One common trope amongst people interested in energy efficiency is that the modern car is a terribly inefficient device, using 1500 kilograms of metal to move roughly 75 kilograms of human. It sounds like such a waste, doesn’t it? Surely we can make lighter-bodied cars with modern technology, right? The lighter bodies would require smaller, lighter, engines to push them around. Lighter brakes, lighter suspension…and a positive feedback loop would leave us cars that we can pick up and carry into a parking space if necessary. That’s the key idea of the Hypercar concept that’s been pushed by Amory Lovins of the Rocky Mountain Institute for many a year now.
However, actual Hypercars, or anything approximating them, have been rather scarce on the ground. There’s good reason for that. For one thing, the whole concept is predicated on the use of lightweight composite materials - the carbon fibre that’s proliferating in high-end tennis racquets, bicycles and the like. But as anybody who’s bought such composite-laden gadgets knows, they’re really, really expensive. But we may see some actual running, production-viable prototypes over the next few years.
On one side, there are a number of entries in the Automotive X Prize, a competition to build a practical vehicle that gets, in that charmingly anachronistic American way, 100 miles to the US gallon. For instance, there’s the Aptera, a two-seater plug-in hybrid. But the Aptera isn’t a car in one very important way, perhaps an even bigger barrier than costs. It’s not required to meet the crash testing standards of a conventional vehicle, because it’s being registered as a motorcycle under California law. And that’s the big catch - we might be able to build vehicles that weigh little more than a motorcycle, but the question is whether a registerable vehicle can be built like that.
And that’s why Terrfugia is interesting. They’re not trying to build anything easy like a super-economical road car. No, they’re trying something even more insanely ambitious than that. They want to build a flying car - or, as they put it, a driveable aeroplane.
Their plan relies on a big change in American civil aviation laws that occurred a few years ago - the introduction of the “Light Sport Aircraft” category. Basically, certifying a new aircraft design - even a little one - is horrendously expensive. Certifying engines is similarly so. So the small aircraft market was virtually stagnant for 30 years. Any innovation, such as it was, came through a loophole allowing aspiring pilots to build their own aircraft from kits. Then the new LSA rules came along. Essentially, if an aircraft has a maximum takeoff weight (including fuel, passengers, and luggage) less than 600 kilograms, flies slower than 120 knots, and carries only two people, the rules on aircraft certification are much more relaxed; as well, the amount and cost of the training required to fly them is reduced. Combined with low running costs, there’s been a mini-boom in these little aircraft.
But the perhaps the most interesting things about this development is the implications of the combination of the regulations that they’re going to have to meet. Given that they’re promising 250 kilograms of useful load, their vehicle can weigh only 350 kilograms “dry”. That’s half the weight of a Mercedes Smart. Heck, it’s the same as a Goggomobil Dart. And, despite carting around what must be 100-odd kilograms of folding wings, tailplane, propeller, and whatnot, they’re claiming that they can build something that can meet American car crash test standards. While it’s important to note that Terrafugia hasn’t even produced a flyable prototype yet, let alone begun the process of regulatory approvals for their vehicle. But this appears to be a really serious, credible attempt, with an actual staff and budget behind it.
Even if they do succeed, it may not mean that it’ll be possible to strip the wings off and start churning out 250 kilogram Hypercars by the thousands. It may just be that they do so by using materials and manufacturing techniques that aren’t suitable for mass production at a reasonable cost. But costs have a funny way of coming down over time, if often slower than we might like. And, so, it may just be that the Hypercar comes from the air, not from the ground.
Oh, and in case it isn’t completely obvious - I want one 
Carbon fibre in bicycles over the last 10 years has had a very interesting progression. It started out as hyper expensive stuff on $10,000+ bicycles, now you can’t buy a $1,500 bike without at least a carbon fibre front fork and it threatens to replace aluminium completely in any bike around the $3k mark. Even places where you think it wouldn’t work (cranks), carbon fibre is now common place.
I think it’s only half the story though. Without sophisticated (and now very cheap) computer modelling, the material itself isn’t very useful. The progress of computer aided materials analysis has the potential to give us a safe, 250kg car. It’s only a matter of time and demand.
Robert, that looks like possibly the coolest way to get yourself killed I can possibly think of.
I’m going out now to the auctions to get myself a postie bike and I’m going to strap a big box kite around the outside. Stanwell Tops here we come.
Robert Merkel:
If you want to award prizes for innovation prevention …. try the bureaucratic nonsense that demanded that an ultralight seaplane [constructed and operated in accord with the very tough standards of the Australian Ultralight Federation] was required - until sanity eventually prevailed - to carry the safety gear of a motor launch in addition to the normal safety of such an aircraft.
