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

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Science Technology

University of Wisconsin Wins FutureTruck Competition 49

Posted by timothy from the excursion-economy dept.
emmons writes: "The University of Wisconsin has won this year's FutureTruck Competition by reducing the greenhouse gas index of a Ford Explorer by 50% and increasing over-the-road fuel economy by 45%. The modified Explorer uses an aluminum/steel hybrid frame, a titanium exhaust system and sports a hybrid bio-diesel/electric engine. I saw the vehicle on campus a few months ago and got to talk to some of the team members- it's really quite impressive."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

University of Wisconsin Wins FutureTruck Competition More

University of Wisconsin Wins FutureTruck Competition

Comments Filter:
  • I reduced my car's emissions by 100% ... I cycle to work.

  • Excellent ideas, but... (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Black Aardvark House ( 541204 ) on Wednesday June 26, 2002 @08:47AM (#3768669)
    Can all these changes be implemented by the auto manufacturers? Sure, titanium is stronger and lighter but is also harder to work with and more expensive that the common exhaust alternative, steel. These trucks must be inexpensive enough to produce to be inexpensive enough for the average consumer.

    And aluminum as safe as an all-steel frame? Perhaps, but I'm under the impression that aluminum is not as strong a building material as steel.

    The biggest advantages can be seen in engine technology, especially hybrid gas/electric and alternative fuels (natural gas produces 20% the emissions of gasoline, yet provides similar power). If nothing else, we can make great strides in improving air quality.
    • Yes, the changes could be implemented by the auto manufacturers - and with the economy of scale, it wouldn't be that much difference in cost compared to the price of the vehicle. Right now, though, unless forced to either by demand (unlikely) or legislation, the manufacturers will only produce the absolute lowest cost designs.

      As for safety - a properly designed fram is safe regardless of the material, and aluminum alloys are stronger than steel for the same weight. The most dangerous part of most SUV designs is the tendency to roll over, anyway - and an aluminum body instead of steel would help considerably in reducing that tendency. (The center of gravity would be lower.)

      The real problem is incentive. Right now, there is NO incentive for manufacturers to improve the mileage on SUVs of any kind. (They don't have to meet the EPA/DOT mandated mileage figures, and are actually a cash cow for the manufacturers - they are priced many K$ above the real cost, and people buy them regardless.)
      • Yes, the changes could be implemented by the auto manufacturers - and with the economy of scale, it wouldn't be that much difference in cost compared to the price of the vehicle.

        If a company sells 20 million SUVs, and the cost of each one is increased by $100 through the use of titanium exhaust, and other more expensive components, They're not going to be keen on putting out an extra $2 billion dollars up front to make the switch. Even though it's an insignificant cost per vehicle, it's less money they have to use for financing, and it's definatly not earning interest when the vehicles are waiting to be sold on the lot. The manufacturing scale actualy works against the improvement in this case. (Hmm, 4-5 more miles per gallon, or claim a savings of $2 billion dollars, and everyone gets bonuses....)
    • (natural gas produces 20% the emissions of gasoline, yet provides similar power)...
      I thought that gasoline had the highest energy density than any other fossil fuel, way more than natural gas.
      • "I thought that gasoline had the highest energy density than any other fossil fuel, way more than natural gas."

        Nope. Diesel has a greater density than gasoline, and thus that is why Diesel engines are more efficient than gasoline engines.

        "Diesel fuel has a higher energy density than gasoline. On average, 1 gallon (3.8 L) of diesel fuel contains approximately 155x106 joules (147,000 BTU), while 1 gallon of gasoline contains 132x106 joules (125,000 BTU). This, combined with the improved efficiency of diesel engines, explains why diesel engines get better mileage than equivalent gasoline engines. "--www.howitworks.com

        • Faulty logic (Score:4, Informative)

          by Spamalamadingdong ( 323207 ) on Wednesday June 26, 2002 @11:36AM (#3770183) Homepage Journal
          Diesel has a greater density than gasoline, and thus that is why Diesel engines are more efficient than gasoline engines.
          Um, no. If all you did was substitute a fuel with more energy/gallon (such as gasoline for propane), you will get more miles per gallon even at the same efficiency. Greater energy density of the fuel does not make an engine more efficient. You might also want to look at this paper [iangv.org], where it states:
          Burning natural gas and propane gives less carbon dioxide and more water vapour per energy unit than burning gasoline or diesel fuel. Carbon dioxide is the most important greenhouse gas. International agreements to reduce carbon dioxide have been signed /39/. The emission of greenhouse gases is dependent on both the efficiency of the whole chain and fuel chemistry. Evaluations of energy consumption and greenhouse gases should be carried out over the whole fuel chain including production, distribution and utilisation (life cycle analysis, LCA).

