84 mpg Car $6800

[unnamedny]

Lean, Green 84 MPG Machine Planned for 2014

They are "supposedly" starting a production of this in 18 months, already accepting deposits. Do you think it's a cool idea to put a roof over tricycle?

 

[Bob Maxey]

Lean, Green 84 MPG Machine Planned for 2014

They are "supposedly" starting a production of this in 18 months, already accepting deposits. Do you think it's a cool idea to put a roof over tricycle?

Three wheels is certainly not new. And yes, putting a roof over the thing is a good idea. But it is still a motorcycle and there have been countless ideas just like this one. Some make it into production and many die as prototypes or concepts.

 

[Speed Daemon]

Oh joy! Another offspring of the Reliant Robin. (video)

 

[CliveBird]

That 'thing' looks so disgusting! However it is a good effort nevertheless, I would never like to have such a contraption however. I'd prefer a used hybrid as my second car (since I already have a pre owned cherokee) and favor the Prius as a much better option. Infact I have come across 5 fairly used ones from used car parts all which are within the 5 grand range.

 

[SiempreTuna]

That looks a lot like a bunch of other concepts that have come and gone over the last 20 years.

Plus, is 84MPG really the best we can do? Car companies simply aren't trying when it comes to improving gas mileage.

Compare how the top speed of an 'average' car compares with the land speed record - let's say somewhere around 120MPH versus 760-1000MPH, so around 10% of the record.

Then take a look at how the MOST efficient production cars compare with what the gas mileage record was 3 years ago: around 90MPG with .. 10,382MPG. That's less than 1% of the record.

So we have the technology, it's just not being applied. Think how transformative it would be if you cut global oil demand for transport by 50% (that's just going from less than 1% of the record to around 1.6%) - the oil price would drop, dependence on the foreign imports would drop, the reduction in price would reduce the power and influence of many dodgy regimes, most notably Russia and Iran ..

Plus, the not-so-insignificant impact on the enviroment. New York maybe not disappearing under water in 100 years time - little things like that

 

[dibblebill]

That looks a lot like a bunch of other concepts that have come and gone over the last 20 years.

Plus, is 84MPG really the best we can do? Car companies simply aren't trying when it comes to improving gas mileage.

Compare how the top speed of an 'average' car compares with the land speed record - let's say somewhere around 120MPH versus 760-1000MPH, so around 10% of the record.

Then take a look at how the MOST efficient production cars compare with what the gas mileage record was 3 years ago: around 90MPG with .. 10,382MPG. That's less than 1% of the record.

So we have the technology, it's just not being applied. Think how transformative it would be if you cut global oil demand for transport by 50% (that's just going from less than 1% of the record to around 1.6%) - the oil price would drop, dependence on the foreign imports would drop, the reduction in price would reduce the power and influence of many dodgy regimes, most notably Russia and Iran ..

Plus, the not-so-insignificant impact on the enviroment. New York maybe not disappearing under water in 100 years time - little things like that

Nobody ever mentions VW's 80mpg, 900 horsepower Porsche, or 300+mpg fuel efficient car.

 

[ZeroGeined]

That looks a lot like a bunch of other concepts that have come and gone over the last 20 years.

Plus, is 84MPG really the best we can do? Car companies simply aren't trying when it comes to improving gas mileage.

Compare how the top speed of an 'average' car compares with the land speed record - let's say somewhere around 120MPH versus 760-1000MPH, so around 10% of the record.

Then take a look at how the MOST efficient production cars compare with what the gas mileage record was 3 years ago: around 90MPG with .. 10,382MPG. That's less than 1% of the record.

So we have the technology, it's just not being applied. Think how transformative it would be if you cut global oil demand for transport by 50% (that's just going from less than 1% of the record to around 1.6%) - the oil price would drop, dependence on the foreign imports would drop, the reduction in price would reduce the power and influence of many dodgy regimes, most notably Russia and Iran ..

Plus, the not-so-insignificant impact on the enviroment. New York maybe not disappearing under water in 100 years time - little things like that

I have to break this down a bit. You're going to extremes here and using information in the wrong context.