Sorry mate, you can’t take enough fuel to make a safe flight - you’ve got to take this whopping big Danforth anchor and the legal amount of heavy chain instead.
It is far more likely that human stupidity and fear of the unusual, not technical limits, will hinder the development of innovative forms of transport.
I definitely think that the ‘Hypercar’ concept has to be the way of the future for better efficiency in automobiles. But, I don’t see how a 250 kg car could ever adequately protect its cargo (like a driver and a passenger) in a collision with an SUV… I think that point about Aptera meeting the crash requirements of a motorcycle says a lot about what to expect in terms of safety. Let’s get the ‘Toorak Tanks’ off the road first.
Jeez, (as I said a year or so ago on Surfdom when this thing- or something like it- was first reported), the track record of the common automobile is so grouse with regard to safety and death ‘n stuff, I just can’t wait till people are buzzing around in flying cars - what could possibly go wrong???!?
Needed. Like a hole in the head.
Helen: there’s no intrinsic reason why this thing is any more dangerous than your average ultralight aircraft. Probably much safer, in fact, because it’s fitted with a ballistic recovery chute and is going to have to be a lot more robust to meet car crash safety standards.
But if it’s not safe enough for you, don’t get in one. Ultralights can’t legally be flown over populated areas, so the odds of one dropping on your house are minimal.
I was thinking of a scenario in which they become as ubiquitous as, you know, cars.
Helen, I think safety ‘n’ death ‘n’ stuff takes a very very poor second to awesomeness when it comes to affordable flying cars. If thinning out of the gene pool is the necessary evil to a Bladerunner cityscape, sign me up for one (and the organ donor programme).
That’s pretty unlikely any time soon. Getting a pilot’s licence - even for an ultralight aircraft - takes a lot of time and around $3000. Furthermore, this thing is projected to cost $150,000 (probably make it $200,000 by the time they finish), and can’t be flown at night, in bad weather, or over populated areas. And, if it’s anything like every other ultralight I’ve seen, the cabin will be cramped, noisy, and uncomfortable. They’ll very much be a niche product.
I suppose my real point was that if you can build something like this, you can also build a non-flying super-light car.
And, what Liam said. Within at least this adult male is the pre-pubescent boy who took his skateboard to the top of the steepest hill he could find to see how fast he could go on the way down…
Presumably being so light such a plane would be very fuel economic compared to current airplanes. However, we know that planes use far more fuel than cars to move similar numbers of people. Do we have any idea how many l/100k (or miles/gallon) this thing would use - would it actually stack up well compared to a 4WD on a trip between big cities for example?
But seriously… if the market demands a car that’s as fuel-efficient as a motorbike, as light as a motorbike, and conforms to the safety regulations of a motorbike, I really think what the market demands is a motorbike.
I’ve been seeing stacks of these around the Sydney inner west. They really look the goods, cost not much to run, go like the clappers, and weigh less than some of my friends.
One of the early comments on the terrafugia website says it all:
“To drive this light weight structure on a road would make it’s airframe shot after it hit one good pot hole.”
It wouldn’t take very long for the vehicle to be unairworthy and nothing more than an impractically cramped inner-city runabout.
It’s projected to get about 8.5 liters per 100 kilometres in the air - around 27mpg. Not super economical, but much better than a Toyota Landcruiser.
But then, it’s using a standard engine for this type of plane, a Rotax 912. Simple, reasonably reliable, but not that fuel efficient. Fuel injection would probably improve the consumption by 20% or more.
This proposal, luckily, seems to have been still-born.
Liam wrote:
…suggesting that the little Honda motorcycle isn’t really a useful device for a large (heh heh) part of the population. Seriously, at that level, a bicycle is competition and just as inappropriate. Not everybody is fit enough to ride a motorcycle.
Well of course not DR, and you can hardly do a week’s shopping on one. But if a significant number of people swapped their two-wheel drives for one-wheel drives for necessary commuting it’d make a big difference to traffic and put smiles on a lot of faces.
I’ve got nothing against pushbikes, either. Transportation should be joyful: hence my appetite for flying cars, etc. etc.
