agree. But Europe is poisoning the environment as well. How many major rivers have US companies killed in the last ten years...easy, Zero. Europe has destroyed all life in TWO major rivers in the same time span. Long after the US realized how terrible above-ground and ocean nuclear testing was, France did not give a damn about detonating their bombs wherever they please. Although I am an anglophile, the British have poisoned entire islands with experimental weapons. So there is PLENTY of environmental blame to go around.

    • The only US team who participated this year scored 69th, with 1136mpg (483km with 1l).

      As a European, why doesn't that surprise me?

      As an American, why should it? Statistically, we were right in the middle of the curve with our one entry. There were 114 other teams in the competition, most from France (who also came in last).

      Did you mean to infer that Europeans are good at statistics?

      • I was infering that this was more evidence that Americans don't care about the environment. Yes, yes, I know that's a hugely prejudiced generalisation. I guess I should have put one of those little smilies after that comment.

        (PS Neither Europe nor America are countries)
        • Actually, in the vernacular, the United states of America is referred to as "America" in much of the English-speaking world. Europe, however, is not a coutry, it is a group of socialist democracies that are curently desperately attempting to get their "international" "governing body" (The EU) to actaully govern, in regards to more than currency.

          By the way, since Europe is a continent, England cannot truly be considered a part of the continent, since any peices of its' empire that is on the continent, are now no longer part of "the British Empire."
          Sorry, you lose (the American revolutionary war, specifically.)
          • So let me get this straight...England isn't a part of Europe and the US *should* be called America (rather than the US). I hate stereotypes, but you are certainly living up to the "Americans are know nothing of the world beyond their borders" one. If you want to change people's views of Americans why don't you act the part?
          • Gibraltar, which is part of the European continent (the Iberian peninsula, to be precise) and is a part of the British Empire for at least a little while longer. ;)
    • If you are going to post anything that may be considered as vaguely anti-American, do it as an anonymous coward.

      I'm now being personally attacked, off-forum, as some kind of anti-American zealot. As someone that made the choice to move to the US, that's something that I am definitely not.

      In Europe, and probably elsewhere, American cars have a reputation for being gas-guzzlers. Live with it.

      I finished my post with a dig at the price of fuel in the UK. I notice that none of the British took particular offence to that.
      • Word.

        I hate the pro-American bias in Slashdot...but maybe it's just because many, many more Americans post on this than other countries, and so the blindly patriotic are more represented. It's not the ACs that piss me off (easily blocked) but the people with karma (how can they be so misinformed?)...

        But I also suspect it is part of the American psyche to be insecure about the status of your nation (why else would they be so defensive?).

        When it gets to the point where you can't state simple facts about America without getting attacked off-forum... that's sad and disturbing.

        Are there "international" slashdot-like sites?
        Maybe there should be an option on slashdot preferences to automatically block out posts from people from national domains for certain topics which are "sensitive" to people from those countries.

        Anyhow, awaiting the onslaught...

        • First off, this isn't meant as an attack or anything, just stating what I think.

          Slashdot is in the US. Many, if not the majority of the users are American. Well, maybe not most, but I'm sure there are more users from the US than any other country. That doesn't mean it should be US-centric, but that's the way it is.

          You are right, often stating facts that make the US look bad in comparison to other countries will result in people flipping out. I think one reason is maybe that americans tend to think of Europeans as stuck up, and may think they're using those facts to just make themselves look better. As to your american psyche thing, I think it's more that sometimes the facts are wrong. Much like as someone pointed out that BTU/GNP is a much more meaningful measure. As for americans getting defensive, maybe it's because it often appears that the europeans (well, not just the europeans) are quick to point out those facts, as if they're the ones who are insecure and need the reassuring. Anyway, I think it just comes down to a "culture clash" of sorts, with misunderstandings on both sides.

      • In Europe, and probably elsewhere, American cars have a reputation for being gas-guzzlers. Live with it.
        If you have lived in the US for any length of time, you will also realize that the European imports to the US are some of the worst offenders in the gas-guzzling category. V8 Mercedes and V12 BMW's are particularly bad examples. In other words, you are being attacked for putting forth an argument which doesn't stand up well under examination.

        I've been talking up the need for increased fuel taxes as a way to discourage consumption for over a decade. You can see how much progress I've made.

    • Just my $0.02 here.

      The reason many Americans are so sensitive is that we get tired of hearing that we are all rotten people who sit around all evening being violent while the cultured Europeans save the earth.

      That being said, I know what you meant in your message. And you are correct that many people are hypersensitive, but in multi-national forums I have frequently been attacked...posters saying things like "as an American, you know nothing about x", where x has been everything from the history of World War I to computer technology.

