Rules Progress

I know a lot of you out there are waiting with bated breath to review the rules of the Automotive X PRIZE. So here is a brief glimpse inside our rules creation process and an update on what to expect (a few teasers included!).

We are about 80% complete with the rules for the prize. That progress has been made by processing the extensive feedback we received from conversations with lots of experts from manufacturing, industry, entrepreneurial, environmental, regulatory, government, education, science, PR and media backgrounds.

We are still working on finalizing a few critical elements, including:

• Our method for establishing energy and emissions equivalency between different fuel types and drivetrains
• Our strategy for reviewing vehicle manufacturability, business plans, safety, affordability and desirability (likely during the admissions process for the prize)
• Our plan for measuring X PRIZE level achievement through a real-world challenge (likely a race, so we are thinking about course design)

All of those topics are now being discussed with sub-groups of our wonderful AXP Prize Development Advisory Board and other experts. We hope to have the final rule set and prize structure released on our website for public comment by the end of the year. Stay tuned!

Comments

[Ed Danzer]

I hope the goals this group sets are more obtainable than these projects:
http://www1.eere.energy.gov/vehiclesandfuels/pdfs/program/21ct_roadmap.pdf

http://www.energycommission.org/files/finalReport/III.4.a%20-%20Heavy-Duty%20Trucks.pdf

I attended the SAE Commercial Vehicle Congress and Exhibition last week and listened to an update on the 21st Century Truck Program. It appears the goals were set too high and to me, the results are some what disappointing given the money spent.
With your rules it might be helpful if you define the task more clearly than the above mentioned programs. I believe there is one area that is not well defined in any drive cycle I have reviewed, and that is the difference between the work done to move the vehicle and the standby power available. I would define standby power as the maximum engine power required to accelerate the maximum gross weight vehicle up a defined hill at a defined rate, or the ability to for that loaded vehicle to maintain a given speed up a defined hill (with ever is greatest) minus the power required to move the vehicle through the drive cycle. To determine standby power, a vehicle must be fitted with wheel torque sensors on the drive wheels, and a 5th wheel to gather the speed and driven through a drive cycle. In addition to the actual work being done to move the vehicle, a deceleration energy map can be created to assist in designing the components and software to capture the majority of the braking energy without retraining the driver.

[Howard Warren]

Re-Your plan for measuring X PRIZE level achievement through a real-world challenge (likely a race, so thinking about course design)
I'm very interested to see the outcome of this.

A hilly course may favour hybrids as hills simulate "pulse and glide". ICE engine runs and charges batteries on uphill. Electric motor provides power on gentle downhills.

To be fair to non hybrid vehicles you could have route options within the course.

[Edward J. Butterworth]

One way to give the nod to practicality while at the same time driving technology would be to conduct a race with a set a limit on the money that could be spent on expendable fuel or equivalent propulsion (electricity, etc.) during the course of the race, using the market value at some point in time before the race. For example, if you allowed $100 for a 500 mile race, anyone burning gasoline would know at the outset that he had to average better than 10 miles per gallon while remaining competitive. After all, it wouldn't do to come up with some clean, efficient exotic fuel that was prohibitively expensive.

[netguyct]

May I suggest an X prize for hydrogen harvesting?

It seems (anecdotally, unscientific survey of publicly available information) that the largest obstacle to hydrogen fuel-cell charged electric vehicles is the processing and storage of hydrogen.

Again, I'm not the most well-read on the subject, and I know advances have been made with self-sufficient solar powered hydrogen-producing filling stations, but there must be a compound and catalyst combination that would crack the hydrogen from the "mystery" molecule that is fairly easy to produce, transport, store, and sell.
It could be liquid or gas.

Maybe I should have paid more attention in Chem101 and 102.... but just brainstorming:

Fuel manufacturing requirements:
Solar powered "refinery"
Non-polluting
Abundant raw materials (i.e. water and (another abundant and non-environmentally damaging harvesting process material)
Energy in to the process is equal to or less than energy requirements for gasoline distillation if the energy is supplied by non-solar means.

Fuel property requirements:
Evaporative properties equal to or better than gasoline and diesel
Transportability equal to or better than gasoline
In-vehicle storage systems as or less complex than gasoline storage.

If a storage system for hydrogen gas can be developed that doesn't leak the contents overnight, then a fuel tank system comprised of multiple layers of materials must include an explosion supressant compound or system.

The fuel and its manufacture are the weak link. then, advances in propulsion systems and engines will be exponential...
in my humble opinion...

[Ken Fry]

I’ve probably said this elsewhere, but I think it bears repeating. The real challenge is to provide an immediately marketable vehicle that can sell in LARGE numbers. We’ve already demonstrated that hydrogen-powered vehicles are possible and that specialized vehicles can achieve thousands of miles per gallon under controlled conditions. There may come a time in the distant future when we can produce hydrogen economically and in environmentally sound ways. But we are a long way from that, and we are certainly not going to sell thousands of hydrogen-fueled vehicles in the next few years. But the right electric car could be commercially successful right away. The obvious other possibilities (with supporting existing infrastructure) are plug-in hybrids, hybrids, and petro-fueled. The contestants will need to race without handicap in the marketplace, and should race without handicap in a demonstration race too.

A race through several cities, over a few highways, and maybe even coast-to-coast would be great for publicity. Make the legs 300 miles so it can be done in 10 days, and so that electrics would have time to recharge. Minimum average speeds (45 mph average each day?) would have to be achieved. (Otherwise, people would travel at 20 mph or less as they do in the ultra-high fuel mileage contests.)