Liam wrote:
I’d like to see a really good breakdown of the usage statistics before I made that assertion. When we lived in Sydney, a lot of the morning traffic that ends up with single occupants at the city starts out with multiple little occupants on their way to school/day care in the suburbs. Hard to do with motorcycles. I’d also contend that a big chunk of the population that are basically dangerous behind the wheel would become dangers to themselves on a bike of either variety. They aren’t colloquially called “cages” for nothing. I also think Helen makes a valid point about flying cars - there is no way that the boneheads I see every day on a bicycle in regional Australia should ever be pilots. Their spatial awareness is so poor in two dimensions that adding a third would be catastrophic. You couldn’t put enough satellites in orbit to transmit all the “worlds worst driver” footage. When a sizeable chunk of your population can’t follow the simple rules of a round-a-bout, letting them fly doesn’t seem like much of a solution.
I’m thinking milk crates and octopus straps. That, or making the little shits walk, which is how I remember going to school.
I agree. By getting idiots out from behind their airbags and seatbelts you’d be turning a public safety menace into a purely individualised evolutionary pressure.
Sod it! Bring back hayburners. You can eat them when they’re clapped out and in the meantime, they’ll make plenty of compost for the vegies.
Liam wrote:
Mmm. Me too. My offspring walk to school now, but I’m not kidding myself that would be the case if we still lived in Sydney. Anybody who is paying school fees (that that’s a lot of people in Sydney trying to avoid their local school) is not going to make their child walk the 10-20km every day. Sure, they wouldn’t be obese any more, but the ever present spectre of Milton Orkopoulos weighs heavily on the Sydney mum mind.
If we could get the feds to subsidise the milk crates and occy straps, we might have something.
I’m up for that Jane. But only if I get to ride around with a cavalry sabre, a pair of carbines, a six-shooter hidden under my poncho, my black hat over my face and an unlit cheroot in my scowling mouth.
E-tag? I ain’t got no stinkin’ e-tag.
OMG PONIES!
No way. Horses are evil.
Terangeree [15]:
Hey, fair crack of the whip! Nothing wrong with vectored thrust machines - in the right [= properly trained] hands.
David Rubie [16]:
Not keen on motorbikes - but there’s nothing wrong with sitting in a similar way out in the open on an ultralight aircraft …. though I’m hard-pressed to imagine a Drifter, in terrestial mode, slipping into a tight parking-place at a supermarket.
Oh and by the way, why do we seem to be looking only at hydrocarbon-burning reciprocating engines …. Gottlieb Daimler has been dead a l-o-n-g time now.
Everyone:
The easiest way to convert a flying machine into a horseless carriage - and back again - would be to go for a gyroplane/autogyro. Lot safer too. Definitely simpler and cheaper. Go on, be a devil, drive one today!
[[David Rubie: sorry, that bit about reciprocation engines was intended for Everyone; not picking on you. Naughty drag-&-drop!]]
Graeme: As I understand it, the reciprocating engine has a lot of advantages over just about every other alternative, that are even more important for airborne applications than automotive.
The key one is the energy density of the fuel, and the compromise between power density, efficiency, and cost of the engine. Batteries simply aren’t in the ballpark. Turbine engines kick arse on power density - check out this 2 kilogram, 9 horsepower turboprop. That’s why virtually all helicopters use them. However, they’re much less efficient than reciprocating engines, and the comparison gets worse and worse as the engines get smaller.
From what I’ve read, the only viable near-term alternative for small aircraft is the diesel engine, where the even better fuel efficiency is attractive - even if the engine is heavier, the fuel might be lighter.
That said, general aviation engine design is really conservative/bloody primitive. Very few aircraft engines use fuel injection, for instance. They’d prefer to have a carburettor and use 25% more fuel…
Robert Merkel wrote:
I think it’s a safety thing - de-icing a carb is a well known and long solved problem, and while doing the same thing to an air flow meter is probably very similar, it isn’t exactly the same.
Graham - not to worry. I’m a bit of a fan of the reciprocating engine though - pretty clearly superior to what came before it, and the replacements all mooted so far have been duds or scale poorly as Robert said.
Robert Merkel and David Rubie;
Was thinking of a hybrid system - with solar-battery/electric for cruise.
Wow!! I want a Wren turbine for Christmas!
Trouble is, wonder how your average driver would handle turbine lag on late final?
Cannot understand conservatism in aircraft manufacture …. Ligeti Stratos, for a start. Though the Eagle, the Seabird Seeker and Slepcev Storch did get into production.
Yeah you can. If you’re single and cultivate a taste for food that doesn’t leak, break or soak up water like a sponge anyway. Toasted cheese on slightly distorted bread, with tomato ketchup from a plastic squeeze bottle and a topping of baked beans makes a perfectly adequate diet.
