VW XL1 production version gallery

[rmay635703]

Originally Posted by NeilBlanchard

The side by side seats are quite close together, and the passenger's seat is angled slightly to get it closer to the diver's seat; and the offset allows the shoulder room to be much better than otherwise.

This is what I don't get I own 2 cars that are 48" wide max and my father owns one as well, we have no trouble seating people side by side in any of these cars and shoulder room was never a complaint.

Only thing I can figure is the area beyond 44" (as the seats are shown) must be unusable or part of a crumple zone. In those cirumstances the space should just be lobbed off.

[NeilBlanchard]

It has the smallest frontal area of an car I can think of. The engineers needed the front wheels to be a certain distance apart, and they want the side crush zone to be adequate. It is the most efficient car in "production" - and it has the lowest CdA, too. In fact, it is almost 25% lower than the EV1.

If it went back to a tandem seating position, it would either lose practical space for the passenger, or it would make the car longer. The battery pack would have to be relocated, which would either make the car even longer, or it would make it taller - which would negate the gains, while making it less practical.

[rmay635703]

[QUOTE=NeilBlanchard;377909]It has the smallest frontal area of an car I can think of. The engineers needed the front wheels to be a certain distance apart, and they want the side crush zone to be adequate. It is the most efficient car in "production" - and it has the lowest CdA, too. In fact, it is almost 25% lower than the EV1.[QUOTE]

I agree its great but

Initial visual impressions. XL1 is visually striking; 153.1 inches long, 65.6 inches wide, and only 45.4 inches tall. By comparison, a Volkswagen Polo is slightly longer (156.3 in) and wider (66.2 in), but is significantly taller (57.6 in).

SUBARU 360 0.4 - 1958, 1959, 1960, 1961, 1962, 1963, 1964, 1965, 1966, 1967, 1968, 1969, 1970, 1971
Length 118 in OR 2997 mm
Width 51 in OR 1295 mm
Height 60.5 in OR 1537 mm

Understand 51" is to the mirrors on the subar, its actually 48" wide at the widest door point and taper inward to only about 40" wide at the top of the roof.

The actual frontal area between the subaru and VW are only square inches different, but the subaru wins.

CD is however several orders of magnitude different. I just wondered what all the space to each side of the seats was for, the car could beat the subaru frontal area is that space were reduced and trim CDA further and I don't think it would dramatically affect seating.

Ah well.
Ryan

[NeilBlanchard]

Yeah, the Cd has a greater effect on the CdA, and the lower the Cd goes, the less important the area is.

The Subaru 360 is atypical. This is another 48" wide vehicle:

[NeilBlanchard]

Ah, this is more like it!

First Drive: Volkswagen XL1 Plug-in Diesel Hybrid | PluginCars.com

After hitting highway speeds, take your foot entirely off the accelerator—and there’s absolutely no regenerative braking. That’s what VW product people call sailing.

With the slightest depression of the brake pedal, the regen braking comes back into action—feeding braking energy into the liquid-cooled lithium ion battery pack.

[Occasionally6]

Originally Posted by NeilBlanchard

The XL1 is the lowest CdA of any "production car" - the frontal area is just 1.5 square meters (16.146 sq ft), and the Cd is 0.189, so the CdA is 0.2835 sq m (3.05 sq ft). The tandem seating is a big compromise, and the the staggered side by side allows the 5.5kWh battery pack to be located in front of the passenger; which reduces the frontal area vs a location under the seats.

The side by side seats are quite close together, and the passenger's seat is angled slightly to get it closer to the diver's seat; and the offset allows the shoulder room to be much better than otherwise.

Is tandem seating that much of a compromise though? Most cars are used most of the time with a single occupant. If it did nothing else a tandem (or single) seat car might encourage people to realise that.

There are a several other advantages to a single centrally located driving position, including tandem seating:

Visibility. Although arguably less around a car that is being followed. It will depend upon whether the space between the driver and road centreline is made wider or the passenger side of the car reduced (conceptually).

Yes, crush space, both in a side impact (possibly better than in a "conventional" car, even in a narrower vehicle) and frontal impact where the front wheels are less likely to be pushed back into the driver's feet.

The possibility of a head clash between occupants in a side impact, is eliminated

A narrower vehicle is more fun to drive. It can have a wider range of positions within a lane and squeeze through gaps wider cars cannot.

A smaller car is (hopefully) a lighter car.

A narrower car is a smaller target to hit. Particularly in an offset frontal impact, a glancing hit is more likely.

Packaging is better. The occupants can "overlap" in terms of the space they take up within the cabin.

Weight distribution is less affected by occupant weight, something particularly important in a very light car.

[ctgottapee]

Keep in mind as a prototype, this is basically a VW advertisement
Producing a car with tandem seating strays too far from the basic car nomenclature.
The offset seating is a great compromise, and most single travelers take advantage of the spare seat as storage; much less convenient in a tandem array.

Tandem requires height whereas the norm requires width
Tandem sacrifices drive-ability, especially with a passenger as any motorcyclist will know. If the wheels have to be wide, might as well put the seats wide anyhow.


Many others have tried to produce a tandem or single seat vehicle and have all failed so clearly there is not a viable market. In the end its basically just a covered motorcycle...

[tjts1]

Originally Posted by ctgottapee

Many others have tried to produce a tandem or single seat vehicle and have all failed so clearly there is not a viable market. In the end its basically just a covered motorcycle...

Renault Twizy Sales Are Strong - Business Insider
In Europe, Sales of Pure Electric Vehicles Increased 20-Fold From 2010 to 2012

[NeilBlanchard]

Where would the battery pack be in a tandem seat design? To keep the height the same as the XL1, a tandem design would need to be quite long. The side taper would have to be reduced because you still have to fit the wheels and the passenger and the drivetrain.

Another "compromise" of tandem seating is that the people can't see the other person's face.

[Occasionally6]

Originally Posted by NeilBlanchard

If it went back to a tandem seating position, it would either lose practical space for the passenger,

That's the point; make it very clear what it is and how it is to be used. That will serve to highlight just how stupid it is to use a 2 ton truck (or even 3000lb car) for the same purpose.

or it would make the car longer.

The length of the occupant space might be a little longer but that's not the whole car. With the passenger's legs alongside the driver's, when compared to an offset side by side seating arrangement its not very much different. Less than even a 2+2 arrangement in a conventional car.

The battery pack would have to be relocated, which would either make the car even longer, or it would make it taller - which would negate the gains, while making it less practical.

The original "One-Liter" prototype with tandem seating wasn't taller or longer than this. Batteries can be take up a substantial volume of space but are pretty flexible in where that space can be.

Less practical for carrying two people, yes. Most cars, most of the time, aren't used for carrying two people.