The race winner would be the car that achieves the greatest energy efficiency, with fuels (electricity) balanced for caloric (watt-hour) content. The race winner would not, however, necessarily be the ultimate prize winner. That honor would have to go to the car that achieves at least the minimum 100 mpg (or mpg equivalent) and sells the greatest number of units between the contest start and some future date (such as the end of 2009).

Sound reasonable?

[gary starr]

ZAP is a manufacturer of energy efficient and electric vehicles. We would be interested in participating. Perhaps we can agree to help manufacture the vehicles. Put up some prize funds?

contact me

[Bob Johnson]

I hope you leave out ppm (parts per million)in favor of a real rating like volume per mile traveled. I've built a diesel microcar that has a bad ppm but a good ratio of pollutants per mile. Also to be fair electric entries should have battery life and recycling costs included in their total energy cost. How about a bonus for vehicles built with off the shelf parts in a home workshop ? The vehicle I've built could be built by semi-skilled labor using common materials in a third world country, eliminating transportation costs. Retail price will affect sales (mine cost under $2000 ).

[Robert Melodia]

I do not think a race is necessary. The need for fuel economy cannot be effectively measured as part of a race. The ability of the powerplant to move through mountains, in the rain, dust storms, deserts, extreme heat and cold, traffic and other factors are what is going to drive fuel economy. Neither is creating a brand new line of cars specifically for the powerplant or drivetrain, even though this can be done as cars evolve. A cost-effective integradable powerplant or drivetrain, or both, that can be used across the board into any vehicle is what is needed.

As I believe a cross-country drive is more appropriate than any other avenue of demonstration.

[Josh Trutt]

Cross-country certainly makes sense as that will simulate all sorts of real-life conditions. But making the legs 300 miles "so that electrics have time to recharge" as suggested above, makes no sense. The whole point is to see, with all factors considered, INCLUDING recharge time, which cars can get the job done? Therefore recharge/refuel time MUST be included in total race-time. If you want to make this fun and exciting, make it Cannonball-Run style: no "legs", just coast-to-coast, whoever gets there first including recharging time. The goal is to see which car is most viable for mass-consumption, which most definitely means taking recharge time into account. However personally I think it makes sense to have the cars be not allowed to exceed 80mph. This way speed of finishing is determined more by recharge/refuel times.

[Josh Trutt]

It was commented above that there will be fun and intrigue as people wonder, "who will win this leg? What fuel is Team Z using?" It is true that in the Tour de France, there is fun in seeing who might win an individual leg. But in the Tour, all the vehicles are powered the same way, so it is fair to give them all the same number of hours between legs (no pun intended) and to NOT COUNT THAT TIME as part of the race. This is an entirely different sort of race-- the time BETWEEN legs-- recharge time-- counts a very great deal; it makes the difference between a car I will buy (one that recharges in ten minutes, as the ZAP-X and ESSTOR battery claim to be able to do) and a car I won't buy (one that recharges overnight, which I'd only buy if it can run on gas if needed, a plug-in hybrid). Since the whole point of this competition is to find a MARKET-READY vehicle, this race cannot be done in "legs"-- unless the cars are sequestered between legs and can't be recharged until "race time" resumes. To me, the most fun would be Cannonball-Run style: You give them a start and an end point-- preferably one on each coast-- and first car across the finish line wins. The excitement therefore becomes, Where will they recharge? Will they have to take a Southern route due to poor performance in cold weather? Where will they get more Hydrogen? etc.

[SEW]

Current American expectations and 100 mpg are the parameters? And that is all. Perhaps one ordinarily would expect to stop for petrol. However this is not ordinary, 100 MPG times 15 gallons. Well, that is 1500 miles before any conversation about re-fueling or recharging. 1500 hundred miles in the states will cover many types of terrain.

[Jim Bullis]

I have quite a problem with your use of 'MPGe' and the misinformation that results therefrom.

I am very concerned with misquoting of vehicle performance by others as well. In that regard, I commented to GM as follows:

Horrors, I looked at the specs released Jan 7, 2007. The snake oil salesmen are back. Do we really have to pass a law regulating motor vehicle and global warming emissions claims. Maybe we could let the FDA do the job. That would sure expedite things.

"Why," you might ask,"do you say such mean things?"
And I say, "because the spec tries to confuse the public by using the term 'equivalent mpg'."
This is not literally dishonest, since 'equivalent mpg' is not really defined. The fault is only an intent to mislead, or possibly, really not understanding what you are talking about.
In the spec for the Volt, a careful look will turn up the likelihood that 'equivalent mpg' really relates only to the gasoline and the word 'equivalent' does not relate to energy in general, as you might suppose. Thus, it completely ignores the equivalent electric energy part. "Why do you care," you might ask. I say, "because it results in a false implication about the overall energy usage and the global warming implications. Shame on GM"
GM is not alone in this. Others that seem to have an intent to mislead, have come up with 'mpg+' which is gibberish and 'MPGe' which stands for 'miles per gallon equivalent' which seems to stand for something related to the fact that electricity has to be recognized as a form of energy.
Unfortunately,the problem with the way 'MPGe' is used is also indefinite, since it depends on how the electricity was produced. It takes more than four letters to deal with this.
A convenient way to handle this 'MPGe' ambiguity is to ignore the process of electricity generation and the generally required heat engine and the Second Law of Thermodynamics, where such details dictate an enormous loss of energy, given the way power is usually generated in fossil fuel power plants.
Now, if we are only considering electricity that falls from the sky, such as hydro, solar, wind, (lets also include) geothermal, the MPGe formulation can be justified as honest. But it sure is misleading, since there is not much chance of electricity from these sources getting into the car batteries. I hope GM can dig up someone that remembers enough freshman physics to come up with a forthright way to specify the critical aspects of auto performance.
Once I get through to the truth it seems that there is a good design here, and I am not against progress in small steps.