Living Car Free - Uh....Dumb Prize?

Wouldn't the Tesla Roadster already beat this prize's requirements?

http://www.cbc.ca/technology/story/2007/04/02/auto-prize.html?ref=rss

I believe that "practical " is the key word here, and a $100,000.00 car is not very practical.

Funny. . .I'm starting to feel like a broken record, but here goes. If someone were to build such a vehicle and it seated four adults then it would be lucky to get 100watt/hours per mile per person. My crappy homemade ebike gets 10-20 watt/hours per person without pedaling at all. Just another sad example of the intention to promote the car culture to the bitter end.

Funny. . .I'm starting to feel like a broken record, but here goes. If someone were to build such a vehicle and it seated four adults then it would be lucky to get 100watt/hours per mile per person. My crappy homemade ebike gets 10-20 watt/hours per person without pedaling at all. Just another sad example of the intention to promote the car culture to the bitter end.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tesla_Roadster

Let me clarify. If someone were to build a four seater that got 100 miles on a gallon of gasoline that would be 34.6 MJ equivalent of gasoline per person. Divide this by 100 miles. Covert to watts. And you get a figure approaching 100watt/hours per mile per person. No, the Tesla wouldn't count because it's fueled on electrical potential and oil is king; didn't you know?

Let me clarify. If someone were to build a four seater that got 100 miles on a gallon of gasoline that would be 34.6 MJ equivalent of gasoline per person. Divide this by 100 miles. Covert to watts. And you get a figure approaching 100watt/hours per mile per person. No, the Tesla wouldn't count because it's fueled on electrical potential and oil is king; didn't you know?

Yes, I know, but many electricity sources are oil/gas.

Aside from that, I believe this guy proves you're wrong.
http://www.cleanmpg.com/forums/showthread.php?p=17923#post17923

If he can get 70+ mpg with a crappy old 1992 Honda Civic, then they can get a modern car to get 100 mpg with 4 people in it.

You missed my point. I'm agreeing with you of course; the prize is total BS.

"The guidelines specify that the car must be appealing to buyers. . ." Who the heck came up with that one?

The only thing that would "appeal" to buyers in my neck of the woods is a 400 HP duelly pickup truck that gets 100MPG.

You missed my point. I'm agreeing with you of course; the prize is total BS.

"The guidelines specify that the car must be appealing to buyers. . ." Who the heck came up with that one?

The only thing that would "appeal" to buyers in my neck of the woods is a 400 HP duelly pickup truck that gets 100MPG.
Build it an they will come? :roflmao: I dunno the ones around here like to brag about how much it costs to fill up:rolleyes: :p

Aaron:)

I was thinking about this thread on the way into work today...(dangerous, I know) I can recall many cars I have had over the years that got 40+ mpg and could hold 4 plus people. It seems to me with today's technology it should be feasible to double that number. Problem is with marketing leading people to think they need heated seats, 250hp, V-6, etc, etc. I think if the auto manufacturers really put a economy car on the market and marketed it the way they do the 400hp trucks and SUV's they would eventually sell. Three cars that came to mind as being very economical were our late 60's Fiat Multipla, 1967 Renault R-10 and my 1978 Honda Civic 1200. All were awesome cars in their own way and got highway mileage in excess of 40mph at 55mpg. The Fiat was a electrical nightmare to work on, but I got by with a multi meter and a pair of wire cutters:D The Renault was an odd car, but very comfortable for the long haul if you weren't in a hurry. The Honda was a fantastic little city car, but not the best choice for longer trips due to it's short wheel base.

Aaron:)

If he can get 70+ mpg with a crappy old 1992 Honda Civic, then they can get a modern car to get 100 mpg with 4 people in it.

While the car looks beatup now, there was nothing "crappy" about that generation Civic. The VX model of the same period got even better mileage than this CX.

We have generally taken a step backwards in gas mileage - primarily because of safety requirements. This civic weighed in at a little over 2000 lbs. A current-generation civic is approaching 3000. We're so obsessed with crash testing and how many airbags and cupholders we can cram in a car, that we're going the wrong way with fuel efficiency.

Fifteen to twenty years ago, we could get 40+mpg from a compact car with ease. Now, with the exception of the Corolla, a car has to be a hybrid to get into that territory. - speaking of US market cars only. The state of the US auto industry is embarassing and socially and environmentally irresponsible. I honestly believe we would be much better off if "the big three" were to go away tomorrow.

We have generally taken a step backwards in gas mileage - primarily because of safety requirements. This civic weighed in at a little over 2000 lbs. A current-generation civic is approaching 3000. We're so obsessed with crash testing and how many airbags and cupholders we can cram in a car, that we're going the wrong way with fuel efficiency.

Yeah, I know what you mean. Imagine my surprise when I looked up the curb weight of the wife's late model Nissan--almost 2,800lbs:eek: But can you blame the designers? They are just trying to make these compacts survivable in a land ruled by huge, lumbering, metal dinosaurs with distracted soccer moms at the helm.

I believe that "practical " is the key word here, and a $100,000.00 car is not very practical.


Volume is the key. They cost $100,000.00 because there aren't many made. Make a million and watch the price go way down.