
The most fuel efficient car ever built: 2072 miles with 1 liter of fuel - mtgred
http://www.camarocarplace.com/fuel-efficient-car-ever-built/
======
papa_bear
Very cool car, very poor quality article. It reads like it was written by a
syndication algorithm that throws in weirdly subjective statements at the end
of every paragraph.

Here's a slightly better one with a video:
[http://wonderfulengineering.com/new-car-designed-by-
french-s...](http://wonderfulengineering.com/new-car-designed-by-french-
students-can-do-2072-miles-on-a-single-litre-of-fuel/)

~~~
001sky
Ha. Its not even a car - it's a tricycle[1] ! The distinctin may sound
pedantic but legally speaking they are quite distinct: _It’s lack of a four
wheel, and low production volume, exempt the Morgan from most safety and
emissions regulations._ At least in the US...Quite Ironic.

[1] see, eg> [http://www.digitaltrends.com/cars/morgan-three-wheeler-is-
it...](http://www.digitaltrends.com/cars/morgan-three-wheeler-is-it-a-car-or-
a-tricycle/)

~~~
corin_
There may be legal differences between types of car, but I don't see why three
wheels should make it "not even a car".

For example in the UK we had a mass-market three wheeler called the Reliant
Robin, which was culturally considered to absolutely be a car (albeit a car
worthy of having jokes made about it).
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reliant_Robin](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reliant_Robin)

~~~
001sky
From your citation:

 _It is markedly different from most mainstream cars due to its fibreglass
bodyshell and compact three-wheeled platform which allow it a special taxation
and licensing class under British regulations._

Also, the Morgan I linked to is British and is very capable--far more so--as a
piece of engineering.

My guess is that three-wheel regulations were originally set up for motor-
cycles with side-car. These evolved a seperate lineage of both engineering and
regulation. For modern examples, see: Can-Am Spyder.

~~~
corin_
My point is that culturally they can be considered cars, if they look like
cars and function like cars. I'd argue that they _are_ cars, even if they get
taxed differently than most cars.

~~~
001sky
Fair enough, but in the linked article the example would not meet even your
test of "Look like cars and function like cars"...because the thing is
basically a luge-position with an aero-fairing. This was the starting point of
my comment--its not a "car" really in any sense--because it fails the
technical/legal/regulatory (not obvious) in addition to the practical/function
(more obvious).

------
adwn
A nice engineering project, sure. But it has nothing to do with cars. They
only thing that their results show is that you can get vastly different
results for vastly different constraints and requirements.

~~~
onion2k
It does have something to do with cars - it shows that if we changed our
requirements we could be driving much more efficient cars. Even if safety and
comfort meant than we could only get 1/10th of the demonstration, that'd still
be a good deal better than what we have now.

~~~
jerf
You need to drop a lot of the safety, grossly raise the price, or both though.

I've got some family in the auto industry, and their consensus is that we are
either really rapidly coming up on the point where we've got just about all
the safety _and_ fuel economy we can have without sacrificing safety, or we're
already there. You're getting into the space where arguing for increased fuel
economy is going to be directly arguing for killing more people. You may find
this a tough sell. Especially since telling the automakers to "make less safe
cars" is also going to have to come with an ironclad guarantee that _when_
people die in these cars, the car companies won't be sued. And getting that
law passed is going to be a tough sell, too, for a lot of reasons. The safety
advocates aren't exactly going to stand passively by while you try to tear
their stuff apart.

Basically, you can't have it all. Not even if you pass a law saying that you
have to have it all.

And while we're at it, let us also not forget that "grossly raise the price"
also is not something you can just wave into being. The Democrats can hardly
try to make "inequality" into a major issue, then do something that
unambiguously makes cars much more expensive for everybody.

~~~
onion2k
I don't have any family with a vested interested so perhaps I can be more
impartial. ;) There is a very straightforward way to make cars both more
efficient and safer - make them smaller and lighter. Then they'll require less
energy to move around and they'll have less energy if they hit things.