          One argument heard in promoting natural gas as an automotive fuel is that natural gas reduces carbon dioxide emissions compared to conventional hydrocarbon fuels. This is most cases true when substituting gasoline with natural gas.

          The situation is different for heavy-duty vehicles. The thermal efficiency of the Otto cycle is lower than that of the diesel cycle, and therefore the energy consumption of a heavyduty spark-ignited natural gas or propane engine is higher compared to the diesel engine.

          The fact is that diesel engines running on typical fuels use higher compression ratios than Otto-cycle engines, and higher compression means greater efficiency. The diesel also runs without a throttle, eliminating throttling losses at partial power and further increasing efficiency; engine torque is modulated by reducing the fuel without changing the airflow, which cannot be done in an Otto-cycle engine because the engine will misfire when the mixture gets too lean.

          If you run an Otto-cycle engine exclusively on propane rather than gasoline, and increase the compression to suit the fuel, you will get higher efficiency and lower CO2 emissions than the gasoline version... but at 5 pounds of propane per gallon vs. 6.2 pounds/gallon of gasoline, you are still going to get fewer miles per gallon.

          • Faulty logic indeed...

            However, the faulty logic is on your part not mine. You have engaged in the non-formal inductive fallacy of semantic confusion. Whereas, I was using the more colloquial definition of 'efficiency'' i.e. mpg, you used a more technical thermodynamic definition of 'efficiency'' i.e. nu (the greek letter). See:

            http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/physics/DieselCy cl e.html

            and

            http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/physics/OttoCycl e. html

            Further, the use of supercharging, or turbo-charging will cause an increase in the efficiency of either the Otto, or Diesel cycle. Not to mention that the Miller Cycle depends on supercharging.

            Given the *context* of the post that I was responding to, it should have been manifest that the efficiency that I was referring to was miles (km) per gallon (l).
            • You have engaged in the non-formal inductive fallacy of semantic confusion. Whereas, I was using the more colloquial definition of 'efficiency'' i.e. mpg, you used a more technical thermodynamic definition of 'efficiency'' i.e. nu (the greek letter).
              In other words, I was correcting your fallacious argument (implied by your false equivalence between different motor fuels) by using a more precise definition. I plead nolo contendere.
              • "In other words, I was correcting your fallacious argument (implied by your false equivalence between different motor fuels) by using a more precise definition. I plead nolo contendere."

                My argument was, and is not fallacious. Say it aloud -- *context*.

                You equivocate the technical use of --efficient-- with the colloquial use of --efficient-- and therefore create an argument based on semantic confusion. There was no false equivalence, on my part, between motor fuels, as I clearly stated: "Diesel fuel has a higher energy density than gasoline. On average, 1 gallon (3.8 L) of diesel fuel contains approximately 155x106 joules (147,000 BTU), while 1 gallon of gasoline contains 132x106 joules (125,000 BTU)." Clearly 147,000 BTUs *>* 125,000 BTUs, and thus I made no statement of equivalency between gasoline, and Diesel. Undeniably, I showed that there was an inequivalency between the two fuels.

                Again my statement was based on the colloquial used of efficiency: mpg (km/L). Thus, in the context of the discussion my statement stands.

                If you were to say that your computer is speeder than my computer based on the fact that your processor runs at twice the MHz as mine you would be using a colloquial definition of --speed--. In point of *technical* fact you would be incorrect as MHz is a unit of frequency rather than velocity. Unless your computer was/is a laptop then the speed of your computer, in general, would be zero mph, k/s, etc.. However, your statement in all likelihood would have been made in a colloquial *context* and thus in that context would NOT be false.

