University of Wisconsin Wins FutureTruck Competition 324
carambola5 writes "No, this isn't a dupe from a year ago. The University of Wisconsin-Madison team has taken the FutureTruck title for the second year in a row. The overall goals of the competition are to modify an existing Ford Explorer (make and model dependant on year) to improve fuel economy and greenhouse gas emissions while maintaining or exceeding customer expectations. The University of California-Davis team took 2nd, with Michigan Tech, Georgia Tech, and Penn State following close behind. Speaking as a member of the winning team, I am quite sure that all of the students and advisors from the participating teams are well-deserving of appreciation after those many, many hours of preparation." Too bad Ford isn't actually using any of this hard work. One thing to note: The FutureTruck website still has to be updated with the winning info.
So why did they win? (Score:2, Interesting)
Why an Explorer? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Why an Explorer? (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Why an Explorer? (Score:5, Funny)
Because they couldn't fit enough hamster wheels in the trunk of the sedan to give it some real kick.
Re:Why an Explorer? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Why an Explorer? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Why an Explorer? (Score:2)
By your description, you seem like one of the few on the road that actually _use_ your SUV more than 10% of the time.
You know, I think I'd like to see vehicles that large be banned from being owned by the general public. If you need one to pull a boat, trailer, etc, have them easily available to rent when needed.
Of course, I'm biased - I drive a 2003 Mini Cooper S ;-)
Re:Why an Explorer? (Score:2)
But it's not inherently safer. If two SUVs collide or two compact cars collide the death rates are similar, as the masses of the vehicles are similar. The trick is that when the SUV and the compact car collide the SUV inhabitants are safer... but the compact car inhabitants
Re:Why an Explorer? (Score:4, Insightful)
I would like to see SUV's treated as passenger vehicles and not trucks. They would then have to abide by the same safety criteria small cars do. Currently, they do not.
As far as banning SUV's, state and federal governments already decide what you can and cannot drive (state inspections, etc). I don't _personally_ want to decide what you drive, but if your huge SUV is a hazard to others on the road (which it is), then the appropriate governing body needs to review whether or not that risk is offset by your desire to drive such a behemoth.
I think every road should be an HOV lane based on vehicle weight/passenger weight - you should be allowed about 3000 lb of vehicle for the first passenger and 750 for each passenger thereafter.
I'm no greenie, but if people are serious about cleaning up the environment and lessening our reliance on fossil and/or foreign energy sources, things like this will be the norm, not the exception.
PS: Mini's weigh about 2570lbs dry, and are as tall and wide as my wife's 2000 Mitsu Galant. It's two feet shorter, though ;-)
Re:Why an Explorer? (Score:2)
You need to everything right and die young anyway to spite Darwin.
Re:Why an Explorer? (Score:2)
may need an SUV
Ah, yes, "need"
[Context: I have an SUV and used to have a 40+ mpg Honda Civic for years until it was brutally rear-ended by a mid-sized sedan].
I and a lot of other folks might have a profoundly shifting perception of what we really "need" if the price of gasoline in the U.S. were to climb from current levels to what it is in Europe or Japan over some timeline created by intelligent tax policies to slowly and predictably ramp up the price so that when oil really does become scarce and ex
Re:Why an Explorer? (Score:5, Interesting)
I can see several sensible reasons why the teams were given an SUV to modify (and thats not counting their apperant popularity in the US).
Space: If you outfit a vehicle with what is basicly a prototype propulsionsystem, it'll take more room than a productionsystem will do at some point in the future. Thus, the system they can shoehorn into a SUV today will fit a saloon in two years time, and your motorbike in a decade.
Weight/power ratio: If you can develop an engine powerfull enought to push a two ton box at a sensible speed, it is certainly powerfull enought to move a lighter and more aerodynamical vehicle too. The opposit is not always true. If the teams had been tasked in modefying a Ferrari or something, it would have been way cool, but for a system to achive production status it must be applicable "across the board".
Ease / cost of modification: A large car gives you plenty of space to fool around, letting you use equipment off the shelf instead of having to get everthing made espesially for the prototype. The enginecompartment in my Rover 200 is packed thight while the one in my fathers Opel Astra has plenty more room, and a SUV would be a ballroom compared to thatg again.