      I get really tired of being told that all Americans are lazy, stupid, uneducated, fat and rich. I work hard, I have degrees in Electrical Engineering, Anthropology, Computer Engineering and a minor in Chemistry. I know about history and I don't like Football of any sort. I don't like violent action films, I know my wines and can have an intelligent conversation about the history of Bath, if required.

      So that's the nerve even a well-intentioned poster like you can hit. Remember though the problem of text-only postings where people can't tell your comment may have been some ironic humor...and many of the people flaming you are the "14 year old slashdotters" who have chased many of us from this forum...I only rarely post now.

      BUT, that being said there is a tendancy that anytime there is a case where a European country does something better (or different) than the US, there seems to be a flurry of slashdot posts along the lines of "What do you expect from a stupid American anyway".

      This post is pointless, 'cause nobody will read it. But I fell better anyway.

  • 1136mpg (Score:3, Funny)

    by martin ( 1336 ) <<maxsec> <at> <gmail.com>> on Tuesday July 02, 2002 @02:48PM (#3809255) Journal

    typical US gas gusler :-)

  • Lack of information (Score:3, Insightful)

    by sab39 ( 10510 ) on Tuesday July 02, 2002 @02:53PM (#3809307) Homepage
    None of the links in the story provide any useful information at all, as far as I can see. The first is for a "Mileage marathon society" which doesn't appear to have any information about a particular recent contest. The second is for the location at which the event was held; the third links to a blank page inside Shell with some plugin that doesn't work in my Mozilla. Searching Shell for "Mileage Marathon" produces lots of results in other languages and from 1998-99, but nothing topical.

    Does anyone have any actual information about this contest? Much as I trust /. as a source of unbiased and accurate information (cough) I'm interested in a few more details...
    • here [la-joliverie.com] is the (french) website for one of these cars. They set the world-record of 3625km/liter

    • Re:Lack of information (Score:4, Informative)

      by Christopher Thomas ( 11717 ) on Tuesday July 02, 2002 @04:41PM (#3810219)
      None of the links in the story provide any useful information at all, as far as I can see. The first is for a "Mileage marathon society" which doesn't appear to have any information about a particular recent contest. The second is for the location at which the event was held; the third links to a blank page inside Shell with some plugin that doesn't work in my Mozilla. Searching Shell for "Mileage Marathon" produces lots of results in other languages and from 1998-99, but nothing topical.

      A few links in, there's more information. Here are the contest rules:

      http://www.shef.ac.uk/~mms/rules.html [shef.ac.uk]

      They have to do 6 laps of a 1.64 mile course with a minimum _average_ speed of 15 miles per hour. The vehicle with the lowest fuel consumption wins.

      The vehicles have people in them, which puts a lower limit on their size. Engine technology can be anything that qualifies as a heat engine and runs on unleaded gasoline.
      • That's dated 1997 - are you sure it's current?
        • That's dated 1997 - are you sure it's current?

          No, but I doubt they've substantially changed the rules.
          • What I'm getting at is that, given /.'s propensity to post 3 year old "news" items as if they were current, is there any evidence that anything new has happened in this regard at all? Has the contest even happened since 1998?

            I'm not saying that it hasn't, but I couldn't find any evidence of it at the links we were given. Hence my question.

            To put it another way:

            Where's the links to the timely information regarding this news item?

  • You forgot to mention... (Score:2, Insightful)

    by tm2b ( 42473 )
    ...that an English gallon is roughly 500 US gallons.

    Not so impressive now, is it?

  • More info (Score:4, Informative)

    by DeadSea ( 69598 ) on Tuesday July 02, 2002 @03:08PM (#3809440) Homepage Journal
    Junkyard wars had an episode in which the contestants had to build super fuel efficient vehicles. They showed some clips of these actual races. The basic premise is that you get very light, very aerodynamic, much lubrication, and thin tires with a large diameter to reduce rolling resistance. Most of the entrants burn their fuel in stages and build up speed and then cut the motor and coast because engines need some amount of fuel flow to keep running and their efficiency goes to where flow would be below this minimum.

    The most fuel efficient car you can get in the US is still the Hybrid Electtric Honda Insight [dmoz.org]. I have about 63 mpg average over the two years that I've had mine.

    • The most fuel efficient car you can get in the US is still the Hybrid Electric Honda Insight. I have about 63 mpg average over the two years that I've had mine.
      My Hybrid Electric Toyota Prius [toyota.com] only gets 48 mpg on average, but it's a five-seater (two adults, two kids, one pet) as opposed to your two-seater Honda.

