I’m anything but a rev head, but I was interested in information on a couple of new cars that John D sent me.
I’m not sure what the category “supercar” means, but I gather it is a very expensive, high-performance car that would set you back a couple of hundred grand.
First there is this little beauty from Porsche.
Just unwrapped at Geneva is this extraordinary Porsche 918 Spyder concept car, a mid-engined two-seater combining supercar performance with just 70 grams CO2 per kilometre emissions and a fuel consumption of 3.0 litres/100 kilometres (94 mpg imp). Under those curvaceous lines hides a 500 bhp V8 plus three electric motors totalling 215 bhp offering a wickedly fast 0-100 km/h time of 3.2 seconds, a top speed of 320 km/h (198 mph) and it’s already done a lap of the Nordschleife Nurburgring circuit under 7:30 minutes, which is faster than even the Porsche Carrera GT. Buyers will be queued up around the block if (or more likely, when) this goes into production. (Emphasis added)
And it’s seriously sexy hybrid!
Even more interesting is the Revenge Verde:
The mid-engined Verde offers three drive chain and power train options, including an HP2g V8 engine that runs on E-85 ethanol fuel and produces 400hp, goes from 0-60mph in 3.5 seconds with a top speed of 200mph+, while achieving an amazing 100mpg.
So even lower consumption, only slightly less acceleration, and 100% biofuel. You need to watch the video in the link.
The car designer is an Australian who made good in the US of A who describes the extensive use made of lightweight materials. The engine has an electric motor within it, so is “true hybrid”. The 8 cylinder motor can tick over on just one cylinder.
This mob are planning to use the supercar to bed down the concept and are later heading for the passenger market, SUVs and trucks. I assume they will have a straight fuel option down the track, rather than just ethanol.
Technologically these cars seem streets ahead of the Tata Nano which Robert posted about a couple of years ago.
What potential the technologies in the Verde Revenge and the Porsche have in the mass market I wouldn’t know, but to state the bleeding obvious, the future will be different from the past.
Brian,
There is a long, long history of technology from the supercars moving into the mass market. If anything would interest me in buying a hybrid (when a normal diesel would currently be better at saving fuel) then this sort of thing would.
Given the near-impossibility of importing “normal” supercars into Australia, I would be interested to see the reaction if someone tried to import one of these.
What is the point of having a car that can go 320 kph?
I don’t think 320 km/h cars were ever going to be part of my future but I do think plug in hybrids are at least part of the medium term future because they don’t require charging infrastructure, have at least the same range as a normal car. They can also give reductions in petrol consumption of over 80% fro normal urban driving patterns so long as the battery has sufficient storage to cover the daily commute. The big advantage of the super cars is that they have the potential to create attention and dispel the idea that plug in hybrid has to be boring, boring, boring.
Narrow track cars look like a better starter for our growing cities. Apart from the potential to have very low fuel consumption, they are narrow enough to travel two abreast on a single lane so there is the potential there to double a road’s carrying capacity.
Certainly, these sound like the fastest “golf carts” in history.
If the ethanol could be produced from waste biomass (putrescible waste at landfills, sewage etc) or other waste at industrial scale and the technology applied to mass-produced commuter and mass transit vehicles then this would be a particularly impressive step forward. Likewise if the grid sources were also near zero, again, a fabulous step forward all round.
I’m still very much in favour of getting people out of personal transport (especially during peaks) and onto mass transit of course. It’s far safer per passenger mile and of course it frees up roads for those for whom mass transit is not really feasible.
The trouble with ethanol (or any biofuel) is that we can’t really make enough of it to really make a difference – even assuming you can synthesize it from random biomass, there isn’t nearly as much surplus biomass lying around as we’d need. Economical biofuel from algae seems to be the nuclear fusion of the clean energy world, too.
As for narrow track cars, there’s two big concerns: meeting safety regulations, and the critical mass of vehicles required to make them useful.
Silkworm, did you ever want to go higher and higher on the swings at primary school? Like to ride your BMX to the top of the steepest hill you could find and go down as fast as you can? Supercars, aside from serving as very visible totems of financial status, are how fiftysomething businesspeople and sports stars indulge that same need for thrills.
Robert,
My guess is that silkworm has never driven a car at speeds in excess of 200km/h.
.
That said, the point of cars that can do over 300km/h is not that you are expecting to drive them at that speed on a regular basis, but that they are so much better at doing 110km/h than a car that can only do 120km/h. At 110 in a Mercedes, for example, you are a lot safer than you are at 110km/h in a Kia – or a Prius for that matter.
Fran: Most Australians would, quite rightly feel that their quality of life would be diminished if they no longer had access to cars. Walking in the rain and the dark from bus to destination is not everyone’s idea of fun. Then there is standing up for yonks in a crowded bus etc. So there is a lot to be said for putting the effort into very fuel efficient cars that can drive side by side in a single lane. Forcing everyone onto public transport even when it is not appropriate just adds to the skeptics scare campaign.