Re:Why an Explorer? (Score:3, Insightful)
To those of you that claim you need an SUV for the interior space - Explorer's waste internal space like there is no tomorrow - if you want internal space for your kids buy an MPV - they are safer (as they are base
Re:Why an Explorer? (Score:2)
Then why not buy a diesel? As much torque for towing with a smaller and more fuel efficient engine. My father tows a horse box with a two litre diesel Land Rover, my father in law a larger boat with a Merc (much better fuel economy and handling).
You've obviously not looked at the new Explorers. They do in fact have 4-wheel independent suspensions. F
Re:Why an Explorer? (Score:2, Informative)
Too bad... (Score:5, Insightful)
Too bad the average American is willing to talk the talk, but will not pay the price that many of those modifications require. Ford, like the other vehicle manufacturers, only sells what the people want. And at present, even those nice wonderful and green hybrid vehicles only make up a very small percentage of vehicle sales.
Re:Too bad... (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Too bad... (Score:3, Insightful)
That being said, Honda does have a hybrid Civic now that looks just like any other Civic ('cept for the logos).
Re:Too bad... (Score:2)
But... I don't think those square-eyed monsters that were born at cadillac will ever be attractive. Shame that japan seems to be jumping on that bandwagon... ick. Ptooey. How foul.
Re:Too bad... (Score:2)
Also, as far four wheel steering goes, GM features it some of their GMT-800 based models and will probably add it to other models as the feature is gaining popularity with the public.
Re:Too bad... (Score:2)
You mean like this seriously ugly car [citroen.mb.ca] from this whole page of seriously ugly cars? [citroen.mb.ca]
Re:Too bad... (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Too bad... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Too bad... (Score:2)
And speaking of smart decisions, Bush's environmental record isn't great. He continues to press for drilling in the arctic when the amount of oil from that drilling is very small by even the high estimates making the cost of damage to the environment close to the benefit of the oil to the
Re:Too bad... (Score:2)
A single cell is hardly a human being. Are two cells a person? Three? A fetus is an undeveloped person, thats why it is called a fetus and not a person.
What makes humans different than animals that we raise to eat? What makes it wrong to kill people and not wrong to kill
Re:Too bad... (Score:2)
Does Dick Cheney have an interest in hydrogen fuel production? Seriously, hydrogen fuel is a boondoggle environmental issue unless legislation is enacted restricting the methods of generation. What good is hydrogen fuel cell tech
Re:Too bad... (Score:2)
Re:Too bad... (Score:2)
There are good alternatives to conventional fuels that require little or no change to existing infrastructure. A good example is biofuels and fuels like greasel [greasel.com], which can be used in existing motor vehicles with only mi
Re:Too bad... (Score:2)
Re:Too bad... (Score:5, Insightful)
Wrong. Ford, like other vehicle manufacturers, sell what is most profitable. SUVs were comparatively cheap to make, and sold for a nice premium. That they were in vogue only helped to make that market segment the most profitable for them. However, if you ask the average American, buying an unsafe, gas-guzzling automobile is probably not what they want. However, that is what they get when they buy conventional SUVs.
To sell hybrid vehicles to the American public at a competitive price, Ford would have to cut some of that nice profit and make less per vehicle. Ford and its dealerships/repair shops would probably also make less over the life of the vehicle, since a well-designed hybrid with an integrated electric motor (not those gas engines that GM proposed with the oversized 42 volt alternator) will likely have a longer service life - meaning less wear and less maintainence. After all, you are burning less fuel.
Why then did Ford and other automakers suddenly announce fuel-cell cars, and hybrids? Because someone actually started selling hybrids to the American public - cars that weren't styled too strangely or overpriced (due to low production volume.) Can you say fear of the Japanese again? Kudos to Toyota and Honda for actually putting THEIR money where the market is. Boo on Ford for announcing a hybrid Escape well over a year ago, and (evidently) pushing the release date back by another year... AGAIN.
SUVs retail for 20k to 40k. Your typical hybrid retails for around 20k to 40k. A hybrid Ford Escape that gets 40mpg for between 20k and 40k is definitely doable... and there's definitely a market for them. Standardizing hybrid-electric drives would go a long way to lowering the cost per unit. People want these kinds of cars. But they can't buy what isn't on the market, and no American auto maker is willing to upset a good deal and cannabalize their existing sales of pure gas autos. It's much cheaper for them to spend money on PR and lawyers than it is for them to implement a conversion and face competition in a new market
Re:Too bad... (Score:5, Interesting)
Ford's profit margin for the past twelve months is 1%; two of the last 4 quarters they've lost money. I think it's simply unrealistic, given that, to ask them to sell a more difficult to produce product for the same price out of altruism.
