E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSS
The super-efficient cars of the future don't all have to look like glorified motorcycles. Illuminati Motor Works' swoopy Seven, for example, looks as if it were beamed down from a retro "Dick Tracy" universe, complete with gull-wing doors and an aerodynamic teardrop profile. The Seven was among, um, seven cars that went through fuel-efficiency road tests today at the Michigan International Speedway in Brooklyn, Mich., as part of the Knockout stage of the $10 million Progressive Insurance Automotive X Prize competition. (We previewed the Knockout drag-down on Sunday.)
Other teams that were put through their paces included TW4XP, Enginer, Western Washington University, Global-E, Li-ion Motors and FVT Racing. The X Prize Foundation's Cristin Lindsay posted pictures from the scene throughout the day. Two cars are listed on the X Prize website as being eliminated so far during this stage: Liberty Motors Group's Liberator and K-Way MOTUS. Stefano Carabelli, team leader for Italy's K-Way automakers, took a philosophical stance in a video clip explaining that engine problems doomed their attempt to win the prize: "We tried. We failed. So far."
Twenty-six cars are still in the running. So far. Check out the X Prize Twitter feed for updates from Tuesday's round of efficiency test drives, and click through our X Prize auto slideshow to see some of the other competitors.
X Prize Foundation
Illuminati Motor Works, Team TW4XP and Enginer line up their X Prize cars for efficiency test runs on Monday.
Leave a Comment:
Based on everything I have seen, I would have thought that all super efficient automobiles were required to look like half-used suppositories. Despite the claim that these cars don't have to look like glorified motorcycles, they still look as if they are excretions. They are simply horrible and without any style except ugly aerodynamicism. Where is Raymond Loewy when we need him?.
The one in front looks like erasers that we used to use for typing, and the second one looks like the erasers we bought when our other eraser wore down on wooden pencils. I will drive one though if it's comfortable, safe, and uses less gasoline to compensate.
If Raymond Loewy were still around style would be at the top of its game and always with a touch of class. Even Greyhound has been stepped on by the likes of modern day ad agencies that just don't have a clue. The classic running dog logo that Loewy designed has been screwed up by the ad agency. IT SUCKS!
The previous post says its ugly aerodynamicism. The majority of fuel inefficiency in automobiles is drag. Your car works harder to push the air at 65 then at 55; who drives above 65, everyone. The form/function thing needs a little working out. You can take a crap engine with a aero tight body and it will get high mileage. There needs to balance, we are getting there. The problem is people know some overall profiles that have a low drag coefficient but the majority of what gets decent mileage requires plenty of computation (think hrs on a super computer). Remember the spill, we are all responsible because we did nothing except complain that it was too weak, too ugly and too expensive. Make your next purchase (cars, trucks, appliances) something that is efficient.
The days of worrying about what your car looks like as an independent variable need to be over, like it or not. Form needs to follow function if we are to survive the challenges we are faced with. Learn to appreciate beauty with logic, not with your gonads.
I don't care if it looks like a brick on wheels .
Build a hybrid that gets a return of energy every where it can.
If it wiggles , jiggles , bounces , or turns . Generate a charge for the battery .
Open and close the door , charge the battery .
Sit down in the car ,charge the battery .
Turn the steering wheel ,charge the battery .
If the wheels are rolling , charge the battery.
If there's any kind of light , artificial or sun light shining on the solar cells , charge the battery .
Find the smallest most efficient lawn mower type engine , to charge the battery . Something that could run
between two and three hours on a gallon of gas , or better yet diesel .
If this brick on wheels , got 150 M. P. G. , I would be thinking .We can do better .
If this brick on wheels , got 175 M. P. G. , I would be thinking .That's more like it .
If this brick on wheels , got above 175 M. P. G. , Then I would think ,Now it's time to address
the aerodynamics .
Volvo was showing a prototype car in 2007 that could get in the range of 140 M. P. G.
Volvo was sold off to a Chinese company . They sold the golden goose .
May the brick win .Then we can improve it .
I find the logic interesting...form following function: how is this economically feasible. The technology has existed in raw form for the 'form follow function' way of thinking from energy to production since the days of forming a hypothesis, and basic ways to use critical thinking at large in order to produce results. My question is, are we really going to faze out capitalistic based society? Form following function is just what it says, so scientific reform actually alleviates so much dependancy upon state, right?
I think as we go forward there will be more cars that have that retro Dick Tracy look. I wouldn't mind receiving one (for free.) I don't see that happening though. :-(