Progressive Automotive X PRIZE

Of Turbochargers and Tinfoil Hats?

I am both impressed by and grateful to the individual inventor.  The would-be Thomas Edison toils away in lab or garage, working against the odds sometimes for money, but more often for glory and to make the world a better place.  Inventors' interests mirror the concerns of their times: in the Dark Ages the inventor was often an alchemist, seeking to turn lead into gold; in the frenzy of the Industrial Revolution the race was on for ever-more-exotic labor-saving devices, from the sewing machine to the self-propelled harvester combine.  Since the rise of the automobile, therefore, it is not surprising that inventors turn their attention to cars, specifically to the improved power plant.  And indeed, AXP hopes to encourage more and more of these thinkers and tinkerers to come forward and test their concepts on the road with us. 

However, there has always been a dark side to the automotive invention tradition, that of the more paranoid or isolated tinkerer, who is absolutely convinced, much like his (for they are mostly men) forebear the alchemist, that there is a Secret Formula out there which can overthrow the laws of nature and unleash a miraculously efficient new engine concept.  Most often there is an accompanying view that some evil force, most often referred to as "they," is already aware of the Formula, and has acted to suppress it.  (And sometimes this is true!)  Thus the inventor becomes a crusader as well. 

I am in no way poking fun at these engineers and theoreticians: without them we'd probably still be painting on cave walls.  And a misguided initial idea can lead to great things... there is a more than some serendipity and even a little alchemy in the history of inventions such as nylon, penicillin, and even aluminum.  On the other hand, their rate of success is disappointingly low: even in mainstream automotive powertrain development we can point to struggling concepts, such as the Wankel and the Orbital two-stroke, neither of which has lived up to expectations (yet).

Our readers may be unaware that the American government, specifically the EPA, dutifully attempts to test and evaluate the more promising of the MPG-enhancing concepts, although to date the success rate has been pretty close to zero.  For those interested, this page covers dozens of such EPA investigations over the years.  I was stunned to see all this: the breadth and depth of the ideas are staggering.  If AXP can harness even 10% of this energy, maybe brought to a higher level of technical sophistication, we should have no problem delivering to the American public a new range of green vehicle choices.

Eco-Feedback for Cost-Effective Fuel Economy

When close to running out of gas, most drivers know how to stretch the last gallon.   This works of course because fuel efficiency depends on driving style as well as on vehicle design.   

It is increasingly common for cars to come equipped with fuel economy indicators of various levels of sophistication - some cumulative, some real-time, etc.   Prius and other hybrids have particularly nice dashboard displays, and many of their drivers take the implied challenge and learn how to maximize mileage. 

Recently, Toyota announced plans to introduce in certain Japanese-market models an "Eco Drive Indicator", which boils fuel-efficiency down to a single on/off light, based on such factors as speed, transmission efficiency, and acceleration.   The idea is to help the driver save fuel, and raise awareness of how that reduces climate-changing CO2 emissions.   

Toyota states that the Eco Drive Indicator can improve fuel efficiency by approximately 4%.   My own anecdotal experience with real-time fuel-economy indicators suggests that much larger savings are possible (especially if your preferred driving style is as inefficient as mine!).   

Real-time feedback is a beautiful thing.  As they say....out-of-sight, out-of-mind; but a dashboard eco-feedback display provides a constant reminder, and makes it easy for drivers to learn how driving style affects fuel economy. 

I suspect that the single most cost-effective way to reduce oil consumption would be to mandate that every vehicle be equipped with a real-time eco-feedback display.  I also suspect that this would be less-controversial than raising CAFE standards! 

Indeed, we are considering a requirement that all Automotive X PRIZE entrants have such a display.  Maybe there should even be a special award for the coolest one.  What do you think? 

No Silver Bullet

Electricity, ethanol, methanol, vegetable oil, hydrogen, etc. -- all have passionate proponents. But -- despite the impression casual readers can get -- it's clear that any substantial replacement of gasoline will take a combination of  alternative fuels.

Take electricity, for example -- not to pick on it since in many ways it's ideal (electric cars are clean and quiet, and a totally-electric car would be so elegant from a design viewpoint -- all electronic, all the time).  But if suddenly we could all plug-in our cars, many of us would be running them on coal (as Dan Becker of the Sierra Club and others point out).

Coal aside, where would all that electricity come from (at least, anytime soon)?  Today's grid is already close to being maxed out (New York Times, 2 August: "A smothering heat wave shattered records for electricity use across a wide swath of the country yesterday as utilities and government officials called for conservation and braced for even more strain.") Yes, I realize that most people would plug-in overnight, but not everyone.  And blackouts don't end at sundown.  Imagine first oversleeping (electric alarm clock), and then discovering that your car is -- in effect -- out of gas?   

Electric vehicles are clearly part of the solution, especially where renewable energy can be used (one good case, except for the birds: personal wind turbine).   But they are not the whole solution.  Likewise other alternative fuels.  We don't know which one is going to be "the best", but we do know that we'll need many of them. 

20 Years Later - Same Old MPG

Opinions differ on why average fuel economy hasn’t changed in 20 years (industry inertia, market demand, greed, conspiracy, physics…), but the facts are clear – for example, as documented in a newly-released EPA report: “Light-Duty Automotive Technology and Fuel Economy Trends: 1975 Through 2006".  This graphic (from coverage in the Washington Post) says it all:

   Average miles per gallon, cars and light trucks, by model year

SOURCE: Environmental Protection Agency | GRAPHIC: Karen Yourish, The Washington Post - July 18, 2006

The problem isn’t a lack of engine technology advances. It’s that the advances haven’t been applied to increasing miles-per-gallon. Another graphic that says it all (this one from the Executive Summary of the EPA Report):

Note that the average weight drop during 1975-1981 corresponded to an increase in fuel-efficiency (earlier graphic). But weight, while hugely important, isn’t the only factor. This is clear since MPG remained constant after 1981 despite the increase in weight and acceleration.

It makes you wonder…. What average MPG would we have today if weight and acceleration time had remained constant after 1981? 

Here's a (first order) conjecture based on extrapolating the EPA data:  Given that the average MPG increased roughly 7 MPG during 1975-1981, if that rate of change had continued (with constant average weight and acceleration), the average MPG today would be 42 MPG rather than 21 MPG.

Is Bigger Really Safer?

Safety is arguably the most important factor people consider when choosing a vehicle.  There's a common assumption that bigger is safer, and that's what both the market and common sense seem to say.   Well, not so fast... a recent New York Times article reveals:

Collisions between an S.U.V., pickup or minivan and a car kill more people than car-to-car collisions, statistics show. When all types of crashes are considered, occupants of sport utilities and pickups actually have a higher death rate than car occupants. This is mainly because sport utilities and pickups are more likely to roll over when they strike another vehicle, a curb or a guard rail, or if they miss a turn or swerve.

In the limit, of course it's true that bigger is safer - a bicycle has little chance against a big truck.   But in between it's good design that matters most.   Drivers of lightweight racecars routinely walk away from 200 mph crashes.  Check out this video of a Smart Car hitting a concrete wall at 70 mph, another example showing that small cars can be safe cars.  (No, we're not shilling for the Smart Car - we're just making a point.)

While we're not advocating either small or big vehicles (they both serve a purpose), we are challenging assumptions.   Is bigger safer?