Fuel Saving Thread: Motoring Tips & Tricks

[mheslep]

I suppose the lightness of a vehicle really factors into its mpg ability. But, safety and lightness conflict.

That might not necessarily be so when all the relevant factors are considered. The Hypercar people make a detailed argument as to howlightweight vehicles can be made as safe as heavier vehicles by inserting more technology. See the "CRASHWORTHINESS, SAFETY, AND VEHICLE DYNAMICS" section here if you are interested.
http://www.rmi.org/images/PDFs/Transportation/T95-27_VehicleDsnStategies.pdf

 

[baywax]

Kewl guys...

I'll look at your link later mheslep

Betcha never thought Canada never produced much more than the Avro Aero, eh?!

 

[mgb_phys]

That might not necessarily be so when all the relevant factors are considered. The Hypercar people make a detailed argument as to howlightweight vehicles can be made as safe as heavier vehicles by inserting more technology.

Crash a Smart car into a concrete block at 70mph and the doors still open normally.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CJHpUO-S0i8

Or for a physics lesson.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=http://video.aol.com/video-detail/smart-fortwo-vs-mercedes-e-class-crash-test/1631560842

 

[mheslep]

Crash a Smart car into a concrete block at 70mph and the doors still open normally.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CJHpUO-S0i8

Or for a physics lesson.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=http://video.aol.com/video-detail/smart-fortwo-vs-mercedes-e-class-crash-test/1631560842

This highlights why ultralight proponents favor reducing mass, but not size so much as those crush zones have to be there.

 

[russ_watters]

Crash a Smart car into a concrete block at 70mph and the doors still open normally.

Well, one of them anyway. It's kind of obvious that the Smart car needs to be built with a cage around the passenger compartment though, since it has no room for real crumple zones. Not sure how the drivers legs fared, though. In any case, the engineering they put into it is impressive.

In any case, here's the offical insurance institute crash tests. Note what they say in the end about the safety and fuel economy of it:

 

[bartadam]

What matters most in a car is the following...

a) Fuel economy and emisions
b) crash worthyness
c) reliability

What you want is the most uneconomical and polluting car there is, something with a big dirty V8 or something. No electronics or high tech stuff. Just basic engine, gearbox and wheels and dirty great big carburettors. This is beneficial for two reasons. It makes you feel more masculine, (no Freudian references please) and it annoys the green brigade which is always extremely satisfying.

You have to make sure that in the event of a crash, it is as spectacular as possible and that if you die, you die in a blaze of glory in a real car not some pathetic little european nancy boys car. (Italian supercars or one of the few British makes of supercar left are fine)
'A man of 25 died yesterday when he rolled his ferrari 6 times' sounds much better than 'A man of 25 died yesterday driving a fiat punto into a tree'

Cars were invented so men could have tool boxes. You want it to break down as often as possible. This means the men get to play with their toys, and the women in miniskirts/hotpants and skimpy tops can pass tools and clean car parts in soapy water ready for reassembly.

 

[Topher925]

Interesting world you live in Bartadam.

The structure of the Smartcar is rather impressive. However its fuel economy is not. For the size of the vehicle and its specifications, its fuel economy is comparable with the Honda Civic (39 vs 41 mpg). Mercedes isn't exactly known for their efficiency, so I guess you can't expect to much in the first place.

And has anyone seen on of those in person? They are the size of a golf cart, no joke.

http://www.thedailygreen.com/living-green/blogs/cars-transportation/smart-car-review-460318

 

[mgb_phys]

And has anyone seen on of those in person? They are the size of a golf cart, no joke.

We have some as company cars. They are great in the city, you sit higher than most cars, they are very manouvable and you can park anywhere. The model we had has a weird auto manual gearboxes with steering wheel flap padals like an f1 car, They have crap gas consumption - for a real car though you are better off with a VW lupo or Nissan micra.

There is now a model for the US market:
http://media.truckblog.com/ai/2006/893.jpg

 

[Proton Soup]

Well, one of them anyway. It's kind of obvious that the Smart car needs to be built with a cage around the passenger compartment though, since it has no room for real crumple zones. Not sure how the drivers legs fared, though. In any case, the engineering they put into it is impressive.

In any case, here's the offical insurance institute crash tests. Note what they say in the end about the safety and fuel economy of it:

seems to be a lot of vertical lift in the frontal impacts. i assume that is important for revectoring some of the energy. the Ford lifted, too, but i don't think there was as much rotation, so it's driver shouldn't be lifted as high. i noticed the restraint test at the end doesn't seem to take upward momentum into consideration.

 

[wolram]

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/09/080925111836.htm

I have not read through the whole thread, so sorry if this has been linked to before.

It is an electrical device that reduces the droplet size of fuel injected into engine.

 

[baywax]

SAAB stories abound... but here's some of their latest innovations.

http://www.trollhattansaab.net/concepts/saab-9-x-biohybrid-concept

 

[mgb_phys]

"The Saab 9-X BioHybrid concept is a vivid vision of what a future compact car from Saab could look like."

