Quote:
Originally Posted by low&slow
Interesting discussion, but for me it points out the limited usefulness of the Shell Fuel Contest style competitons . The other posters are right that these "cars' " can be beaten by a fit bicyclist as far as achieving the speeds and going the actual total distance that these "cars " do in a competition. I wish that Shell and other major sponsors would go to a competition format like The Vetter Fuel Economy Challenge where the competition takes place on public roads at speeds that are safe and usefull and where there is a usefull cargo carrying requirement ( 4 filled paper grocery sacks in the Vetter Challenge). Competitions like the Vetter Challenge would demonstrate stimulate actual developments that would benifit real world motor vehicles rather than just be engineering exercises. my 2 cents worth
|
Exactly!! If the idea is to ultimately have something fuel efficient to use every day on the road in real world situations, why piss around so much with rarely achievable results with such over the top impractical vehicles? Sure, some experimentation is needed to validate ideas, but too much seems to be made of these feats when they bear little resemblance with how vehicles are normally used and what eventually comes from production models for the consumer.
Fuel efficiency is but one of the parameters for an efficient road worthy vehicle. And road worthy is a key point; if it is not usable AND practical on the road, it would seem to be a waste of time to quite a degree if you don't make it with it being a usable consumer product to begin with IMO. People don't drive their cars lying down looking between their feet through a glass bubble and likely won't ever .... so why even go there with that then? It just doesn't make a lot of sense. Fine if your aim is to merely hit ultra high peaks, but don't try to drag consumer product into the conversation because they are just too remote from one another.
My approach would be to start with a good vehicle design that meets road worthy/practicality stats and try to get better results in efficiency rather than start with rarefied, astronomical fuel efficiency numbers and expect that you will be able to build a vehicle that can get them and be practical and road worthy too. There needs to be a merging of fuel efficiency/practicality, road worthy concepts early on in design and testing. 1300 MPG is great for a single experimental example and may help with design of an economical consumer product. But going further by spending more time and money to eke out 200 more MPG on the experimental vehicle while running it in a way that would not be done normally , safely and practicably as a consumer vehicle would is likely have little impact on the consumer product in the end. (except cause it to be more expensive because of wasted R&D time and money)
Just my 2 cents