      So if you are calculating based on carrying capacity you are incorrect, the Honda isn't the most fuel efficient.

      If you are just going by mpg without any other caveats, the Solectrica and EV-1 have you beat because they are pure electrics and use no gas.

      On the other hand, Honda's new hybrid (based on the same technology) will probably be an even better family car than the Prius because of Honda's excellent CVCC gas engine technology. Go Honda!
      • The US EPA combined mileage rating in MPG for the Honda Insight is the highest of any passenger car you can purchase in the U.S.

        Yes, you can tweak the numbers to look at passenger-mpg, but that's going beyond the bounds of what the EPA can test and report. Fact is, most cars on the highway are driven just with 1, maybe 2 passengers per vehicle, no matter their occupancy rating. And last I checked, you couldn't use a pet to get into HOV lanes :)

        Pure electrics probably don't use "gas," but they may or may not use oil, natural gas, or have other impacts, depending on where the electricity comes from. Additionally, you can't even buy an EV-1, it's strictly for leasing. Another caveat.

        Anyway, we (I drive an Insight as well when I'm not riding my bike) are doing much better than typical America, so pats on the back all 'round.

        1. So if you are calculating based on carrying capacity you are incorrect, the Honda isn't the most fuel efficient.

        If you want to do it based on capacity, a standard diesel bus gets 3.5 MPG and seats over 45. That beats the Insight in PMPG (people miles per gallon).

        My Civic Si does gets fewer PMPG than all three, but it's a lot more fun to drive and 124 PMPG isn't bad.

      • Geeze. My Ford Focus nets me 47 mpg, only because it has a rather very efficient small-block engine. No hybrid energy going on in there, just supertuned combustion timing. I was also originally looking for a small hybrid, mainly because I'm sick of blowing 150-200$ per month on fuel, but with the current state of hybrid cars it's just not worth it. They're not that much more efficient (except maybe that little honda thing that looks like a squirrel on wheels), and they're twice the price of a regular car.

        And how are you supposed to trick out a hybrid engine ? Replace the stock wiring with gold-plated heavy-gauge 1000-strand cable ? Upgrade the batteries to something with more power output ? Overclock the engine mgmt cpu ? I feel more at home talking about fuel-to-air ratios, forced air intakes and rebored shafts; let's not forget NOS :)

        The bottom line is : some people want a car to take them places, others want a car to _drive_.
    • > The basic premise is that you get very light, very aerodynamic, much lubrication, and thin
      > tires with a large diameter to reduce rolling resistance.

      And that you find two perfectly serviceable engines and working batteries in a junkyard full of stuff that people threw away because it didn't work anymore to begin with.

      • Re:More info (Score:3, Informative)

        by JabberWokky ( 19442 )
        The batteries are charged and dumped in there... look in the background and you'll often see a pile of batteries that they pulled out of the junkyard and were dead. The engines in that corner of the junkyard that they scavenge from are the cream of the entire junkyard - basically, the few working engines, motors and other parts from a several square kilometer junkyard. They are also all newly dumped, so they haven't rusted.

        Is it real junk from a real junkyard? Yes. Do they cream off the very top and concentrate it down in the corner they film in? Yes. Do they seed it with items from the junkyard that might be useful for that week's challange as recommended by the experts (sheets of material for hanggliders or hovercraft, screws/propellers for boats)? Yes. Is it still junk from the rest of the junkyard? Yes... unless it would be a safety hazard or just not found in a junkyard. In those few cases (high class solid rocket engines or parts for a steam engine) they are seeded with tested components.

        That's a darn few cases, so most episodes feature real junk - prescreened junk, but real junk from the musch larger yard visible beyond the edges of the set. I've known a few people who went into a junkyard and, a few weeks or months later, had a working vehicle of some sort - dune buggy to functional (and butt-ugly) car. The parts are there, they just are a pita to find. The corner they film in is full of *just* the useful and working bits from a huge junkyard. Motorcycles with smashed front ends, vans with rusted out frames, etc.

        --
        Evan

  • Missing rule (Score:3, Funny)

    by rakarnik ( 180132 ) on Tuesday July 02, 2002 @03:10PM (#3809459) Homepage Journal

    From the pictures [shef.ac.uk], it looks like one rule was left out.

    The car shall fit non-midgets such that they do not need back surgery after the journey.
    • Heh. What I liked most was how in a lot of the pictures, you see someone following on a bike. You'd think that that would be a better way to get gas milage.