Robert: Nissan Tilt Car would be a lot safer than a motor bike. There is no reason why it could not be designed to meet Australian safety standards.
There is a lot of effort going into the use of sensors and automatic controls to reduce the number of accidents. If you like, changing the emphasis from accident survival to accident avoidance. Narrow track vehicles should be better at avoiding accidents. The stats I have seen in the past indicate that small cars have fewer accidents.
If you want a green super sports car, in my view it’s hard to go past the Tesla Motors roadster.
It’s fully electric vehicle that will do 1-60 MPH (0-100 Kph) in 3.9 seconds (which is quick enough to walk pretty-much anything else on the road) and pumps-out a max of 215 Kw at just over 5000rpm with a real flat torque curve. It’s electric motor red-lines at an incredible 14,000rpm and it has a 236 mile range on a full charge.
To re-charge, you just plug it into a 240 volt (in the US 110) wall socket and, depending on which recharging unit you buy with the car, it can re-charge in a couple of hours.
Not bad, not bad at all.
It seems it’s pretty much the green rev-heads’ dream car: You can now lay rubber and protect the environment at the same time.
http://www.teslamotors.com/
John D, the majority of the population of NYC don’t seem to mind it. Regardless, there’s not going to be one solution to our transport needs. Obviously those parts of Australia where population density justifies it should have better, more reliable public transport. Currently efficiency design finds a market in the commuter car, which when population densities increase should be replaced by public transport.
What this raises, and the article highlights, is how little attention is focused on the market that most NEEDS a vehicle. I’ve spent my weekend trying to explore my options for a new vehicle for work. It needs to be a 4WD [genuine off-road driving], a ute, and a dual cab, to accommodate a work team, the lack of innovation in this market is pretty astonishing, given it’s the part of the car market that is shrinking the least.
St Furious, my current vehicle is a Ford Courier (actually a rebadged Mazda Bravo, but hey!), and the 4wd dual-cab models aren’t too bad off-road. They’ve got reasonable ground clearance. They’re also acceptable on road (I had one belonging to the Army up to about 140 kph when I last went to Woomera). However, the Land Rover Defenders the Army used as its genuine off-road vehicle were rather better (but quite unpleasant on the bitumen, although to my certain knowledge still drivable at 130 kph). I don’t know if there was a crew cab ute version.
Failing those options, I’d suggest an older land Cruiser if you can get one in reasonable condition.
That said, even if I had the money to throw away on a supercar like the hybrid Porsche, I wouldn’t bother.
On public roads, you can’t really go any faster in one of these than you can in far lesser cars, and in fact they can be quite dull to drive at feasible speeds because they’re so far from their limits. So the only way to enjoy their full potential is to take them to the track.
And there are any number of track-only specials that can lap a racetrack faster, and provide a bigger adrenaline rush, than a full-sized road car with limited downforce ever could.
John D @ 3, the “Narrow track cars” phrase doesn’t have a link. If you post it or send it to me I’ll insert it.
I’m reasonably certain the transfer of technology from supercars down finished around 1968 or so and the tech transfers have all been the other way since. All the significant improvements in motor vehicles in the last 40 years debuted on boring passenger vehicles: electronic fuel injection (Mercedes), turbochargers (Chevrolet), electronic anti lock braking (Mercedes again – nice to be in a cosy relationship with Bosch), traction control (again), airbags, pre-tensioner seatbelts, four wheel drive.
In fact, I’m struggling to think of a single supercar that technology trickled down to normal cars, except for perhaps the Jenson Intercepter FF (anti lock brakes and four wheel drive) and it was a complete dud, complete with mechanical ABS brakes adapted from aircraft (the maxaret system) which failed when pinholes in the pressurised chassis caused the system to stop. The Ferguson four wheel drive system lives on in licensed form under Subarus though.
So, my guess is the uber-Porsche stuff will go nowhere, like digital dashboards, central steering positions, air brakes, fibreglass bodies, superleggera chassis and the rest of the frippery that the car addled got suckered on.
Meanwhile, you can buy a bicycle for $2500 that is near as dammit to the ones professionals race at the Tour de France. I know what I’d rather do.
There are the odd bits of stuff that might trickle down from modern-day supercars at some point. Ceramic brakes are a good example. Advanced materials for vehicle bodies are another. (Note, however, that hybrids make vehicle mass far less important from a fuel eonomy perspective, because you get all the extra energy required to accelerate the car back when you decelerate(.
But, yes, racing stopped improving the breed some time in the 1960s. The one major advance in racing car technology – the use of body shaping and wings to provide aerodynamic downforce – has been aped for styling purposes but makes essentially no difference for mainstream road vehicles.
funny I was talking about exactly this topic this afternoon. The Volkswagen L1 is reportedly close to production. But I think this will be like the honda insight, it wont sell a unit, it’s impractical and culturally challenging.