If the product is more expensive to produce for the same capabilities, it's going to have to cost consumers more for those capabilities. Either that, or there's got to be a compelling argument made that hybrid cars are going to be cheaper in TCO, which I don't think has been demonstrated yet. Overall, there are more complex systems in hybrid cars and the designs are newer, so I would assume they would be less robust. Time will tell.
Let's face it-- the current hybrids on the market are not moneymakers, but they are a good way to hedge the auto industry's bets and build new technology that may be viable in the future.
It's my understanding that the Escape will be entering the fleet dealer network within the next quarter. And a lot of the technologies that make hybridization easy and cost effective today simply weren't practical for mass market adoption 5 years ago, so I think overall things are moving at a reasonable pace.
The thing is, hybridization gets you maybe a 25% real-world efficiency gain, and it's the lowest hanging (and cheapest) fruit to improve fuel economy. If we really want to do more than that, either vehicles are going to have to greatly improve in price, there'll have to be a great technological breakthrough, or people wil have to settle for less features.
You don't understand the atuo business (Score:4, Informative)
I've worked in the auto industry for the last 5 years. While, yes, Ford's overall profit margin for the last 12 months is 1%, that's an average. Each unit doesn't have the same margin.
Car companies make high margins on *some* lines, and *lose* money on other lines. Typically, the small car market is a loss leader for the American auto companies. They sell the car for less than it costs them to produce it. The idea is to have something to sell to younger people just starting out (and hence have lower incomes) -- get them hooked on the brand early.
On mid-sized cars, the profit margins vary, some lines can make good profit, while others just barely break even. But in the luxury car and SUV market segments, the margins are typically much higher and that's where almost all of their profit comes from.
This profit model has existed for quite some time. In the 1970s, the car companies were hit especially hard because people stopped buying the luxury and high-end sport models due to the oil embargo of that period.
So it's a much larger problem than you outline here. Sure, the market has *some* bearing on this, but the car companies have screwed themselves by setting up a profit model that never took into account the idea that the costs to produce some segments may end up larger than they realized.
The only way to make hybrid SUVs viable is for the companies to spread their profit margins across lines a bit better, raising prices a bit on all of their lines, but probably not quite as much on the SUV segment.
Of course then all the liberal class-warfarists will be up in arms saying how Ford, GM and Chrysler cater to the rich and bend the working class over.
Re:You don't understand the atuo business (Score:2)
From the Almanac of Policy Issues: [policyalmanac.org]
Re:You don't understand the atuo business (Score:2)
Re:Too bad... (Score:4, Interesting)
So those millions of people that own an SUV don't really want one, they're just forking over 350-400 per month for no good reason?
We'll start here. 'Unsafe' is subjective term, like all accident data. If I'm going to be in a head on accident, I'll take an explorer over my own S-10 (which garnered only 3 stars according to government crash test data). Same goes for side impact. You are statisically more likely to be hit than to hit someone. If you're being hit, then no, I'd rather not get hit by an SUV. I'd also not want to be hit by a semi, Fed-EX truck, Special Ed. Bus, or any other heavy vehicle that sits higher than my own car.
SUV sales are still brisk, although larger models such as the expedition, and lincoln's new aviator have fallen off, mostly due to the deservedly poor reviews. Strangely enough, the fastest selling vehicle in the first half of this year has been the H2 hummer.
Why then did Ford and other automakers suddenly announce fuel-cell cars, and hybrids? Because someone actually started selling hybrids to the American public - cars that weren't styled too strangely or overpriced (due to low production volume.) Can you say fear of the Japanese again?
Have you looked an a honda insight? It looks strange and is horridly over priced considering it's functionality. great gas milage, but as a family car it falls short of even the accord or camry.
Kudos to Toyota and Honda for actually putting THEIR money where the market is. Boo on Ford for announcing a hybrid Escape well over a year ago, and (evidently) pushing the release date back by another year... AGAIN.