                Statements take out of context almost always can be "proven" false.
    • Can all these changes be implemented by the auto manufacturers?
      It's not necessary to make a production vehicle exactly like the experimental one, it's only necessary to achieve the same results. The Moolennium [wisc.edu] (click on the Moolennium link on the right) got 32 MPG. Heck, Ford itself was talking about a 40-MPG Escape for production in what, MY2004?
      These trucks must be inexpensive enough to produce to be inexpensive enough for the average consumer.
      No they don't. The price of the truck needs to incorporate all the external costs which are currently foisted off on the rest of the world. If fuel cost $5/gallon it would make efficient trucks quite attractive even without much prompting, and $5/gallon is probably what petroleum fuel would cost if all of the external costs of protecting the Persian gulf, subsidizing Saddam Hussein and the Wahhabi fundamentalists of Saudi Arabia (the folks whose theology drives Usama bin Laden and Al Qaeda) and other things were charged at the pump.
      And aluminum as safe as an all-steel frame?
      Pound for pound, aluminum is much stiffer and stronger than steel. That's why modern aircraft are built mostly out of aluminum (where they haven't gone to composites).

      You are right about air quality, but I think that if we aren't willing to shoot for a doubling of fuel economy in our vehicles (and quite a bit more in the rest of the economy via co-generation [slashdot.org]), frankly we are being lazy pikers. We can double economy with technologies which are student playthings; when you consider the kind of advances which are currently in the real labs, and how they could come to the car dealerships and merchandise racks at Home Depot and Lowe's over the next 20 years, you have to wonder what excuse there is for doing nothing. I sure don't see one.

      • .... so, when do we see the first composite-based vehicle? Think about how cool it'd be to drive a nice new SUV made from Kevlar...

        And immune to radar too!

        I'd just hope the body style wouldn't be as ugly as the current stealth fighter (and require the 6+ on board computers to keep it stable, as I believe the Stealth fighter does..)

    • Audi [audi.com] uses aluminum frames in, i believe, all of their vehicles. most notably in the A8 line of super sedans and their A2 line of sub compacts.
  • Sure, they increased fuel effeciency, decreased emissions. But what did it *cost*? If they were able to do both, and are able to show that the measures used would cost the same (or less) than what is currently used in production there's absolutely no reason for Ford (or any other mfg) to switch.

    As nice as it sounds to have a 45% increase in fuel economy and 50% decrease in greenhouse gasses, if its going to add an additional $3K or so to the already bloated price of vehicles, is it really going to sell?

    • Actually, if we're only talking $3K more on the initial price tag, sign me up...let's do some math.

      (Before we begin, I live outside of D.C.)

      Current gas price: $1.46/gal
      Amount spent per week: around $23
      Amount spent per year: 52 x $23 = $1196
      Amount spent per year (45% better): $657.80
      Savings: $538.20

      So we're talking around 6 years to recoup your savings just from gas. I intend to have a car for >6 years, so yeah, I would buy this thing. Consider, also, gas prices have steadily gone up over the PAST 6 years, so you're actually talking about saving more than that.

      --trb
      • But what about the money you could've made by investing that $3K with an 8% interest rate:

        3000*(1.08)^6 = 4,760.62

        Gas would not cost you that much, even with the projected price increases.

        That being said, there are other reasons to get a fuel efficient car than to save money. To help the environment. And, in my eyes, that's a very noble reason for spending a little extra money on a car.

        But, regardless, you can't justify an extra $3K just based on money saved, because no money will be saved at all.
    • Well, I think I have something of an authority on this issue. I was on the UW team for the fall semester (and the whole year before that). Things have gotten, shall we say, busy lately.

      To answer your question, "Ah, but what did it *cost*?" I would say last year's Moolennium (same deal, only it was a Chevy Suburban) cost somewhere around $500k. Yeah, yeah, that's a bit on the expensive side, but don't forget it's a prototype. We calculated that the final product, should it be mass-produced, would cost about $2000-3000 extra. Unfortunately, the battery pack we used would have to be replaced somewhere around the 65k mile mark, costing an extra $600-1000. But hey, that's what Congressionally approved subsidies are for. But don't forget about that fuel economy. Under ideal conditions, we got the truck going at about 33 mpg (stock is 12!).

  • same fuel efficiencey (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Parsec ( 1702 ) on Wednesday June 26, 2002 @09:17AM (#3768912) Homepage Journal

    Of course, we could get the same fuel efficiency and reduction in pollution just by purchasing a reasonable mid-size car instead of a SUV.

    • Yup. The Explorer gets EPA ratings: 15 mpg city/ 20 mpg highway, so they managed to increase the miles per gallon to 29. No wonder they only give the percentage in the story.
      • 29MPG for a vehicle that weighs that much (I imagine it weighs more than my Durango which is about 4600lbs or so) is pretty impressive. I haven't seen mileage like that since my old 1994 Toyota pickup ($20 every two weeks was sweeeet). Of course, it weighed next to nothing, had a 4cyl 5 speed, and 1/2 the horsepower...

