Zoleco: custom aerodynamic car, 1.0L Suzuki drivetrain

[luvit]

today, i would not count on competing with toyota, honda, and ford models.. there's just no way to compete. therefore the size and expectations would be different than what you see in the common mousetrap.

i would hit the niche markets like tesla and bugatti did.
you see there's a bunch of people that can't afford a tesla, ..or especially a bugatti.
there will be more people that can afford the Zoleco if it happens to be the same or less cost of a tesla.

but that's all determined on the final product and market study.

so what i'm saying is.. why be anything that resembles the same mousetrap?
i think some comments here aren't sizing up the competition. one rarely explores the niche market. niche market can be a moving target. even if you barely hit the broadside of it, it's rewarding.

[NeilBlanchard]

Hello,

Originally Posted by AeroModder

I'd actually preferr more interior space. I refuse to ever buy a "Smart" car because there is zero cargo space (not even for groceries!).

It has a fairly large flat cargo area behind the seats, above the engine!:

[RobertSmalls]

I took the time to watch the videos. They left me wanting to hear more technical details. Specifically, what is the drag coefficient and frontal area of the car? You can't tell from the first two videos, but the top half looks very low drag. I can't see the bottom half very clearly, nor do we know where the wheels go yet.

The Suzuki 1.0L 3cyl is not a bad power plant, but I absolutely love Honda's lean-burn capable 1.0L 3 cylinder, which comes with regenerative braking and electric assist. A donor Insight will also provide you with dozens of lightweight components you can use, breathable seats, electric power steering, LRR tires, a futuristic gauge cluster, and maybe some ideas about how to improve efficiency.

I like the location of the taillights. As long as the leading surfaces follow streamlines, they should contribute only a little drag. You could eliminate the leading surfaces for better aero at the expense of aesthetics. I wonder if narrow rear wheels on outriggers, with lights mounted on them, would be a viable solution for a car with a narrow body and a wide track.

I share Frank's cynicism regarding the fuel economy of the car. I completely doubt you will double the thermodynamic efficiency of an engine where Suzuki's engineering teams failed to do so.

The problem of achieving maximum engine output per unit fuel is one completely seperate from that of building an efficient body. If you have a cost-effective design with amazing efficiency, prove it on a bench dyno and sell it for tens of millions.

As for the amount of energy required to move the car a mile, well, as Frank said, tell us your CdA and Crr, and I'll tell you your mpg @ any given BSFC. Let's see some numbers and measurements to back up those wild claims!

[AeroModder]

My mistake. I could have sworn I heard reviews mentioning a near-lack of cargo space..

[Frank Lee]

Originally Posted by RobertSmalls

I took the time to watch the videos. They left me wanting to hear more technical details. Specifically, what is the drag coefficient and frontal area of the car? You can't tell from the first two videos, but the top half looks very low drag. I can't see the bottom half very clearly, nor do we know where the wheels go yet.

The Suzuki 1.0L 3cyl is not a bad power plant, but I absolutely love Honda's lean-burn capable 1.0L 3 cylinder, which comes with regenerative braking and electric assist. A donor Insight will also provide you with dozens of lightweight components you can use, breathable seats, electric power steering, LRR tires, a futuristic gauge cluster, and maybe some ideas about how to improve efficiency.

I like the location of the taillights. As long as the leading surfaces follow streamlines, they should contribute only a little drag. You could eliminate the leading surfaces for better aero at the expense of aesthetics. I wonder if narrow rear wheels on outriggers, with lights mounted on them, would be a viable solution for a car with a narrow body and a wide track.

I share Frank's cynicism regarding the fuel economy of the car. I completely doubt you will double the thermodynamic efficiency of an engine where Suzuki's engineering teams failed to do so.

The problem of achieving maximum engine output per unit fuel is one completely seperate from that of building an efficient body. If you have a cost-effective design with amazing efficiency, prove it on a bench dyno and sell it for tens of millions.

As for the amount of energy required to move the car a mile, well, as Frank said, tell us your CdA and Crr, and I'll tell you your mpg @ any given BSFC. Let's see some numbers and measurements to back up those wild claims!

Jah.

My take on the frontal area situation is: It appears to me the cockpit is basically the same as the donor i.e. cowl height the same, windshield the same, inner door skins and window frames the same. The windshield does not appear to have been narrowed, chopped, lowered, or laid back. It follows, then, that it is highly unlikely that the frontal area is less than that of the donor car and if my info is correct the donor car has 20 sq ft while 17 sq ft is claimed for the trike.

BUT WAIT! There's more! It also appears to me that the drivetrain is stock i.e. the front track is stock, not narrowed. In order to enclose the front wheels with non-articulating skirts the fenders have ballooned out far beyond the stock fenders, and that can also be seen in the additional thickness of the doorskins, all added to the exterior. That means the greenhouse has the same frontal area as the donor car while below the greenhouse is GREATER than the donor car. So my WAG places frontal area at 24-26 sq ft, a substantial increase over the donor car. Even though it's likely to have a Cd advantage, it's handicapped with a larger area and not only that, less useable interior volume. That doesn't match my definition of efficiency.

Anyone that's run at Bonneville should be keen to that.

The claims for drivetrain efficiency provide even less to go on than Palmear or Truck Trends. In the absence of ANYTHING convincing, logic dictates that we assume no drivetrain improvements over that of the stock donor car. So I'm predicting it would still be in the sub 60 mpg range. That is, if it ever moves under it's own power, ever, for as I'm told, nothing much is going to happen from here on out without a massive cash infusion, right?

[Frank Lee]

Originally Posted by luvit

your analysis is wrong.
the questions you're asking are for the serious investor who signs an NDA.

the questions you ask about the technologies are to be kept in-pocket, there's many options to choose from. and from the video, you can see that it may not be a concrete decision, yet.

from the video, this is clearly concept. he has learned a lot and will likely build a 2nd prototype similar, but greatly improved just on the lessons learned while building this first one.

questions about curb weight and speed? anything under 1200 lbs is a win when compared to a 1700lbs crx. -- since when did we worry about quickness or top speed?

your questions are reading too deep into 17minutes of video..
he is sitting on something valuable, weather it's selling cars or forms of patents that someone buys from him.

yes, i would look at this car if i could afford exotic cars.

Still waiting for some explanation of these patents....

[Frank Lee]

Hang on, when I put my skirt on and get my pom pons maybe I'll get in the rah rah mood

[theycallmeebryan]

Here are two points that i'd like to enter into this discussion:

1. I'd like to know why we need to have 2+2 designs? Why cant we have a 1 row of passengers to keep frontal area to a minimum? Having a passenger sitting next to you is just a distraction anyway. I think this is one aspect of automobile design we need to reevaluate.

2. Why are new concepts using old propulsion technologies that are relatively inefficient?! I think its a slap in the face to everything we stand for to try to introduce a new concept using an ICE. Electric motors are pretty much the most efficient way to move a vehicle under its own power. Combine it with a low CdA vehicle, and you wont need so many batteries (and their weight) to travel long distances.

[Frank Lee]

Cuz if I want to go to Grandma's house an electric won't make it.

[luvit]

Originally Posted by Frank Lee

Still waiting for some explanation of these patents....

sorry, i;m not gonna write a book on all the possibilities of patents for this car.
i;m surprised you;re gonna stay in the shallow water on this one.
your library has books on inventions and patents.

Originally Posted by Frank Lee

Cuz if I want to go to Grandma's house an electric won't make it.

agreed.


oh, look. i used multi-quote.