If by market you mean "sell a few hundred cars so our PR people can get in good" then yes, you are correct. the closest data I couple find comes from an insight fan site here [insightcentral.net]. 2001 sales of 4726 and 2002 sales of 2,216 don't consitute much of a market. That includes a one-time $2000 IRS Clean Fuel Vehicles tax credit on top of regular honda incentives. those sales put it behind even the Pontiac Aztec, a spectacular failure in comparison to most cars and SUV's
The 'sudden announcment' of hybrid vehicles; could just be reaction to our glorious and fearless leader's announcment that there was government (read: free) money in them thar hills for the development of fuel cell and hybrid vehicles?
'Alternative fuel vehicles' have been under continuous development by the big three automakers since the dawn of the industry, and long before it was fashionable. It's called innovation. if there is a chance to make money by being unique, someone will try it. Steam powered and electric cars have been around sinces the turn of the century, back when they were as functional as the early gasoline engines. through the 50's and 60's Chrysler had been doing work on turbine [allpar.com] engines, only to see the program die without fruitition in the late 70s. the Ford and GM electric car programs have all but died at the hands of the fuel cell vehicle.
The hybrid Escape hits the market in the middle of next year to coincide with the release of several newly redesigned vehicles (including the mustang, getting it's first ground up redesign since 1977). Escape hyrbids will enter fleet services this year. The main delay in getting the escape to the streets has been the mandate from Bill Ford jr. that the hybrid vehicle's performance be as close to that of a regular escape as possible.
Hybrid vehicles are a niche market car in the US. In Europe or Japan
Re:Too bad... (Score:2)
That's why Honda is also making a Civic hybrid - it's more to people's taste. I only wish I could afford to buy a new car.
The last part of your comment brought up an issue I've been discussing with my friends lately:
So, to the obvious question for any of these threads. What do you drive to work every day? Do you
Re:Too bad... (Score:2)
*rubs eyes* huhwha? What difference does it make who hits who? If some on coming truck swerves into your lane and hits you head on, sure semantically he hit you but from the perspective of just the pure physics of momentum, that energy isn't going to care who swerved into what lane.
The rationalization that SUV owners go through to justify their purchases has to be some of the most fatalistic thinking I have ever seen. The assumption (from the
Re:Too bad... (Score:2)
Re:Too bad... (Score:2)
Re:Too bad... (Score:2)
I've said it before, and I'll say it again: if you though of it with an off-hand comment on
Re:Too bad... (Score:2)
I'm sure they've thought of it, but no new oil flow design can fully eliminate the effects of these two diametrically opposed issues. Either you want the oil to stay on the moving parts for startup, or you want it off of the moving parts quickly to avoid the crunchy effect. Using synthetic oil in very light grades (0w-20, 5w-30, etc) helps mitigate either problem, but does not solve them.
Additionally, each start cycle introduces raw gas into the cylinder that may not be consumed. Some of this gas gets past
Re:Too bad... (Score:2)
Re:Too bad... (Score:2)
Well, actually, I recently decided not to purchase a hybrid vehicle, because I was unable to find one that didn't look like a suppository. The Insight came close, but the rear wheel covers are clearly intended to advertise liberal coolness to all my liberal friends.
I have no liberal coolness, and my liberal friends wouldn't give a shit about wheel covers. It must makes the car look like an abandoned Logan's Run prop. Bottom line - if you want me to buy a hybrid, it needs to look like a car.
Re:Too bad... (Score:2)
The thing to remember about the Insight is that it takes economy to a higher level - lightweight construction, super-low drag coefficient (thanks to those wheel covers, and a very smooth underside, among many other things), and low rolling resistance (thanks to narrow tires). It's the car for the geeks. The Civic Hybrid is the car for the masses, IMHO.
Michael's Agenda (Score:5, Insightful)
The fact that Ford sponsors this tournament means they, at least, acknowledge this is a problem. It also takes years to incorporate ideas into production automobiles.
Ford is developing Hydrogen vehicles and do have hybrid cars on the market.
It just seems like no matter what Ford or any other automaker does, they will be viewed by some as pro-pollution and "get all the money they can at all costs to humanity".
Re:Michael's Agenda (Score:3, Informative)
Every one of these modifications involved replacing the bigass oil burner with a smaller oil burner, then tacking on an electric APU and a bunch of composite body replacements to make up for the added weight. IOW the new propulsion systems are heavier AND generally lower power than those they replace, and the b
Re:Michael's Agenda (Score:3, Interesting)
My point is Ford endorsed FutureTruck 2003.