Slow and steady will be the name of the game for improvements in mass-market, mass-appeal units. Hybrids, and diesel hybrids, will steadily grow market share, and fully electric vehicles, in standard 2 seat x 2 seat format, will become novel about 2020, and commonplace about 2030. The last mass-amrket petrol only car will be sold about that time. Fleet average efficiency will more than halve, but wont get to miracle sub 4 performance for more than a decade from now.
Well that’s my prediction anyway.
(Evan @ 8, rubbish re Tesla performance. My 1998 CBR600 F3, not a high-end machine, boasted equal or better performance, for $6k on-road).
While we’re on speculative transport, check out the Yike Bike.
What about dual-clutch “automatic” manuals?
That stuff is fairly standard on supercars (Ferraris, Porsche, Lambos etc) I’m not even sure you can even buy a new Ferrari that has a clutch pedal anymore, and is increasingly found on lesser vehicles like the Ford Focus TDCi.
Automatic manuals – not exactly groundbreaking, life saving stuff is it? The more you look at the specs on the uber-Porsche, the more it just looks like a really expensive Prius.
In fact, with all the expensive, exotic batteries, just how much hazmat comes out of one of these things in an accident? Cleaning up petrol and oil is bad enough, but a serious accident in the uber-Porsche could shut down Double Bay. Oh, the humanity!
I clicked on the human-powered (via a rowing mechanism which powers a battery) ‘HumanCar’ via the Porsche link: http://www.gizmag.com/humancar-impulse-ps-nev/14369/. At just $15 500 US, the only things I want to know is when it will be available here, if I can put a roof on it and if the 40 kph speed limit could be uncapped – though I’m not sure even that deters me. That is now officially my almost realistic dream car (if we could get them in Australia).
Brian the narrow track car link is http://www.gizmag.com/nissan-landglider/13368/?utm_source=Gizmag+Subscribers&utm_campaign=8a8a721b83-UA-2235360-4&utm_medium=email
Narrow track? Everything old is new again
Ute Man,
Those ones just remind me of Terry Gilliam’s Brazil.
The Brazil guys may have had these in mind… although they’re nowhere near as narrow as the Messerschmitt Ute Man has highlighted.
John D @ 20, I’ve inserted the link now @ 3. Thanks!
Wilful @ 15, that VW has an economy of 1.38 L/100km. Holy Dooley!
@4 I said:
Despite this John D@7 said in part
I want to stay within the comments policy but I’m struggling to explain this blatant discrepancy in ways that stay within it. You seem to fancy yourself a clever chap. Why don’t you take a run at this?
Robert said in part:
Isn’t the recovered energy only about 20-30% of what you expended accelerating? At least that’s what engineering friends have told me.
Wilful said:
Double surely …
Fran, you’re quite right, there will be fairly substantial losses in the process. However, both the performance of the Prius, and a couple of assumptions, suggest you’d get considerably better than 30% energy recovery. My estimates based on a bit of googling are comfortably over 50%.
So weight’s not irrelevant, but it’s also less important for hybrids than other types of vehicle.
Low tech stuff like this is more likely in a resource constrained future http://www.lowtechmagazine.com/2010/01/wood-gas-cars.html#more
Brilliant link, Rob.
These are pretty handy off road as well. Made in Sweden too.
Cheers BilB, our best known local link was the late Kurt Johannsen http://sites.google.com/site/woodgas/home – his vehicle is now on display at the “roadtrain hall of fame” outside Alice Springs
I’m using his plans as a basis for my own bit of tinkering http://nakedmechanic.blogspot.com/search/label/woodgas%20ute
Unless you’re talking about Manhattan, it’s a somewhat modest majority:
Fran @25: Apologies. Was looking for an excuse to have a rant against the “We must move to public transport set.
The future may actually use cars as public transport. For example, this Nissan research on schooling cars creates a “virtual bus” in which you and your car would travel. We are also not to far away from cars that would drive themselves. Publicly owned cars could move to where they are needed to provide “taxis without drivers” as public transport.
It was this safe, tilting, 4 wheel motor bike that first started me thinking of the potential of narrow track tilt cab cars.
Bring on electric vehicles. Great for use around town. Road laws may have to be adjusted though. For example, this vehicle is not currently legal in Australia. [link]. Meanwhile, I have just bought a small diesel car as it looks like no EV with a reasonable price will be available in Australia within 2 years.
“Unless you’re talking about Manhattan, it’s a somewhat modest majority”
Your point being….?
A majority is a majority. And in the context of a nation that averages 92% car ownership, it’s pretty significant.
Also..”Around 48% of New Yorkers own cars, yet fewer than 30% use them to commute to work, most finding public transportation cheaper and more convenient for that purpose….” [from wiki: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transportation_in_New_York_City