[ohanian]

Best selling car of 2050

[emersonbiggins]

Laughable. I don't see the all-terrain tires that this thing will need in order to climb over the spalling concrete and heaving asphalt of our defaulted, abandoned highway system. (We're talking 2050 in America, no?)

[NeoPeasant]

Long before we start squeezing ourselves into egg shaped wheeled coffins, we will be saying f*** that, I'm buyin a bus pass.

[emersonbiggins]

Long before we start squeezing ourselves into egg shaped wheeled coffins, we will be saying f*** that, I'm buyin a bus pass.

At least it makes cleaning up after fatal car crashes a cinch - just bury the body with the car! The fatcat coffin manufacturing industry would never allow it, though...

[jato]

I think this is more like it.

[emersonbiggins]

Two minor issues help to disprove the validity of this 'car of the year 2050' claim:

1) How effin' goofy this thing will look sitting in traffic on the 5 in downtown L.A.

2) Seeing as this was designed to perform marvelously at high speeds, how does it perform with a brisk crosswind? I hope those training wheels can take the large moment that is going to be cranked on that bulbous torso.

[gnm]

Well I tend to agree with Jato on this one but I will mention that 2 wheel vehicles generally do ok in crosswinds because of the gyroscopic effect of the wheels. I experience this all the time on my motorcycle. While the wind will push you around it would be difficult for it to kock you down...

Goofy looking thing though.

-G

[Aqua]

Is it pedal powered or engine powered

[emersonbiggins]

...but I will mention that 2 wheel vehicles generally do ok in crosswinds because of the gyroscopic effect of the wheels.
-G

I stand corrected, proving once again that knowing just a little physics can be a dangerous thing.

[strider3700]

Just add camels/horses/oxen and you too can enjoy mobility in your death filled miserable life

[JoeCoal]

More like:

[ab0di]

Or this (My grandfather and his brothers, circa 1905)

link to image

[BlisteredWhippet]

This is absurd.

BTW, I found a vehicle that was manufactured between 1968 and 1982 (and in some places are still being produced) that gets 175mpg at 25 miles per hour... Its called a Honda CT90.



I've been a scooter and vehicle fetishist/mechanic for a while now and I've concluded that the "mission" of building a future "car" is an exercise in futility if not stupidity

As the vehicle gets bigger, more enclosed, with more wheels and more control systems, it becomes more entropic, more dependent on an industrial supply base, less efficient, less reliable, and far more costly.

Frankly I think the enclosed car is for pussies. Seriously- they're for people who can't stand getting their feathers a little ruffled by some wind or rain. Its for people who have already compromised by adopting a lifestyle of long commutes and energy dependence. People who can't live without a thermostat.

Efficient transportation alternatives using conventional technology have always existed, its just the low historical cost of gas that made cars attractive. As the pendulum swings back the other way, there will be much hair-pulling about maintaining the "standard of driving" that our mushy butts have become accustomed to. And guess what- that standard must fall because the physics will not work.

Its ridiculous to even try powering these slug-boats with other sources of energy in the future. Hydrogen, Nat. gas, batteries... its all the same huge waste of resources in the name of gross inefficiency.

That thing is just a piece of crap Harley in a fiberglass shell with training wheels. I bet it maxes realistically at 50mpg. Its a joke. Its attraction is mainly futurist-fetish.

I hate to say it but the car of the future is a scooter or bicycle.

I ride a scooter that gets about 75 mpg. How does that compare to vehicles on a cost basis to vehicles making the average 22 mpg?

Pre-Peak Gas: $2/gal

Scooter: 75 mpg
10000 miles/year
133 gals
Cost: $266
Cost/mile: $.02

Car: 22mpg
10000 miles/year
454 gals
Cost: $909
Cost/mile: $.09

Post-Peak Gas: $10/gal

Scooter: 75 mpg
10000 miles/year
133 gals
Fuel Cost: $1,330
Cost/mile: $0.13

Car: 22mpg
10000 miles/year
454 gals
Fuel Cost: $4,540
Cost/mile: $0.45

Difference in economy per mile with gas @ todays prices: 7 cents.

Difference in economy per mile with gas @ post-peak prices: 32 cents.

In real terms, this means my 14 mile round trip to downtown would cost $1.82- about the price of a bus ticket currently. But a car trip to town and back would cost nearly $4.50!

Forget that riding a bicycle for 14 miles is within the capability of just about anyone who isn't completely physically incapacitated...

In fact an enclosed recumbent is inherently more economical and less entropic. Take this basic design, add minimal enclosure, replace the harley with a bicycle and we've reached efficiency orders of magnitude above what this represents. Thinking about 2050 and what energy will cost then, I can't see any form of non-human, non-animal private transport as being viable on a day to day basis without truly fantastic advances in energy technology.

[WisJim]

We drive a 1992 Honda civic VX that gets 50mpg on the highway and can get over 45 with 4 or 5 adult passengers. Acceleration isn't great when it is fully loaded, but mileage is 200mpg/person. Our 1994 Chevy Geo just got 40mpg on a 120 mile one-way drive with 4 adults, and then some driving around town and a short haul to some friends, and return home, with 5 adults for some of it, all on the 40mpg tank of gas. Why are the current cars, except for expensive hybrids, getting so much worse mileage.

One of our mopeds gets nearly 200mpg, and that is with a fairly inefficient 2 stroke engine, in a 20 year old machine.