They are focusing, as many manufacturers, on having more fuel efficient vehicles. You cant take that away from auto makers.
"It seems like a fun competition, but really more about teaching students than teaching auto engineers."
Ok...how about teaching students about being an auto engineer? How about getting them excited about relavant problems? Wouldn't participation in this competition look good to an automaker hiring engineers?
"None
Agree/ Disagree (Score:2)
After looking at the options out there today for fuel efficient vehicles that still maintain their responsiveness, Turbo Diesels come out on top. 45MPG + and still decent performance. Unfortunatly VW is the only company producing any for export to the US. Supposedly Jeep wil
Re:Michael's Agenda (Score:2)
Re:Michael's Agenda (Score:2)
how abou the cost of building one? (Score:5, Interesting)
will this be another "advancement" that is easy to achieve but difficult to implement? like solar-power car, hybrid cells etc?
Re:how abou the cost of building one? (Score:2, Interesting)
Before a good cost estimate can take place, the final design and assembly process needs to be developed.
Re:how abou the cost of building one? (Score:5, Informative)
The other major improvement would be fully variable valve timing and lift using solenoids, which allows massive valve overlap (for power) at high revs but very slow idling in traffic. Mechanical variable-valve timing is more limited and is still based around physical cam profiles. The trouble is, both of these ideas, while not especially expensive, add a lot of complexity and increase the number of moving parts. No manufacturer wants to be at the bottom of the reliability surveys.
Re:how abou the cost of building one? (Score:2)
Re:how abou the cost of building one? (Score:3, Informative)
Re:how abou the cost of building one? (Score:4, Informative)
Variable valve timing is one of the major reasons for the push to get 48V batteries in cars. You could eliminate the whole camshaft, timing (chain | belt), and the (lifters & rockers) | (pushrods). Quite a savings in moving, lubricated parts, and adds the ability to control that last variable in the computer-controlled combustion equation.
Of course the savings in copper would be significant, too. Remember that:
- voltage drop across a conductor is proportional to the current, not the voltage (V=IR)
- the power delivered to the load is the product of voltage and current (P=IV)
- the _power_ carrying capacity of a wire is limited by the current, not the voltage
The lowest loss way to deliver power is with high voltage and low current thru a small wire, not high current/low voltage thru a huge wire as is done now.Anything we can come up with, someone else did ... (Score:2, Interesting)
Nevertheless I agree with the gist of
Article links (Score:5, Informative)
CU team ready to truck into SUV hybrid vehicle competition [theithacajournal.com] (Ithaca Journal)
I think that instead of really cool but really expensive and impractical solutions, it would be much more useful (at least in the short term) to just make current designs more efficient. Kudos to the teams using biodiesel.
Next years competition... (Score:2, Funny)
Obligatory rant (Score:4, Insightful)
Okay.
RANT MODE ON
You can be MUCH more eco-friendly by using alternatives to cars. Public transport, bicycles, walking - why are so many people fixated on lugging around a huge steel box with them whenever they go anywhere?
I think the obsession with your own car is particularly strong among Americans, who see it as a symbol of freedom and wealth, and they associate public transport with poor losers. This is re-inforced by car and oil company marketing.
In a final irony, said marketing makes a token effort toward awareness of the problem, hence the website this story is about.
RANT MODE OFF
Re:Obligatory rant (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Obligatory rant (Score:4, Interesting)
My motorcycle is 23 years old, and still has the power to out-accelerate anything with four wheels on the street, and it does it at no WORSE than 35 MPG. and that's after I tacked on saddle box's, a luggage rack, and a nice backrest for the ocasional passenger.
No, it doesn't solve every problem. Yes, I am more affected by inclement weather, but you wont see Me yammering away on a cell phone, or eating while I'm driving.
I get to use the carpool/HOV lane, and here in california, it's legal for Me to white-line/split lanes. My insurance rates are lower ($180 year, full coverage) My registration is cheaper($42) and My maintainance costs are lower. I also get prefered parking at the college that I attend, as well as many local shopping centers.
The down side is exposure to the weather, dumb-ass's in cars that dont pay attention, reduced protection in the event of an accident, dumb asses in cars that dont fscking pay attention, being harder to see for other drivers, and the dumb jackasses that yammer on their cell phones instead of paying atention to the road.
