
McLaren F1 Developer Designs New Auto Driving 100 MPH on 96 MPG - tankenmate
http://www.businessweek.com/news/2012-05-29/mclaren-f1-developer-designs-new-auto-driving-100-mph-on-96-mpg
======
Avshalom
>goes 100 miles (160 kilometers) per hour. It gets 96 miles to the U.K. gallon
(1.2 U.S. gallons)

>100 MPH on 96 MPG

Not to knock 96 mpg at any speed but the headline is rather more impressive
than the claim in the article.

~~~
cynicalkane
Yup. This is a common pitfall when talking about European cars. They're
sometimes quoted in Imperial MPG even when they're not for sale in Britain.

~~~
TylerE
No, that's not the flaw (although it is true).

It can get 96mpg. It can go 100mph. It _cannot_ do both simultaneously.

~~~
thwest
The more fundamental flaw is how to drive _on_ a mile per gallon rate.

------
ash
T.25 diarama photos:

<http://www.gordonmurraydesign.com/t25-diorama-photos.php>

Recent reviews of T.25 and (electric) T.27:

[http://www.autocar.co.uk/car-review/murray/t25/first-
drives/...](http://www.autocar.co.uk/car-review/murray/t25/first-
drives/murray-t25) [http://www.autocar.co.uk/car-review/murray/t27/first-
drives/...](http://www.autocar.co.uk/car-review/murray/t27/first-
drives/murray-t27)

------
dmlorenzetti
_Since an iStream factory would be two-thirds smaller, it would consume about
60 percent less energy._

This is either a journalist misrepresenting the actual claims, or else the
actual claims have no grounding in rigorous analysis.

In a nutshell-- he plas to revolutionize auto manufacturing by making the body
in two steps rather than five, using composite materials instead of stamped
and welded steel, but the basis of his energy estimates is the size of the
building that houses the work? A little hard to take seriously.

~~~
ChuckMcM
Actually you will find that Amory Lovins has done a lot of research into the
costs of making cars ( <http://www.rmi.org/Autos> ) which I suspect feeds into
the article's analysis.

There are challenges of course, when you collide with something at 70 - 80 MPH
and you're in a composite material vehicle without a steel frame the energy
gets distributed in harder to control ways. Its not an unsolvable problem [1]
but it is another wrench in general acceptance.

Another challenge is of course 'style' points but styles change so its less of
an issue. I expect that the continued high cost of oil will keep these sorts
of ideas popping up. I hope that some of them get to production so that we can
iron out the other problems.

[1] In the forgettable movie "Demolition Man" a collision system which fills
the car with foam is presented. That is actually an actually proposed solution
but one where false starts are hard to recover from.

~~~
darklajid
70-80 MPH collision?

Do you have any reliable source for working systems that protect you at that
speed? I'd consider collisions at that speed lethal - or it's your lucky day.
Ignoring the body material. In DE you are told (not that I can confirm that by
experience) in your driving lessons that collisions > 30 KPH (K!) are very,
very dangerous and that the statistical 'you might be heavily injured' line is
somewhere around there. So .. I'm having trouble imagining something that hits
anything else with 70-80 MPH.

~~~
ChuckMcM
McClaren (the guy in the original article) works on F1 race cars. They
regularly have collisions at greater than 100MPH with out any injuries to the
driver. (and yes some of them are into fixed objects like the track wall).

Here in California there is a wealth of data on injury and damages in
collisions between 50 and 100MPH [1]. In general, when all applicable safety
systems are employed (seatbelts, nothing obstructing airbags, Etc) the
injuries sustained are rarely fatal and for the most part don't required a
hospital stay. We have a condition called "Tule Fog" which is a dense low
hanging fog that can occur rather suddenly, which every other year or so
results in the collective colliding of anywhere from 3 to 75 vehicles at
speeds from 10MPH to 60MPH. Again, people don't die in these pile ups
generally unless the passenger space of the vehicle is compromised (like being
shoved under the trailer of a semi-truck for example). In their table of
'injuries and fatalities' for 2009 [2] out of 201,660 collsions there were
2,594 with fatalities so a 1.3% rate.

