TexasCHLforum.com

This vehicle gets 2,564.8 miles per gallon (Yeah, but what's the radio sound like?)
http://www.smartplanet.com/business/blo ... ag=nl.e662" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I thought you were going to show me a picture of a pair of hiking boots.

I was down there (for HOUSTEX tradeshow) and saw that, too cool!

RPB wrote:This vehicle gets 2,564.8 miles per gallon

I wonder if any of the students used their $1000 prize money as a down payment to buy a car that gets 30MPG.

I don't want it if I can't fit my Mosin in the trunk. Wait, there's no trunk? No thanks.

TxSheepdog wrote:I don't want it if I can't fit my Mosin in the trunk. Wait, there's no trunk? No thanks.

Probably no AC, either. I bet its tires are selected for low rolling resistance rather than good traction, so if I'm right it'll be easier to crash.

These tech demos are interesting, but little that's practical comes put of them.

Dave2 wrote:These tech demos are interesting, but little that's practical comes put of them.

Exactly; we've been seeing these impractical proofs-of-concept for decades now. What they're doing is like having the teams design an airplane that can really fly in perfect, controlled, unrealistic conditions just to show that man can leave the ground. We're long past the time when the sponsors of all of these events should be setting requirements that make the vehicles practical for real world applications.

• Be completely street legal. I don't even see any headlights on these vehicles, much less turn signals and brake lights.
  Carry at least two people, including a passenger seat that can carry (or act as) a child seat suitable for children from newborn through the age where no supplemental seat is needed. (If your kid can't ride with you, it's not going to be able to go beyond walking/cycling distance until it's old enough to drive.)
  Carry a standard load roughly equivalent in size and weight to a three-day supply of groceries for a family of four.
  Meet normal crashworthiness standards.
  Demonstrate over a real-world course of not less than 15 miles (representing a 7.5 mile each way commute) on real streets with dips and potholes that would shred their winner.
  Course should include at least two stoplights and one stop sign per half-course, with the car being parked in a normal parking space at start, mid-course, and finish, and vehicle should demonstrate reasonable acceleration from each stop. (Say, not less than 25mph in not more than a half block.)
  Include reasonable climate control to allow comfortable, safe operation in temps ranging from -10 to 120F. (We see that range here in TX, and while you might be able to drive it safely bundled up in an anorak, mittens and goggles, you can't take off enough to keep the sweat from being distracting in the summer heat.)
  Include provisions for bad weather. (I don't see any windshield wipers on the pictured "cars," and I doubt they tested handling on wet roads.)

KD5NRH wrote:

Dave2 wrote:These tech demos are interesting, but little that's practical comes put of them.

Exactly; we've been seeing these impractical proofs-of-concept for decades now. What they're doing is like having the teams design an airplane that can really fly in perfect, controlled, unrealistic conditions just to show that man can leave the ground. We're long past the time when the sponsors of all of these events should be setting requirements that make the vehicles practical for real world applications.

• Be completely street legal. I don't even see any headlights on these vehicles, much less turn signals and brake lights.
  Carry at least two people, including a passenger seat that can carry (or act as) a child seat suitable for children from newborn through the age where no supplemental seat is needed. (If your kid can't ride with you, it's not going to be able to go beyond walking/cycling distance until it's old enough to drive.)
  Carry a standard load roughly equivalent in size and weight to a three-day supply of groceries for a family of four.
  Meet normal crashworthiness standards.
  Demonstrate over a real-world course of not less than 15 miles (representing a 7.5 mile each way commute) on real streets with dips and potholes that would shred their winner.
  Course should include at least two stoplights and one stop sign per half-course, with the car being parked in a normal parking space at start, mid-course, and finish, and vehicle should demonstrate reasonable acceleration from each stop. (Say, not less than 25mph in not more than a half block.)
  Include reasonable climate control to allow comfortable, safe operation in temps ranging from -10 to 120F. (We see that range here in TX, and while you might be able to drive it safely bundled up in an anorak, mittens and goggles, you can't take off enough to keep the sweat from being distracting in the summer heat.)
  Include provisions for bad weather. (I don't see any windshield wipers on the pictured "cars," and I doubt they tested handling on wet roads.)