(yes, this is a pet peeve of mine)
Re:Obligatory rant (Score:2)
My last car, a honda CRX built in 1990, got 44 miles per gallon on average, could seat 2, etc. 35 mpg isn't much. And yes, I could still accellerate out of most passing situations (if they're going to try to pass, I'll tend to let them, playing chicken isn't incredibly fun in 1500 pounds of car) and all that stuff.
Current car?
I have the ability to use *0* fossil fuels, can carry twice the passengers (5 instead of 2), more interior space overall, more hp, more torque, and my
Re:Obligatory rant (Score:2)
The winner *IS* running a
2.5L TD5 Land Rover Diesel with a parallel hybrid system filled with
Re:Obligatory rant (Score:2)
I used to ride one, but then some numbskull turned left into me and smashed my left leg to fragments. Two years recovering led me to conclude that motorcycles are not safe in cities full of fools driving cars.
Re:Obligatory rant (Score:2)
If you care about the environment, junk that motorcycle and buy a big-ass SUV (or better yet, a car).
Re:Obligatory rant (Score:3, Interesting)
Public Transportation- Not Available, I live in a suburb of Indianapolis. Indianapolis has a decent PT system, but I haven't yet been in a position to take advantage of it. Given the types to ride the bus, I don't think I would even if I could.
Bicycle- I ride for pleasure, but cmon. I live 30 miles
Re:Obligatory rant (Score:2, Interesting)
That's an example of what I mean by you thinking only losers ride public transport.
If you live 30 miles from work, then granted you as an individual don't have much choice about cars. But maybe we have to start looking at how cities are designed, so people can live closer to work.
Re:Obligatory rant (Score:2)
Re:Obligatory rant (Score:2)
Automobiles have become an integrated part of American life. There is no avoiding it, there is no changing it. At least give us credit for trying to make things better by exploring our options given, oh mighty tree hugger.
Re:Obligatory rant (Score:2)
Re:Obligatory rant (Score:2)
Weight I agree with, however, on speed...
Given that the roads with the highest speed limits are almost without fail the safest, slowing down isn't going to make them any safer. Speed has bugger all bearing on the _probability_ of having an accident (it does, however, have a direct effect on the severit
Re:Obligatory rant (Score:2)
What prevents the US from setting up any good public transport? It's a cultural barrier.
Spot on. I've just returned from a three and a half week vacation in the US (West Virgina to be more precise), and while you might argue that there is a real need to have cars to get around there is also the truth that there is no will among the people in power to build a decent system for public transport. Point in proof; I spendt my time living with friends in Huntington and St Albans. Both friends work in Charlest
Re:Obligatory rant (Score:2)
A lot larger than Charlston, WV I bet. How many people need to do what your friend does on a daily basis? How many roundtrip trains would that support, even if everyone did it?
There are lots of reasons public transportation sucks in the U.S., and cultural reasons are just one of them. But, if you look at the densely populated East Coast, things are better from that standpoint. But, part of the problem is that since there are
Re:Obligatory rant (Score:2)
Lappeenranta, also 50 thousand people. 6 bus lines with buses every 15-30 minutes (they are always on time, are comfortable and there are no "poor losers" there). Maximum walking distance to bus station is 5 minutes. There are also frequent buses to nearby cities. And a train station. Add to that the fact that Finland is extremely bicycle
Re:Obligatory rant (Score:2)
So, if you can afford it, you have a car. If you have a ca
Re:Obligatory rant (Score:2)
As far as living near work, I would love to. But that only works for general jobs like a grocery clerk or perhaps a teacher. My technical work would force me into a small apartment for the cost of m
Re:biking in indy (Score:2)
Re:Obligatory rant (Score:2)
Re:Obligatory rant (Score:2)
Heh heh... yeah, I got a car when I started dating, really embarrassing to have your parents shuttle you around. Not to mention more difficult to have sex in the back seat with the folks in the front.
Re:Think before you rant (Score:2)
This is true, but something like 97% of the population live in the capital cities, so it really is prime territory for a good public transport system.
Having said that, I live in inner-city Brisbane and public transport here is barely an option - and that's only if you live within about 10 - 15km of the CBD or within a few km of one of the urban centres. I've certainly never se
An environmentally friendly ford explorer is still (Score:4, Funny)
I'm trying to imagine the original conversation:
"What if there were a form of transport that was really green and didn't damage the air and stuff?"