    • Of course, we could get the same fuel efficiency and reduction in pollution just by purchasing a reasonable mid-size car instead of a SUV.

      You assume that "we" have a "reasonable" mid-size family (or less) to haul around. A "reasonable" mid-size car does not have enough capacity for me, my spouse and 3 children and our stuff. Most vehicles these days seem to assume a family size of 4 or less. I need a vehicle that can carry at least 5 people plus groceries/luggage or maybe even another passenger or two. Even the Ford Explorer is actually too small for my needs. It's too narrow across the back seat to easily fit 3 child seats (all 3 of my children are still too small for regular seat belts). So, I'm pretty much forced to only consider mini-vans and large sport-utes.

      • A people carrier is still likely to be more efficient than a SUV. The problem is that people carriers tend to be designed for the family and are usually more aerodynamic than your average SUV. Most SUVs that I see are less aerodynamic than a brick.

        If you are driving around a full vehicle it is one thing, but if you are driving around 365 days a year with only one person then the efficiency per load doesn't look so good.

        • Well, my one-person daily commuter car is a Miata :-) Our other vehicle is the humongous familymobile and it is full more often than it is not, so I think I'm being fairly responsible. I just bridle at the knee-jerk reaction to large vehicles from people who live alone or only have one or two other people to haul around.

          As for the people carrrier vs. SUV argument, I also occasionally need to pull a trailer. A frount-wheel-drive V-6 just ain't gonna get it. It's gotta be (rear or four)-wheel-drive with a decent size V8 to handle large loads. An SUV is just too versatile for carrying/pulling/hauling stuff to ignore. Before they became fashionable enough to give us monstrosities like the Cadillac Escapade and Lincoln Flabigator, people like me were still buying them for the "utility" part of sport-utility.

          • Well, my one-person daily commuter car is a Miata :-) Our other vehicle is the humongous familymobile and it is full more often than it is not, so I think I'm being fairly responsible. I just bridle at the knee-jerk reaction to large vehicles from people who live alone or only have one or two other people to haul around.

            You know I don't react badly when I see a family in an SUV. I try to make eye contact with the driver because they are still unsafe, as long as they are driven with the proper caution and at proper speeds for such a vehicle, which I'm sure you do with all those kids, they aren't so bad.

            But I live in NYC and 90% of the time there is just a driver and maybe a single passenger and usually one who really just needs elevator shues or penis/boobjob and certainly shouldn't have a license for such a large vehicle. That's where the ugly looks come from. I think if these vehicles required a specialized license that required you do go out and roll one of these jobbies, and at least a weeklong full-time training course all that animosity would be replaced by respect. A $8-$10 dollar a gallon gas tax would probably even get some of the less responsible drivers to get a Miata for their commute. (I'm not all pro-tax, I think it should be accompanied by an equal reductions on other taxes, perhaps even earmarking the fuel tax for infrastructure, military and court costs from transportation issues.)
  • You mean that these students created an SUV that nearly doubled its fuel economy without jeapordizing the safety of the entire nation [mackinac.org]?

    We'd better keep this a secret, or else all those senators and lobbyists that killed the bill to raise CAFE standards [salon.com] would look pretty stupid right now!

    • You mean that these students created an SUV that nearly doubled its fuel economy without jeapordizing the safety of the entire nation [mackinac.org]?

      I've just read this link... Excuse me but this is hilarious. Just because a car weighs two tons and reaches the height of a man would mean that it's safe?

      The two persons who wrote this article obviously don't know about Euro NCAP [euroncap.com], which destroys their argumentation altogether. FYI, the best performing car at Euro NCAP tests until now is a sedan [euroncap.com]. And if you browse a little through test results, you'll see that what they call "knee-scraping subcompacts" perform equally well than any other categories on average. So long for "the bigger the safer".

      Oh, and said sedan consumes less than the hypermodified truck which is the subject of this article... which destroys their argumentation even further. It consumes less than what US lawmakers want to impose for 2013, even. In fact, most cars sold in Europe these days improve on these limits. Hey, we pay nearly 5 times as much as you for the precious liquid!

      Really, the US have LOTS to learn from Europe when it comes to cars.