[1] <http://www.chp.ca.gov/switrs/>

[2] <http://www.chp.ca.gov/switrs/pdf/2009-sec3.pdf>

------
derda
96 mpg (imperial) = 2,94 l / 100km

~~~
bergerj
is that 80 mpg (US)?

~~~
TylerE
Yes, more or less. 1 Imperial Gal = 1.2 US Gallons.

------
nitrogen
_Sporting chiseled side panels that swoosh back from the front wheels like air
currents, they exude quickness and agility._

Honestly, "quickness" and "agility" are the last adjectives that come to mind
when I look at that picture. Not to mention I don't even think I would fit in
that thing. Though I am impressed by the car's supposed 100MPH top speed.

OT: if any businessweek.com web developers read this, giant position:fixed
headers are even more annoying than 1990s frames. Especially with the trend
toward widescreen displays (not that I actually maximize my browser), taking
away vertical space is just... wrong.

------
Gravityloss
but what is new? Glass fiber cars have existed for decades. Studies and
experience shows that metal stamping is much more cost effective once the
manufactured amount grows beyond a pretty low threshold. The article gives no
information on how Murray's techniques differ.

------
mcguire
_"Murray [...] makes his autos out of a lightweight composite material similar
to carbon fiber used in race cars._

 _"That allows him to jettison the robots and machinery that stamp and weld
about 300 pieces of metal together in a typical car body."_

That seems to imply hand-layup, which along with the "composite material
similar to carbon fiber" makes me have some doubts about the "8,678 euros
($11,000)" retail price for the gas model.

Anyone know any more details about the materials and process?

------
sr_chase
How will this ease congestion? Making driving relatively cheaper will only
encourage more driving.

~~~
rogerbinns
Even if every current vehicle was replaced by one of these I don't see how it
helps congestion. Sure cars can drive slightly closer together but not enough
to make a big difference. And unless every road has lane width reduced and new
lanes created we won't get more cars abreast either.

The only things that will help is fewer journeys at peak times, and some sort
of inter-car communication system that manages traffic flow far better than
our slow awkward human brains.

~~~
btbuilder
While you're probably right overall, we all know that larger vehicles slow
down traffic for a number of reasons. Therefore there must be some truth that
if we all drove smaller, more agile vehicles, there'd be improvements in
traffic.

------
politician
This form factor paired Google's self-driving car tech seems like a no-
brainer. High MPG rivals electric cars, cheap manufacturing cost, and for
once, even the licensing interests align. I'd buy one.

------
Vitaly
iCar? ;) that could be awesome ;)

------
excuse-me
An Audi A2 diesel does that, with four doors, so does the VW lupo 1.2 diesel.

Perhaps they need to re-brand diesel in the USA? They could call it "heavy-
oil, a real MAN's fuel" !

~~~
drbawb
In my experience: "real men" like diesel just fine here in America. So long as
it's bolted to an F150 frame and can tow your whole house, and also your
neighbors house, and his garage, with two Toyota Prius' parked inside.

~~~
freehunter
I'm still disappointed that Toyota doesn't make their diesel trucks available
in the US. I would kill to have a diesel in my 4Runner (before they made the
4Runner covered in plastic and less capable). 35MPG and torque from here to
the moon... why Toyota? Why?

~~~
golgo13
Same with my FJ. Why can't we have a diesel FJ Cruiser? Diesel seems like a
natural fit for the FJ.

------
soc88
> 100 MPH on 96 MPG

WUT? Translation for the civilized world, please.

~~~
loxs
[https://www.google.bg/search?q=96+mpg+in+l%2F100km&ie=ut...](https://www.google.bg/search?q=96+mpg+in+l%2F100km&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-
US:official&client=firefox-a&channel=fflb)

96 miles per gallon = 2.45015191 l/100km

~~~
nicolasp
They're UK gallons, so it's actually 2.94 L per 100 km.