"You mean, like... some kind of SUV?"
"Yeah! Of course!"
too many links these days (Score:5, Insightful)
Having to guess which word takes me to the article is insane. (In this case, it's "team". All the other links are extraneous).
This site [wisc.edu] has all the relevent information.
Missed Opportunities (Score:2, Interesting)
In fact, i'm surprised that Ford, GM, Honda, Toyota, and every other major car manufacturer doesn't host their own Future[insert car genre here] Competition. Off the shelf solutions to difficult problems and all you have to do is sponsor the competition! What better reason do you need?
Furthermore, an HR manager with some sort of a
Re:Missed Opportunities (Score:2)
Also, being Japanese companies, they may very well have similar events in concert with the universities there (anyone from Japan who knows?).
It's scary. (Score:4, Insightful)
Don't you think it's scary that highly paid, proffessional engineers who design and upgrade this car every year MAKE IT POSSIBLE to upgrade fuel efficiency by 25% without sacrificing affordability? How BROKEN is the design in the first place, if _students_ (which aren't even paid for that work) are able to make it at least 25% better? IMHO Ford should fire all his "designers" (basis: Sabotage-quality work) and employ these students in their place.
Re:It's scary. (Score:2)
make a car that's good enough to use for 90% of the population, make it cheap, and throw in a bunch of incentives and extras. People will buy and use it. upgrade it every year to make it a little better.
Microsoft did the same thing with Windows.
Re:It's scary. (Score:2)
In regards to the engine and the environment, auto makers have a choice not unlike NASA's: the engine can be fuel-efficient, minimally poluting (NOT the same thing) or powerful - pick any two.
Time's most recent issue had an interesting stat - Model Ts got 25 MPG and the current average of Ford's fleet (not sure why it was a pick on Ford day) is 22.5MPG.
I think if options were offered - ie: a lower polut
Re:It's scary. (Score:2)
This book [amazon.com] I think describes the class of people you're talking about. Many of their tastes and habits are drawn from an earlier class known as the Limousine Liberal.
I would describe them (from my own personal experiences) as the adult children of liberal professionals (lawyer, doctor, professor, etc) who are themselves
Re:It's scary. (Score:2)
When large companies do extremely cutting-edge stuff, it's because they've organized themselves in such a way to make it possible. An example of this is Lockheed's Skunkworks group, which designed many cutting-edge military aircraft during the cold war. Thoug
What Fordreally wants. (Score:5, Informative)
What Ford is really after from these competitions are the students. I was a member of the UW-team in the mid to late nineties when we worked on the futurcar project. Our team took first place for a two-year running back then as well. And I would say about 7 out of the 10 core members were hired and now work in the R&D area for Ford.
Ford is not sponsoring the competition for new tech, they are using it as a cheap (relatively) job training program, and for the cost of a car
Who do you think is designing and building the hybrid-Escape? The engineers who were leading the future car teams during the competitions back in 96-98.
It's that time again!!!!!!!!! (Score:3, Insightful)
Welcome to another exciting game of "Where's the most releveant fscking link!!?".
Move your mouse over any of the fifty different single-word semi-ambiguous hyperlinks and see if you can spot the one small word that links to an obscure URL that is actually the most relevant to the story at hand.
You too could win big.
NOT
Turbodiesel (Score:3, Insightful)
Why don't US car companies adopt a highly-efficient, low-emmission, and still high-performance diesel engine? Well, there's definately a mental image people associate with diesels (from the 80's gas shortage experience). I think our younger generation doesn't have this negative image and the timing is getting better everyday to release a mainstream diesel car. I'd think the Ford Focus (to stay with Ford for the example) would be an outstanding car to release a diesel model of. There's no reason other models of cars big or small can't have a comparably-sized diesel engine for them.
I did a little Google search and Ford does have a Turbodiesel Focus planned for 2007 that even meets California emissions!!!
http://216.239.51.100/search?q=cache:9C_1zNFnwZ
See, you talk long enough and someone listens!
-m
What this competition REALLY is about. (Score:3, Insightful)
So what is the point of the competition? IMHO, after 4 years of participation, the intent of the FutureTruck competition is to provide college students with a real-world engineering competition. It is also a way to evaluate next-generation technologies like biodiesel, ethanol, and hydrogen fuel cells. It certainly is not a way to give schools the means to one-up GM and Ford by producing a SUV that beats the stock vehicle in fuel economy, performance, and emissions.