  • OK, it's a dumb question posed by an ignoramus....but what in the world is a "bio-Diesel/electric" engine? "BIO"??? What part of it is alive?
    • "Biodiesel" is a term used to describe fuel that is similar to diesel in characteristics but is derived from biomass. There is a recipe for homemade biodiesel that uses old fry oil (get it at McD's for free)and various other cheap chemicals. Although one can burn fry oil in your diesel, it's viscosity requires special measures to heat the tank and fuel lines, as well as get the engine started. Biodiesel is thinner and is a straight up replacement, IIRC.
    • Or you could have used Google.

      Searched English pages for biodiesel. Results 1 - 10 of about 37,400. Search took 0.28 seconds.

    • Re:Please tell me: (Score:1, Informative)

      by Anonymous Coward
      Naw, your question isn't dumb.

      Rudolf Diesel designed his engine to run on vegetable oil. It was demo'd at the World's Fair running on peanut oil, in fact.

      Dr. Diesel's goals were social and environmental; he wanted to provide a clean engine to the farming peasantry that they could make fuel for themselves. But, the diesel engine was so well designed, it will run on almost any fuel containing sufficient calories.

      So, the oil and auto industries found that they could dispose of the crappiest, most polluting waste that their gasoline refineries produced by marketing it as "diesel fuel". This tactic was so immensely successful that the term "diesel" has become inextricably linked with the pollution-spewing monsters you are thinking of right now.

      So, the term "bio-diesel" was invented to delineate vegetable-based, renewable, clean diesel fuels (the *true* Diesel fuel of Dr. Diesel's vision) from the atrocious crap that comes from the oil zaibatsus.

      The Green Beans are fighting marketing with marketing. Might work, but of course the Oil Admin - oh, excuse me, I mean the BUSH Administration will probably find some way to make it illegal.

      Some links of note:
      http://www.veggievan.org
      http://www.apexnorth.com/history/development.html
      • Thanks! I thought maybe bio-Diesel was an error, or an in-joke. Now I know. I knew Diesels will run on various fluids, but the term was new to me. .....And your answer, polite and informative as it was, got you a Zero??
  • Forget cars - these technologies should be put to further use in heavy industry where the greenhouse problem is most endemic. Also, if all cars were made like this, surely manufacturing costs would decrease. If all the crude oil in the world is truly set to last only 20 or so more years we need to be properly looking now at some way of replacing it, not panicing when its too late.

    • Re:Cars?? (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Ashurbanipal ( 578639 )
      The crude won't run out in 20 years. The *CHEAP* crude will run out in 20 years. Fat cat Washington politicos, network talking heads, the hereditary rich, and corporate robber barons will still be able to drive gas-guzzling behemoths, but the rest of us need to come up with another plan.
    • Sure, some of these technologies would work in other/industrial sectors, but there is one glaring problem: Where does the self-sufficient electricity come from?

      In a vehicle, one of the largest sources of unused AND recoverable energy is in braking. That's how we (I was on the UW team) bumped up the fuel efficiency of the Moolander. If you remember back to high-school physics, you probably had a few lessons in electricity. Our teacher brought in a simple generator attached to a light bulb. The generator (a simple motor) was hand-turned. What we learned was that Lenz's Law produced a force opposite to the force applied to the hand crank. Apply that to a hefty motor in a truck and change the hand crank to rotating wheels (that bring with them the inertia of a couple thousand pounds) and you have yourself regenerative braking.

      I can't really see an industrial method of recovering this energy.
    • I read an article somewhere that reckoned that 40 square miles of solar panels in the arizona desert (I'm from the UK so bear with me if there isn't an arizona desert) would supply all the domestic energy requirements for the USA. Sustainable enough? Get a load of windfarms up in the rockies and you're set.
  • Audi is one of the world leading inovaters of aluminum framed cars. check them out here Audi.com [audi.com] the A2 and the A8 series' of vehicles are their most remarkable uses of the material.

  • Sorry, but this heavily transformed Ford doesn't impress me at all, especially since a certain Ford Focus TDCi [irishcar.com] on sale here in Europe (maybe in the US too?) does 50mpg at the same pace and performs likewise (top speed) or better (accelerations).

    However, I must admit that 29mpg is quite impressive for a car which shares its aerodynamics with an average skyscraper and weighs nearly twice the Focus - but then again, why not buy a Focus? As an added bonus it hangs on the road far better than any SUV (except maybe the BMW X5)...

Slashdot Top Deals

The herd instinct among economists makes sheep look like independent thinkers.

Close