Yes it looks like every other SAAB - every SAAB ever built looks identical, they obviously employed a designer once in 1979 and he retired. On the other hand they do look good and they don't mess about moving rearranging the headlights every year to justify a new model.

 

[baywax]

"The Saab 9-X BioHybrid concept is a vivid vision of what a future compact car from Saab could look like."

Yes it looks like every other SAAB - every SAAB ever built looks identical, they obviously employed a designer once in 1979 and he retired. On the other hand they do look good and they don't mess about moving rearranging the headlights every year to justify a new model.

Do you know if the flywheel system the old SAABs had was a fuel efficiency feature or what? My friend had the 1973 SW SAAB and he went on and on about the fly wheel and how it powers the car long after your foot's off the pedal.

I saw some copy about it in today's models siting how its only 9 lbs and is hooked up to a voltage generator... (??)

 

[OmCheeto]

SAAB stories abound... but here's some of their latest innovations.

http://www.trollhattansaab.net/concepts/saab-9-x-biohybrid-concept

Only 48 mpg? I guess that's ok for something with 200 hp.

hmmmmm...

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/09/080925111836.htm

I have not read through the whole thread, so sorry if this has been linked to before.

It is an electrical device that reduces the droplet size of fuel injected into engine.

Adding 20% from this little device yields 57 mpg.

Adding the 15% from http://www.bmwgroup.com/e/nav/index.html?http://www.bmwgroup.com/e/0_0_www_bmwgroup_com/forschung_entwicklung/science_club/veroeffentlichte_artikel/2006/news20063.html" yields 66 mpg.

Add a 5 kw electric plug in system and you'll probably be pushing 100 mpg around town.

With all of that stuff to put under a hood, it's no wonder Neil Young needed such a http://www.autobloggreen.com/2007/1...oodwin-talk-about-100-mpg-biodiesel-plug-in/".

"The main ingredient for working on http://www.lincvolt.com/" is refusing to believe that some things are impossible."
- - uk

 

[baywax]

Only 48 mpg? I guess that's ok for something with 200 hp.

hmmmmm...

If its in the city its better than the 1.5 L Toyota Yaris (40mpg) and the 1.6 L Honda Fit (40 some odd mpg).

Bio diesel concerns me to the degree that it is us, once again, munching away at the organic matter that would normally provide compost and ingredients for crops and wilderness.

We've had a big loss of pine forests due to the pine beetle infestation and now their talking about turning all the dead wood into fuel. But that is going to rob the area of nutrients and reduce any forestry yields down the road. I would think leaving the substrate behind would be the way nature intended things to work out. Look at it this way, we've burned our way through millions of years worth of plant and animal life in the form of oil... now we're getting started on the present day flora. Desert planet anyone?

 

[Topher925]

With the use of a power supply from the vehicle's battery, the device creates an electric field that thins fuel, or reduces its viscosity, so that smaller droplets are injected into the engine.

Can someone explain this to me? How is it that gasoline's viscosity is a function of a EM field? Also, I thought that electrorheological fluids were suppose to increase in viscosity, not decrease? I've seen video of water being suspended in a bitter solenoid (30+ Teslas, IIRC) and its viscosity did not seem to decrease. But now with direct fuel injection and better atomizers, isn't this device already obsolete?

Look at it this way, we've burned our way through millions of years worth of plant and animal life in the form of oil... now we're getting started on the present day flora. Desert planet anyone?

Yes, but the economy is in a recession. Its Ok to destroy the environment when the economy is in a recession isn't it? Politicians and the people that make these decisions don't care about the environment or what's better in the long run. Their business models are only meant to predict the next 5 years, so if there are any implications to their schemes beyond that time frame then they usually don't care.

 

[mgb_phys]

Yes, but the economy is in a recession. Its Ok to destroy the environment when the economy is in a recession isn't it?

It's funny how that works both ways isn't it.
In a boom the oil/gas/coal/iron etc is worth so much that not mining it would waste billions to protect a few trees/rivers etc.
In a recession we have to mine it because we can't afford to worry about a few trees/rivers etc.

 

[baywax]

It's funny how that works both ways isn't it.
In a boom the oil/gas/coal/iron etc is worth so much that not mining it would waste billions to protect a few trees/rivers etc.
In a recession we have to mine it because we can't afford to worry about a few trees/rivers etc.

When are people going to wake up and realize the world doesn't end at the gyprock wall behind the TV?

 

[OmCheeto]

Yes, but the economy is in a recession. Its Ok to destroy the environment when the economy is in a recession isn't it? Politicians and the people that make these decisions don't care about the environment or what's better in the long run. Their business models are only meant to predict the next 5 years, so if there are any implications to their schemes beyond that time frame then they usually don't care.

Funny. I posted a lighthearted scenario to that effect about 2 years ago in regards as to how more advanced civilizations would consider consequences of such short sighted decisions:

Politics:

Congressional Jury: Senator, given the fact that if we do not reduce the amount of carbon in the atmosphere, our entire species is doomed to die, what is your opinion regarding the disposition of said carbon based residuals being locked up for the next few hundred years.