The challenge to overcome is that driving a small and light car is actually
more dangerous while big and heavy cars are still on the road. So we have to
get rid of them. That's actually very easy too - ramp up taxes on fuel to the
point where people actually give a damn.

It's what we're doing here in Europe, and the proliferation of small, light
cars is very noticeable.

~~~
jerf
I don't have a vested interest either; I don't work in the industry myself.
What I have is a bit of a view into just how far down the road we are on the
engineering tradeoffs already.

Small and light cars aren't a miracle cure anyhow. It's amazing how small the
gains are from shrinking a car. Yes, there are gains, but we're not talking
taking a 40mpg sedan (in routine manufacturing now, BTW) and turning it into
an 80mpg sedan "just by shrinking it a bit". You might get it down to 50mpg,
but, per other articles observing that "mpg" is the wrong way to view it and
"gallons per mile" starts making more sense, a 40 to 50 mpg gain is not
actually _that_ large.

No, the environment can't be saved just by "making cars smaller". You don't
win anywhere near as much as you think, because of the way drag works (it's
nonlinear in speed). And you can't just start taking panels off and stripping
out airbags.

From what I gather, having trimmed just about everything they can from the
spare tire, they're on the verge of dropping it off entirely. That's the level
of optimization we're down to. There isn't much left after that. The seats are
what they are due to safety regulations. The airbags are there because of
safety regulations. The bumpers are there due to safety regulations. The body
panels are what they are due to safety regulations and the need to survive a
certain number of years out in the elements. There's just not much freedom in
car design anymore.

My family doesn't include designers in them, but they relayed the designer's
complaints to me that the constraints are becoming so strong that it's
becoming very difficult to differentiate between cars anymore. If it feels
like they all look the same lately, excepting perhaps the exact location or
shape of the lights, it's because they do look the same; the combination of
safety and efficiency regulations is rapidly converging down to one solution
for a given form factor. Again... this is the sign of an optimization process
reaching its Pareto frontier, and that you can't get big gains anymore without
big sacrifices somewhere else.

You can look out in the world and see that last bit of evidence yourself,
without anyone in the automotive industry. It's the same systems optimization
problem faced by any engineer, even programmers.

------
nileshtrivedi
Here are the detailed results of the contest (and yes, the original results
are in km/l): [http://s08.static-shell.com/content/dam/shell-
new/local/corp...](http://s08.static-shell.com/content/dam/shell-
new/local/corporate/ecomarathon/downloads/pdf/europe/2014-results/sem-
europe-2014-results-prototype-gasoline-220514.pdf)

~~~
utopkara
There are more than ten contestants who beat 1000 km/l. That's a lot of
contestants ignored by an article about a research contest.

Without getting into a long argument about how science and collaboration
works, narrow sighted articles that cover events like this do a lot of damage.

~~~
chrismcb
To be honest with you, even the second place was not even close to this car.
In all seriousness though, the top car beat the 2nd place vehicle by 50%.
While the other vehicles were impressive (even the last place one achieved
200+ mpg) this one was much more impressive than all the rest (yes it is!) I'm
not sure what damage you think this article is going to do.

------
vaadu
Calling it a car does not make it a car. 3 wheels and space for one passenger
makes it closer to a Can-Am Spyder Motorcycle.

~~~
sigzero
I'd give them 'vehicle'...not 'car'.

------
stinos
Amazing. Anyone has an idea what kind of bearings used in the wheels? The _if
you would spin its wheel, it would not stop spinning for almost 2 miles_ ,
whatever that actually means, makes it sound like they are something special.

Also somewhat funny how such competitions are usually sponsored by fossil fuel
companies. It's like they are preparing for the future with a business model
idea like 'so, within x years there's going to be not enough fuel for the
cars. Prices will skyrocket. Hmm, better make some cars that don't use a lot
of fuel so we can stretch it to the fullest'. Perfectly understandable from an
economic point of view, but would't research into alternative, cleaner
mobility a better solution for _everyone_ in the long run?

~~~
Loughla
Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't moving the same distance using less fuel
cleaner?