First off, I can't trust people to be driving 90 mph down the interstate nearby, I really don't think going even half the speed of sound would really be that much better. Add into that the fact that it takes the equivalent of a supercharged Audi V8 to drive the fuel pump to these land speed record cars so I doubt it would play much into your second point regarding fuel efficiency. As an example, the Bugatti Veyron 16.4 can drive at a top speed of 267MPH, but at that rate it's drinking fuel at a rate of about 2 gallons per minute. Furthermore, at that speed the tires won't even last 15 minutes.
As for fuel economy, your 10k "production car" wasn't a production car. It was a purpose built vehicle for the Michelin Eco Run. The most fuel efficient vehicle for production is actually the Volkswagen XL1 with around 200MPG. It's also not all about the technology. Look into a driver named Wayne Gerdes. Pretty much the most fuel efficient driver in the world and inventor of hypermiling. Its about the drivers as well again.
To bring up the final point, cutting off the fuel will not and does not work. Much less actually cutting the DEMAND for oil. How could you pull that one off? Think of how many things today are actually made from oil. Fuel is just a small percentage. Any synthetic fiber that you wear, anything that you use that is made from plastic, 80% of the components in your computer is made from oil. The road that you drive on is made from oil. The point is that oil isn't simply turned into gasoline. All fuels derived from oil comprise about 35% of oil use. Cutting it in half will devastate the entire world economy. Prices would go through the roof. At that rate, anybody who simply can't afford to buy a brand new 200+MPG Volkswagen would be pretty much screwed because they could afford the $12+ per gallon cost for fuel. Imagine your electric bill for your nearby coal burning power plant. Sure, there's alternatives. Nuclear, hydroelectric, but what about the cost to build that? All those construction vehicles? Fueled by gasoline and diesel.

 

[SiempreTuna]

First off, I can't trust people to be driving 90 mph down the interstate nearby, I really don't think going even half the speed of sound would really be that much better

Definitely not .. nothing to do with my argument above, of course

As for fuel economy, your 10k "production car" wasn't a production car. It was a purpose built vehicle for the Michelin Eco Run.

Err .. I never said it was: my point was the relative performance of a standard vehicles versus extreme vehicles designed for speed and for fuel economy. I was showing that, despite the technologies being available, standard vehicle performance is WAY closer to the speed extreme than to the fuel efficiency exteme.

To bring up the final point, cutting off the fuel will not and does not work. Much less actually cutting the DEMAND for oil. How could you pull that one off?

Err .. by using oil more efficiently

Think of how many things today are actually made from oil. Fuel is just a small percentage.

I wouldn't call 35% small ..

Plus, the part of oil used to produce gasoline / diesel is different to that used for the bulk of other oil products - largely because, these products were created to use the by-products of transport fuel production, i.e. the rest of the oil.

Cutting [oil demand] in half will devastate the entire world economy. Prices would go through the roof .. afford the $12+ per gallon cost for fuel

If you cut demand for anything - including oil - it results in a downward pressure on prices. It's simple demand and supply. If you cut gasoline / diesel demand by 50%, prices would drop toward $1 per gallon not rise toward $12.

The fact that you'd still be extracting oil for all the other oil products would actually increase the downward pressure on gas/diesel prices (in the short to medium term) as you would still be extracting parts of the oil used for gas/diesel production despite not having a market for them. In the longer term, these parts of the oil would most likely be used in place of other parts, however that would lead to an overall reduction in demand for - and hence, the price of - oil.

Also, any fall in demand (and consequently, price) for oil would be great for the global economy: history shows that cutting fuel prices has an extraordinarily positive effect. There's an argument that the 90s boom was largely due to the low, low oil prices produced by the 10 year deal between Bush I and the Saudis following the first Gulf war.

The Saudis increased production from around 5,000 barrels/day to around 9,000 barrels/day and oil prices fell from around $70/barrel to around $25/barrel. In demand and supply terms, increasing production has precisely the same effect as reducing demand.