The Fastest Wins

So how exactly will the X Prize be won? The short answer: the fastest car that achieves more than 100 MPGe and meets all the other X Prize requirements will be the winner.

But there is a lot involved in meeting all the requirements and nuance in being the fastest (see the X Prize website for the actual Competition Guidelines).

In order not to stifle innovation or to limit entries, some X Prize requirements are design-based (for example, crash-testing is not part of the safety requirements). But many requirements will be met on the road. For emissions the cars in the race must meet or exceed EPA Tier II, Bin 10 in road testing and Bin 8 in chassis dynamometer testing. Safety will be demonstrated through tests such as braking distance (with stability), a serpentine course of cones, and Consumer’s Union emergency lane change test. Performance is shown, for example, by accelerating somewhat briskly from 40 – 65 mph, by maintaining 55 mph on a simulated 4% grade for 30 minutes, and by going 200 miles without recharging or refueling.

Exceeding 100 miles per gallon (equivalent) is at the core of the X Prize. This will be measured in a variety of trip lengths and speeds, reflecting typical speed limits and the National Household Transportation Survey data. The teams with the lowest elapsed time in the Finals Stages will be the Grand Prize winners, one from the mainstream class and one from each of the alternative classes.

Events at the Michigan International Speedway start with the Shakedown Stage in late April, the Knockout Qualifying Stage in June and the Finals Stage in July. The top finishers will then undergo dynamometer testing for efficiency and emissions in August.

We have a light, safe, aerodynamic (and yes, fast) car and will have professional drivers Emanuele Pirro and Brad Jaeger behind the wheel.

We can’t wait.



Carbon Debt

A little over a year ago Wired magazine asserted that if you really wanted to have a lower automotive carbon footprint, instead of springing for a new Prius, buy a good small used car.

The argument is that carbon dioxide produced while driving is only a part of the overall carbon footprint. Not often considered is the energy used (and carbon emitted) in the production of a car. Wired points out that it takes about 113 million BTUs of energy to make a Prius – or the equivalent of 1000 gallons of gasoline.

In other words, you have to drive about 46,000 miles before you have paid off this “carbon debt” associated with a new Prius – but with a used car this debt has already been paid. Similar arguments are often made regarding buildings, weighing the embodied energy contained in an existing structure, and the energy costs of demolition and construction, vs. the ongoing energy savings accrued with a new “green” building.

One way of minimizing automotive carbon debt is to buy a car that requires less energy to build in the first place. A car with less material and labor inputs, and a car that avoids energy-intensive exotic materials. A car that through extreme efficiency – a 100 mpg car, say – pays off the remaining debt very quickly.

The Very Light Car. 

What About The Engine?

Anyone following Edison2 knows that we are breaking new ground with our Very Light Car. Extremely light and aerodynamic, we believe it is the most efficient automobile platform (chassis and body) ever built. But what about the engine?

Remember that we have intentionally avoided a hybrid or electric power source, because with either you immediately expend more energy to move around a heavier car. And our Very Light Car, being very light, does not need a big engine to perform well; we use a highly efficient, one-cylinder, 250 cc engine.

Our use of extensive exhaust gas recirculation (an extreme version of the EGR system on most modern cars, where exhaust gases are reused to lower combustion temperatures, reduce nitrous oxide emissions and somewhat improve economy) allows us to address a key problem: how to maintain efficiency for the entire range of power needed, from acceleration to steady state cruising.

Our little engine is exceeding expectations in both economy and power. With this engine our Very Light Car promises to be a nimble, safe car, fun to drive and efficient to operate, and perhaps even a winner of the Progressive Insurance Automotive X Prize.



MAX

In April the Progressive X Prize announced there were 111 teams registered for the competition, from 11 countries and 25 US states, each with an unique story to tell and a somewhat different take on how to build an efficient car.

Now only 41 teams remain, but one of the most interesting teams is one that dropped out: the Kinetic Vehicles team from Cave Junction, Oregon. 

Dropped out is not completely accurate. Kinetic Vehicles have been working on the MAX 100mpg+ car since before the X Prize and are continuing to refine it, intending it as a sub-$10K do-it-yourself project. This is a working car; in October 2008 they drove MAX from Oregon to the Escape From Berkeley alternative fuels competition, and won.

Team leader Jack McCornack writes regularly about MAX and sustainability for Mother Earth News. Good reading as he reports on MAX’s progress and related issues: we share his concerns about the electric car bandwagon.

Mr. McCornack plans to attend the competition, albeit as a journalist (“I expect MAX will be the most fuel-efficient vehicle in the press corps"). We look forward to meeting you, Jack – keep up the good work!

Feature Creep

The car as we know it was designed in a world where the cost of oil was low. True efficiency in fuel consumption did not really matter. This environment created a certain set of expectations for the automobile and over time these expectations have grown. Some of these expectations have been mandated, such as air bags and emissions requirements. Others started out as options, such as heated seats, electric windows, and remote locks, that over time have mostly become the norm.

The result has been heavier automobiles. One way of looking at this is to compare two very similar cars. For example, the 1967 Porsche 911 and the 1995 Porsche 911 are virtually the same size, both are equipped with air-cooled 6 cylinder engines, but the 1967 version weighs 1000 lbs less. Similar power by displacement – both are about 80 hp per liter – but the 1995 Porsche has 3600 cc, compared to only 1991 cc in the 1967. A larger engine needed to move a heavier car.

Every time the very good engineers at Porsche found some way to make the car more powerful or more efficient it was lost by an offsetting entry in terms of emissions control, convenience features, safety improvements or simply needing to make the car stronger (ie, bigger and heavier parts) because the car weighed more or was more powerful.

So today we want doors on our cars that include electric windows, electric mirrors, sound deadening and so on. Doors that once weighed 40 lbs today can weigh over 120 lbs. Some of this weight comes from important improvements, such as side impact airbags and door beams, but other comes from features (requiring motors, wiring, brackets, switches and more space) that perhaps are not worth the energy and environmental costs.

Weight is a major factor in auto efficiency and feature creep is a reason why our society has made only minor advances in fleet efficiency. But the impacts of increased weight are not felt just in terms of mileage. A light car has less impact on roads, and is good news for pedestrians and bicyclists. It consumes fewer materials in production and in use – tires last longer, for example.

It is time to decide what we want and what we expect in a car, what is a necessity and what is a luxury. If as a country we really want greater efficiency and lower environmental impact some things need to change.