And also have reasonable performance. It doesn't have to be an Enzo, but it'd be nice to be able to get out of the way of other idiot drivers, or be able to swerve to miss that pedestrian without crashing ourselves.

Dave2 wrote:

TxSheepdog wrote:I don't want it if I can't fit my Mosin in the trunk. Wait, there's no trunk? No thanks.

Probably no AC, either. I bet its tires are selected for low rolling resistance rather than good traction, so if I'm right it'll be easier to crash.

These tech demos are interesting, but little that's practical comes put of them.

LRR tires can make you pretty nervous in high crosswinds and bad weather. I replaced mine with soft touring tires. I lose about 4 - 5 mpg, but the superb traction got me through this winters snow and ice storms with ease. Notable is that I lose about 4 mpg when I run the AC, so I am giving up about 10 mpg, but at my age, I'll choose safety and comfort.

My previous Pasadena to Cleveland and back daily drive to/from work (120 miles round trip) got me between 43-52 mpg in my Toyota Echo/Yaris (depending on wind direction and tire inflation)

But after retiring to the Central Texas Hill country, the uphill battle affects mileage. I only get about 35-45 so I employed a gas saving device ... I gathered "stickers/thorns/grassburs" and when applied to the gas pedal, you save gas by driving barefoot ... you keep the foot off the pedal more.
Well, I didn't do it on purpose ... but ... I coast around town a lot ... OUCH ...(you keep the foot off the pedal more)

How's that for high-tech gas saving devices?

A bicycle is more practical and gets better gas mileage.

atouk wrote:A bicycle is more practical and gets better gas mileage.

Got my car-trunk-mounted bike rack carrier last week, getting a shiny new bike this next week
I had to go trunk mounted carrier instead of trailer-hitch mounted so I can still use the kayak trailer and take both bike and kayak. Next, I'll work on the trailer-to bicycle ball mount. (All aluminum light weight trailer, lightweight plastic kayak, I can leave the car at home.)

Dave2 wrote:

TxSheepdog wrote:I don't want it if I can't fit my Mosin in the trunk. Wait, there's no trunk? No thanks.

Probably no AC, either. I bet its tires are selected for low rolling resistance rather than good traction, so if I'm right it'll be easier to crash.

These tech demos are interesting, but little that's practical comes put of them.

I will disagree. The competition is not so much about the final product, but the process for getting there is more important. The process teaches the engineering students how to work as a team, cooperate, compromise, meet deadlines, spec and purchase materials, budgets, make test plans, perform evaluations, crunch data, etc. All of these skills are useful for when they enter the work force. A previous employer sponsors and mentors students for a robotics competition every year. Both the engineer-mentors and students get a lot of satisfaction from the experience. They learn many things that can't be experienced by reading a book or listening to a lecture.

WildBill wrote:

Dave2 wrote:

TxSheepdog wrote:I don't want it if I can't fit my Mosin in the trunk. Wait, there's no trunk? No thanks.

Probably no AC, either. I bet its tires are selected for low rolling resistance rather than good traction, so if I'm right it'll be easier to crash.

These tech demos are interesting, but little that's practical comes put of them.

I will disagree. The competition is not so much about the final product, but the process for getting there is more important. The process teaches the engineering students how to work as a team, cooperate, compromise, meet deadlines, spec and purchase materials, make test plans, perform evaluations, crunch data, etc. All of these skills are useful for when they enter the work force. My former company sponsors and mentors students for a robotics competition every year. Both the engineers and students get a lot of satisfaction from the experience. They learn many things that can't be experienced by reading a book or listening to a lecture.

Oh as an exercise, yeah they're great -- for the reasons you listed and more. I was talking about the technologies.

Wonder how much trunk space it has.....can't go off and forget the Mafia market.... ;)