Now that I've said that, it's time to plug Georgia Tech.
GT won the Best Acceleration, Best Consumer Acceptability, Best Emissions, and 4th place awards. Our dynamic scores were top-notch; we ran in our hybrid mode in every event. Yet when it came to the static side of things, we got destroyed (as usual.) Why? If you re-read the aforementioned reason this competition exists, you'll understand. GT's methodology has always been KISS (Keep It Simple Stupid) and manufacturability. But the organizers don't want that; they want cutting edge, more-likely-than-not poorly functioning technologies. Because that can't be implemented in the near future.
OK, time to get off my rant horse. If you're still with me, here's the wrap. This was a fun competition, and I strongly encourage schools to participate. Real world experience in the automotive industry while still in college is hard to beat. But if you do join up, keep your eyes and mind open. The most feasible design won't necessarily be the winner.
Let's clear a few things up (Score:4, Insightful)
Links: So I put a few too many links in there. Jeez, sorry. But don't the mods think it's a bit overkill to mod up more than one post that mentions this?
"Why an Explorer?": The goal of the competition is not to make the most fuel efficient car/truck (it used to be a FutureCar contest in the '90s) possible. The goal is to make the most fuel efficient car/truck given a certain make and model. There are very good reasons for this. As most of you know, the number of SUVs sold in the US is around 50% of all vehicles sold. Seriously, what would be the point of the teams developing a one-seat solar car that requires the driver to lay down? The competition is in place to attempt to ease the general public into a more fuel- and environment-friendly vehicle. You can't simply stop people from driving SUVs. But you can get them to drive better SUVs.
"Ford sucks/doesn't care/etc": First of all, the competition switches between GM and Ford vehicles every two years. Because of that, Ford and GM donate one car to each of 15 teams every other year. In addition to that, Ford sent each team 15 advisors from their own engineering pool to visit the teams. Ford also held the 9-day competition at their proving grounds. And yes, they are trying to incorporate these modifications. Unfortunately, it takes time and money to introduce a new technology which is vital the operation of the vehicle. We, as a university team, may do some optimizations, but Ford would take them to a level we couldn't achieve.
"Ford should use students": They do. Many of the graduates from our team go on to work for Ford or GM. And the posts about firing engineers and using free student labor are stupid. We do this for the recognition of our school... and for our resumes. We won't work for free for our whole lives.
"How much would it cost?": Well, our (UW-Madison) truck, IIRC weighed in at over $500.000 since it was a prototype (probably a lot more). But our analysis shows that putting all of our modifications into a stock vehicle would increase the cost only about $5000-6000. Oh, and I use the term "weighed in" loosely. The actual weight, including electric motor, batteries and other mods was below stock weight.... For UW at least.
Ford Bashing (Score:2, Interesting)
go Madison! (Score:2)
I believe they previously "hybridized" a Ford Escape, giving it ~40 mpg. That's pretty good, especially in light of the Excursion's 8-10 mpg and the original Model T's 25 mpg. That a car built almost a century ago gets better mileage than either of Ford's flagship behemoths is saying something rather sad.
-- haaz.
Re:go Madison! (Score:2)
What? Let's see a Model T accelerate onto a 65mph highway while carrying 8 passengers and towing a trailer. Other Ford vehicles have decent milage. The Focus gets 25mpg. Different vehicles for differe
How's it compare to a car? (Score:2, Insightful)
Too bad... (Score:4, Informative)
Too bad is right. Some fun facts to know and tell:
* Ford currently gets LESS gas milage now on it's 25th aniversary than it did with the original Model-T. Model-T got 25 mpg. New Explorer gets 16. You don't even WANT to know what the Excursion and Expedition get.
http://www.motortrend.com/features/news/112_news1
* According to the 2002 Highway Safety Insurance reports: You are significantly MORE likely to get into an accident (i.e. unable to detect or avoid an impending accident) if you drive an SUV. You are significantly MORE likely to DIE in an accident if you are in an SUV. The fatality rate per 1000 vehicle accidents was much higher for SUV occupants than it was for car occupants. The main reason for this is that the rigid ladder frame of most domestic SUV's will not absorb any of the impact (i.e. crumple up), thereby transfering all of the impact force to the occupants, which equals massive internal organ damage for you.
Have fun in your Ford SUV's everyone!