Seriously though, there are now an awful lot of scooters available with excellent performance and economy, combined with enough stowage for a briefcase, overnight bag or a bit of shopping (not a weeks worth though).
Powered two wheelers aren’t the answer for everyone, but should certainly be considered as a legitimate component of the transport mix. And they’re fun.
As for the original post, I think the development of the flying car shows great promise. Not so much the flying bit, which I don’t believe will ever be truly practical, but the lightweight vehicle providing an acceptable degree of crash protection.
Mind you, the technology already exists to some extent. An F1 racing car weighs not much more than half of anything on the road and yet can protect its occupant in the most appalling impacts. To do so it relies on a number of features and materials that are not practical or economic for mass production or use. Some of those will remain the preserve of the racetrack (eg, five point racing harnesses that take several minutes and an assistant to put on and adjust), but others, such as advanced composite materials, will become more common and cheaper as mass manufacturing techniques to utilise them are developed.
Using technology that exists now, it should be entirely possible to build a practical, two seater sedan along the lines of a Smart, that weighs about half as much (and so uses commensurately less fuel) and yet provides similar levels of performance and occupant protection. However, using current manufacturing techniques it can’t be done at a cost that anyone would be able to afford.
The most interesting thing I got from the post was the Aptera, which seems actually close enough to production that they’re taking real money. USD29000 for a two seater is a joke of course, however they do look interesting and certainly are fuel efficient.
Of course, if you want a motorcycle that provides some occupant protection, both from crashes and from the weather, such a device has existed. Google BMW C1.
It wasn’t a perfect device. Performance was a bit lacking for anywhere but urban environments and, of course, it was only a single seater. However it showed some promise and, given a bit more go and availability in Australia, I’d have bought one, even without the exemption from crash helmet requirements that it got from some European governents.
Sadly, it appears that not enough people did buy it as it’s no longer in production, but it does indicate that the concept is quite plausible and achievable.
Standard equipment, Liam. Squint and 3-day-stubble, optional extras.
The Intellectual Bogan [29]:
No, not quite. Used to own a normal Hillman fitted with 4-point harness [made by Irvin, the parachute makers]. Very cheap: put on and taken off in an instant: very safe. Downside was that in an accident, your tie could get crushed. There was room for minor improvements to meet today’s requirements - but otherwise still excellent. Bet there are a lot more examples of inexpensive but very effective things that could be used too.
“But only if I get to ride around with a cavalry sabre, a pair of carbines, a six-shooter hidden under my poncho, my black hat over my face and an unlit cheroot in my scowling mouth.”
(To Say Nothing of the Parrot)
Now this is the way to go. Imagine rush hour with all the commuters wheeling around in the sunset like fruit bats heading backing to their mango trees. And squawking away like fruit bats on their mobiles too.
As I have done a lot of research on this topic I did write a comment to this blog but I hit a wrong button somewhere and it disappeared. Too much work to do it all again. However, I came across a websight some time ago that is partially on topic in the broader sense, a site that has a lot of interesting research components.
http://jnaudin.free.fr/
I’ve seen those C1s, intellectual bogan. For BMWs they weren’t even that fugly, unlike the K bikes from the 80s which are enough to make you stab yourself in the eyes.
My ideal runabout of course would be a BMW R60 with a sidecar to carry significant other, shopping, and a forward-mounted MG3 with a few belts of ammunition.
I suppose a Smart car with a frickin’ laser beam attached to its roofrack would suffice.
In that case, Liam, you may wish to consider one of these .
I pick mine (or rather Mrs Bogan’s) up next month.
Yes, IB, I’ve seen the site before. That’d be pretty awesome, and it’s a shame the coupled-drive version isn’t going to be licenced for road use in Australia. I don’t think I’d be able to resist spray-painting a big red star on the sidecar if I had one.
I look forward to hearing about how it goes.
BilB [35]:
Interesting concept.
The Intellectual Bogan [37]:
Looks really good …. however, would handling a bike AND sidecar take a similar level of skill as flying a microlight?
Everyone:
Slightly off-topic - think about various modern dirigible airship designs. No, no, before you freak out and scream out “Hindenberg”!! just think about solar-powered flying wings filled with safe efficient …. hydrogen, hybrid airships and all sorts of other fascinating concepts. Although they would be terrific for moving goods, people and bulky light awkward loads over difficult terrain, most wouldn’t really be in the running as urban people-movers.
Graham Bell: George Monbiot was speculating about blimps quite recently in the Guardian.
There have been a number of proposals floating round (pardon the pun) to use really big airships as military cargo lifters. However, they’ve pretty much all stalled at the design study phase.