Type 0: Over my dead body, will I make my constituents submit to this godless solution of dumping valuable commodities into the ground for some baseless global warming mumbo-jumbo crap. They're going to go broke and their children are going to die!

Jury: Your proposal is acceptable. (Politician gets skinned) (line stolen from MIB 1)

Type 1: Yes. I will inform my constituents of the consequences of inaction, communicating to them that the alternative is a slow death, either for themselves, or for their children, or for their children's children.

Jury: Your proposal is acceptable.

 

[baywax]

I meant to get some physicists on this thread describing the ultimately habitable yet aerodynamically efficient car body... that would result in major fuel savings simply because of its aerodynamic design. Any takers? I have some features to ask about... like the rounded back end etc...

 

[OmCheeto]

I meant to get some physicists on this thread describing the ultimately habitable yet aerodynamically efficient car body... that would result in major fuel savings simply because of its aerodynamic design. Any takers? I have some features to ask about... like the rounded back end etc...

Remove all the windshields and rear windows from all the cars in the world.
Not only would this reduce the drag on the vehicles, traveling at a speed over 35 mph would be uncomfortable without some type of face shield. 3 of my 5 boats do not have windshields. 35 feels like 100. Might be all the bugs though.
http://www.funfunkypages.com/bugs_in_teeth/bugs_in_teeth.jpg

But on a more serious note, I agree that ballistics should weigh heavily, based on the use of the vehicle.

Comparing the drag numbers for a smart fortwo vs a couple of other little cars:

http://www.smartcarofamerica.com/forums/f4/dont-understand-why-people-torqued-about-mpg-3121/index3.html#post29482"
Mostly Harmless

Just for grins, here is a comparison of Cd x frontal area for a couple of cars:

Car ...... Cd ... Area (sq ft) ... Cd x Area
Toyota Prius ... 0.26 ... 27.7 ... 7.20
Toyota Aygo ... 0.30 ... 25.5 ... 7.65 (+6%)
smart fortwo ... 0.35 ... 25.8 ... 9.03 (+25%)

So cruising down the highway at 70mph, the smart is at a significant disadvantage.

Just because those smart4two's can do 70, doesn't mean it's smart to do it on a regular basis. They were designed as city cars.

Long distance, high speed drivers should probably invest in a sleeker vehicle:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/6/66/Miura_2006.jpg/200px-Miura_2006.jpg
Lamborghini Miura: Cd x Area = 6.0

 

[mgb_phys]

282mpg and cd=0.15 anyone ?

http://img70.imageshack.us/img70/5533/vw1l01ek1.jpg

 

[Topher925]

I don't think many people will buy an aerodynamic car right now because they aren't "cute". If the large sales of SUVs have taught us anything its that people care more about form than function. A car may get 70mpg but whos going to buy it if it looks like a blow fish?

http://www.primidi.com/2006/09/12.htmlhttp://www.primidi.com/images/mercedes_boxfish_5.jpg

 

[mgb_phys]

Or there is this 300mph hybrid

 

[wolram]

I think this idea still has promise, i am sure the sensor problems could be solved, and a four pot engine would likely have better possibility of vibration control.

http://newenergyandfuel.com/http:/n...2/the-free-piston-engine-is-back-in-the-news/

 

[mgb_phys]

It was discussed here recently.
The original boxer engine was invented for a British motorbike, but to save on the crankshaft the pistons fired alternately (as in this design) which made for an interesting ride!
BMW thought it might be better to have them fire at the same time and have been using the same engine design for 60years.

 

[wolram]

It was discussed here recently.
The original boxer engine was invented for a British motorbike, but to save on the crankshaft the pistons fired alternately (as in this design) which made for an interesting ride!
BMW thought it might be better to have them fire at the same time and have been using the same engine design for 60years.

Did the use the engine as a generator? this is were i think this idea may work more efficiently,
(no drive train), and fuel burn seems to be more efficient.

 

[baywax]

I don't think many people will buy an aerodynamic car right now because they aren't "cute". If the large sales of SUVs have taught us anything its that people care more about form than function. A car may get 70mpg but whos going to buy it if it looks like a blow fish?

http://www.primidi.com/2006/09/12.htmlhttp://www.primidi.com/images/mercedes_boxfish_5.jpg

Ha, I find all of these designs to be far superior to the current automotive trends. Not only are they distinct but they are efficient to boot.

Hasn't this concept of using aerodynamics to increase speed and reduce gas consumption been around since the first jet fighters or something? Why hasn't this advantage been brain washed into the "design consciousness" of drivers? The cars from the 50s did superficially try to imitate the practical design features of fighter jets but the result was a ton and a half of sheet metal with fins.

 

[mgb_phys]

Hasn't this concept of using aerodynamics to increase speed and reduce gas consumption been around since the first jet fighters or something

The Kammbak (the cut off rear shape) that gives that car most of it's aerodynamic performance has been around since the 20s.

 

[baywax]

The Kammbak (the cut off rear shape) that gives that car most of it's aerodynamic performance has been around since the 20s.

That's like an adaptation of wing design?

Are spoilers adding drag at the same time as stability to a moving vehicle?