It's all about the platform
Monday, January 25, 2010 at 09:25AM“Edison2’s Very Light Car Scoffs at Electric Avenue” was the catchy title of an article on Autoblog Green that spread through the automobile blogosphere, capturing the irony of our little conventionally powered X Prize entry residing on trendy Electric Avenue. The Detroit Auto Show was a coming-out party for the Very Light Car and this article was part of the buzz we created. The article certainly captured some of the uniqueness of the Very Light Car – electric cars and hybrids were the rage at the NAIAS, and it is true that we are one of only 3 X Prize entries that eschew batteries – but it left an impression that is not completely accurate.
What is really unique and most important about the Very Light Car is not the power source, but the unprecedented combination of low weight and low aerodynamic drag in a vehicle large enough to seat 4 plus luggage. It is our efficient platform that sets us apart.
A lot of the visitors we attracted understood this. We were intrigued by the interest shown by battery manufacturers and others associated with electric cars: our innovations can solve their biggest problem.
The problem? Creating an electric car with enough range to be practical for most consumers; the amount of batteries needed to move a car 200 miles or more on a single charge means a heavier, pricier car. Hoped-for breakthroughs in battery technology are overdue and not expected anytime soon.
The solution: take the weight out of the chassis and make the shell incredibly aerodynamic. This means fewer batteries, a longer range and a lower cost.
E85, diesel, gasoline, natural gas, hybrid or electric; the power source and methods of storage are not what really matter. Energy diversification for power trains is a good idea.
What matters is that this is the most efficient automobile platform ever built.
The Very Light Car: it’s all about the platform.
Reader Comments (1)
It looks like you folks have done a good job with aerodynamics, except you have given up on the biggest gain that would come about if you got the thing about 24 inches off the ground.
I am sure you have seen the boxfish study by Daimler. They did a fairly good job of defining the aerodynamic situation for low, flat bottomed vehicles. They went from free flow numbers like Cd = .06 to .19 by the time they got wheels on it. Morelli offered more possibilities, but lost the payload volume in the process.
Are you willing to discuss actual drag coefficient numbers and how you know them with confidence? Aptera started out claiming .09 as I recall, maybe lower. Now they say .15.
Maybe starting at .04, doing what is needed to maintain free flow, and then adding for secondary bodies might end up a lot lower.