[mekrob]

I believe those will be the imports. The originals that jato showed will be what GM and Ford put out as that's all they'll be able to afford by then.

[BlisteredWhippet]

We drive a 1992 Honda civic VX that gets 50mpg on the highway and can get over 45 with 4 or 5 adult passengers. Acceleration isn't great when it is fully loaded, but mileage is 200mpg/person. Our 1994 Chevy Geo just got 40mpg on a 120 mile one-way drive with 4 adults, and then some driving around town and a short haul to some friends, and return home, with 5 adults for some of it, all on the 40mpg tank of gas. Why are the current cars, except for expensive hybrids, getting so much worse mileage.

The Civic VX is a two door coupe is it not? Yes, you can cram people in there. The reason the newer cars, including the hybrids (not the insight) get worse mileage is because they design in leg room, head room, arm room, collapsible pillars, airbags, leather, AC, etc. Acceleration is a big one too. The average "current car" is actually a truck, which gets crap per mile.

We're told that people really want go-fast cars that are huge, and they are correct to a large degree. Rising fuel costs will change all that, but quick.

Basically, people understand Power, Speed, and the comfort of never having to worry if its going to die on them at a gut level, and cannot to the math (why else would they drive it off the lot, lose half the value, and pay out the nose for it for the months and years to come?) The alternative is a used car (unreliable) which is slow (dangerous) and doesn't have any social currency (or negative currency).

[The_Toecutter]

Most of our fuel is wasted in generting horsepower in overcoming aerodynamic drag.

Most cars today have a Cd*A of about 8.4, that is coefficient drag times frontal area, being about .35 and 24 square feet respecticely for a modeern car.

A 3,200 pound car with a Cd of .35 and cross sectional area of 24 feet square travelling at 65 mph will need about 33 horsepower out of its typical 160 horsepower engine yielding about 25 mpg.

Cut the Cd down to .2 and frontal area down to 22 feet square, and horsepower requirements drop to about 17 to maintain 65 mph. Half. Without changing anything in the engine, this will approxamately double highway fuel economy to 50 mpg, without cutting the car's weight or shrinking the car in size(smaller frontal area from smaller mirrors, perhaps). Basically, it is possible to have a 35-40 mpg V8 musclecar, by addressing aero drag, or a 50 mpg V6 full size family car, or a 70-90 mpg L3 diesel full size family car with average or better performance compared to cars currently available.

But less drag = less horsepower consumed at speed = less engine wear = less money for the auto monopoly pricks

I used 20% stray losses(transmission, wheel bearings, accessory loads, ect.) in this quick calculation, and assumed a constant tire rolling force of 32 pounds from a .010 coefficient rolling resistance of tires(in reality, rolling drag also varies with speed, but below 65 mph, rolling force would be lower than ~32 pounds, above, higher).



Of course, in 2050, if peak oil turns out to lead to a very severe doomer scenario, humanity might not be around to build cars by 2050, and if they are, new generations aren't likely to be learning all the engineering involved in making them.

If the crisis is more moderate and controlled, there will always be cars. They will probably be streamlined for low drag and fueled by batteries, or alternatively, very rugged to traverse broken down roads and diesel powered due to lack of refeuling infrastructure/electricity, depending on whether the transitioned scenario is closer to an Ecotopia/Technofix hybrid or Mad Max in its aftermath.

See the following topic for those interested in a discussion of automobile aerodynamics and the 157 mpg car subject of the topic:

http://www.peakoil.com/fortopic17785-0-asc-0.html


Personally, I think both Jato and Blistered Whippet both got the right idea as far as the more likely scenario, despite what technology we've had for ages.

[mekrob]

Couldn't you just use cameras for mirrors and have those connect to screens on the inside of cars? That would practically eliminate drag for mirrors since technology will allow those cameras to be extremely tiny and durable in a few years (if not already). I believe that was one of the features on a prototype vehicle that got 300 mpg.

[mekrob]

How exactly would you decrease the coefficient of drag for a car? I'm sorry, I'm limited to basic physics. Isn't that just another way to state coefficient of friction due to the air? So what? A slicker front?

[The_Toecutter]

Couldn't you just use cameras for mirrors and have those connect to screens on the inside of cars?

Yes. The GM Pecept hybrid concept did that(posted pictures in the topic I linked). .16 coeficient of drag, 0-60 mph in 11 seconds, full-sized diesel electric hybrid capable of seating 5 adults. ~100 mpg.

This was the > 80 mpg full size car our overbloated government gave Detroit $300 million to build in the 90s, but they were never forced to offer them to consumers.

Get rid of the hybrid system and put in a 150 horse diesel, and it probably would have gotten around 70-80 mpg with better performance.

How exactly would you decrease the coefficient of drag for a car? I'm sorry, I'm limited to basic physics. Isn't that just another way to state coefficient of friction due to the air? So what? A slicker front?

Coefficient of drag is a property based(mostly) on shape.

Objects moving through air at a given velocity will thus generate turbulence from airflow being disrupted. Some shapes push through the air more efficienctly than others.

A rain drop, for instance, pushes through the air much more easily than a feather.

Cars generally generate turbulence around the mirrors, grille, underbody, wheel wells, radio antenna, door handles, spoilers, other projections, and especially through unoptimized front and rear shapes.

Adressing these source of drag is possible by streamlining the shape of the car to reduce the drag these things cause. No fancy engine upgrades or composite materials needed.