~~~
saalweachter
It's probably better than where we are (assuming, as someone else pointed out,
emissions standards aren't reduced).

I think the point being made was more about local minimums versus global. The
most optimized ICE car possible will be impressive, but the emissions will
never beat electric (assuming clean electric sources, obviously), and the
rolling resistance will probably never beat trains or canals (which are of
course only useful for arterials, and possibly only freight).

------
ohwp
Project page: [http://www.la-joliverie.com/projets-
pedagogiques/microjoule-...](http://www.la-joliverie.com/projets-
pedagogiques/microjoule-cityjoule/)

Wikipedia entry:
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microjoule_%28vehicle%29](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microjoule_%28vehicle%29)

------
jofinjo
I am wondering how far is this from getting to mainstream city cars! I would
be happy with a 100 miles per litre!

~~~
arethuza
The VW I mention in another comment has the goal:

"The 1-litre car was designed to be able to travel 100 km on 1 litre of diesel
fuel (280 mpg-imp; 240 mpg-US), while being both roadworthy and practical."

Edit: I do find it amusing that VW Group make the super efficient XL1 as well
as Bentleys, Lamborghinis and Bugattis.

~~~
dpcx
There are those that prefer form over function. There are others that don't.

------
kopparam
This is pretty cool. But at what speed did the car travel that many miles?

~~~
larrydag
These types of articles gloss over what the researchers are trying to perform.
To say its a "car" is an exaggeration. They are basically piston engine
prototype vehicles. They are testing the limits of piston engine fuel
efficiency and that is their main and only objective.

The driving strategy is very different to normal car driving. They do a lot of
pulse throttle acceleration where they tap the gas and then coast for as long
as possible. They also drive very, very slowly to minimize wind resistance.
The idea is to test conditions to optimize fuel efficiency and not for
practical every day driving.

That said there is a lot of benefit to the research. They are testing which
conditions work best for fuel efficiency in all sorts of designs from engine
performance to vehicle body.

Here is a great site to look at DIY improvements to help with fuel efficiency.
[http://www.ecomodder.com](http://www.ecomodder.com)

------
jacquesm
This one has always intrigued me, especially the modifications done to get it
to perform that well:

[http://www.59fiattestcar.com/](http://www.59fiattestcar.com/)

------
codehero
I don't understand where the 2072 mile figure came from. The Shell competition
was only 16km. And why describe fuel economy in miles per liter?

~~~
easytiger
> And why describe fuel economy in miles per liter?

err, why not?

~~~
nixy
The most common fuel efficiency ratios are expressed either in miles per
gallon or kilometers per liter (or liters per 100 km). Mixing imperial and
metric units is pretty unusual.

~~~
easytiger
In the UK road distances are almost entirely expressed in Miles, including all
road signage. Fuel is sold by the liter.

------
rlpb
I wonder what the maintenance efficiency of this car is.

~~~
Shivetya
Your too generous, its not a car. It is a rolling science project, a trike,
something no one could drive to work or play.

I want to see work done with existing vehicles, full safety and comfort
features, where through inexpensive aerodynamic changes and propulsion tricks
improve on what manufacturers offer now.

~~~
Jach
Thanks for posting this. My own first thoughts on seeing the project were:
looks like a soapbox racer (and I laughed watching a video where they gave it
a manual push down a slope to get it going), does France not have speed bumps
or steep driveways or road litter, what's its top speed, and how survivable is
a collision? This competition is just pure PR for Shell and other companies,
engineering constraints for an actual car don't seem to matter. (I'm sure the
students enjoy it and learn a lot though.)

~~~
hcho
Speed bumps would be prohibitive for F1 too. Yet, many technologies perfected
in F1 made their ways into every day cars.

This is a race car. The purpose of the race is not to be the fastest but to
consume the least amount of petrol.