      More interesting, is that none of the cyclists are wearing helmets, but the drivers are. At 30 mph, even if you hit a brick wall in one of these things, you're just going to bump a knee, really. It looks like they would save on gas milage if they ditched the 5lb helmets. :)

  • Description is misleading (Score:4, Informative)

    by GregWebb ( 26123 ) on Tuesday July 02, 2002 @03:13PM (#3809487)
    Unless they've recently changed the rules, they most definitely do _NOT_ give them their litre of fuel and tell them to keep going until they get bored. 8000 MPG, average speed of 20 MPH (say), that's over 2 weeks of continuous driving.

    Last I heard they took the cars, ran them over an agreed course of a few miles maximum, excluded those who ran too slowly then measured the amount of fuel left in all the cars VERY CAREFULLY :-) and computed the MPG from that.

  • boring... (Score:4, Interesting)

    by kurowski ( 11243 ) on Tuesday July 02, 2002 @03:25PM (#3809576) Homepage
    it would be much more interesting to see who, given one liter of gas, could win a race over a road circuit. steady-state driving at low speed doesn't relate to most real-world driving.
  • Somehow I'm just not that impressed by a ultra efficient gasoline powered bobsled. I'm sure that there are plenty of engineering challenges involved in getting the most mileage out of the fuel allotted, but wouldn't a more directly applicable challenge be more interesting. Try getting the public to buy one of these things or the government to allow them on the road. I think it's very telling that Shell sponsors a fuel economy challenge with vehicles which no one could ever dream of seeing on an actual highway.

  • Supermileage (Score:5, Informative)

    by Tablespork ( 564764 ) on Tuesday July 02, 2002 @05:18PM (#3810525)
    I participated in the Minnesota Technology Education Association's Supermileage Challenge in May. It was basically the same thing except it was just a bunch of high school teams. It really is a great competition, I learned a lot and had tons of fun.
    My team ended up with a top mileage of 305 mpg, this was for the stock class. Fairly good considering we had limited time, budget, and experience.
    The way our competition worked is this: Each team is given a fuel bottle and it is weighed before the start. You then go around 2 laps (of the 3 mile track at Brainerd International Raceway) for a total of 6 miles. They then weigh your fuel bottle again to determine how much gas is used (making sure there are no air bubbles in the fuel line). This ends up a pretty accurate way of determining gas mileage. The weight of the gas really shouldn't matter that much, since more weight would mean you carry your momentum longer. You have to complete 6 runs and they take the average of that.
    Now since we are high school students, our main goal was to build a working car. You then focus on aerodynamics, good bearings so it rolls well, wheel alignment, steering, and driving practice. Getting practice is key. Not only to determine what will break, but also to get good at controlling your burns. Short burns at high rpm's get you up to speed(roughly 30, which was the max), at which point you cut the engine and coast down to around 10(you have to maintain an average of 15). By the end of the 2 day competition, you saw drivers getting very good at rolling to a stop inches over the finish line.
    It was a really fun competition, we saw some very cool cars with everything from carbon fiber bodies, to computer sensors and lcd displays mounted on the steering wheel, and you could download all the data to a computer for analysis. Sweet stuff.

  • Doesn't make sense! (Score:3, Interesting)

    by moosesocks ( 264553 ) on Tuesday July 02, 2002 @05:25PM (#3810585) Homepage
    Why not just build a solar powered vehicle

    Why not force a guy to drink a liter of gas, then make him bicycle a ludicrious distance.

    Why not build a sailboat and pour the gas overboard?

    What about nucler sumbarines?
  • Two silly observations:
    1) the home page has a link for "Pictures" and a link for "Photos". I half expected that when I clicked on the link for "Pictures" I'd see more crayon drawings, like the one taking up most of the main page. Not so, both links go to photographs, with "Photos" being slightly more candid.
    2) No homophobia or anything, but the second car on the "Pictures" page says "FAG" on the side in big black letters. Heh. That tickles my "Beavis and Butthead" level sense of humor. It's probably an acronym for something, but never in a million years would anyone in the US come up with an acronym like that and plaster it on their vehicle.
  • This [shef.ac.uk] is the best entrant in my opinion. It isn't the "most" fuel efficient entrant but, it is the most practical.

    This stealth car not only gets great mileage, it is also invisible to radar. No more worries about those pesky speed traps. Of course, at 20 MPH the only speed trap you'll have to worry about is a school zone. But, no worries in this puppy.
  • I don't understand why Shell, the company who helps fund south african dictators to maintain control over their oil supply, is involved with this.

    It's like Microsoft having an uptime contest.
    • Sure, actually it's like Microsoft holding an uptime contest with minix on a 286.

      Namely, the configuration in question will never sell, so by all means advertise the impracticality of it!

Slashdot Top Deals

"And remember: Evil will always prevail, because Good is dumb." -- Spaceballs

Close