- Status
[citation][nom]kingnoobe[/nom]LMAO TA. Such bs unless you have a racing horse. And if you pull a buggy behind it even bigger bs. Not to mention the horse would have to stop and rest. Thus the car would end up easily beating the horse, and did you not read all they have to do is change the gear ration. And don't try to say I don't know what I'm talking about. I've lived around amish damn near all my life. It's not normal for a horse to do 30, and to be honest I'd like to see.[/citation]
Top speed for a quarter horse is 47.5 mph, top speed for this thing is 35 mph. Remember, running this thing at 30 mph is stressing the engine an if you run an engine at high RPMs, you'll blow it sooner. Do you run your car constantly at very close to it's top speed, or top RPM?
Figure the cruising speed is a lot less.
Oh, and if you haven't figured it out, cars need a lot of breaks too. Stop signs. If you're implying you can take this thing long distance at a time, you're a fool. I don't think a human would be able to tolerate it too long, and probably would need a break long before the horse did.
I'd still pick the horse. It's also got better cross-country performance. This puddle-hopper wouldn't make it over a tomato plant.
Top speed for a quarter horse is 47.5 mph, top speed for this thing is 35 mph. Remember, running this thing at 30 mph is stressing the engine an if you run an engine at high RPMs, you'll blow it sooner. Do you run your car constantly at very close to it's top speed, or top RPM?
Figure the cruising speed is a lot less.
Oh, and if you haven't figured it out, cars need a lot of breaks too. Stop signs. If you're implying you can take this thing long distance at a time, you're a fool. I don't think a human would be able to tolerate it too long, and probably would need a break long before the horse did.
I'd still pick the horse. It's also got better cross-country performance. This puddle-hopper wouldn't make it over a tomato plant.
megamanx00
Distinguished
- Sep 3, 2008
- 712
- 0
- 18,960
[citation][nom]ta152h[/nom] Remember, running this thing at 30 mph is stressing the engine an if you run an engine at high RPMs, you'll blow it sooner. Do you run your car constantly at very close to it's top speed, or top RPM? [/citation]
Not sure about that. What they do is use the engine to get the car up to that speed. Once you get there, keeping it there uses much less horsepower. You are right about the horses easily going 30 MPH, but I would be willing to bet the car would be able to maintain that speed orders of magnitude more than the horse.
Not sure about that. What they do is use the engine to get the car up to that speed. Once you get there, keeping it there uses much less horsepower. You are right about the horses easily going 30 MPH, but I would be willing to bet the car would be able to maintain that speed orders of magnitude more than the horse.
XZaapryca
Distinguished
- Oct 8, 2009
- 89
- 0
- 18,580
[citation][nom]mianmian[/nom]So you can save 1 gallon of gas for paddling 2700 miles.[/citation]
1 Gallon of gas is 114,000 BTU, which is just under 29,000 calories. 180 pound person riding a bike at 15mph for 8 hours is 6,900 calories. Not counting the calories a cyclist would burn while sleeping or taking a leak, you could pedal for about four days, eight hours a day and get 480 miles (far less than 2700) for the same amount of energy as 1 gallon of regular gasoline.
There's a bunch of different ways you can look at this, but the economic cost of the energy used is way cheaper with this car. $3 for a gallon of gas versus the cost of all the food the cyclist would have to consume in their trek across 480 miles. Of course, you could factor in many different details for the true cost. Energy expended vs. energy expended, penis car wins.
(partial network outage at work, bored.)
1 Gallon of gas is 114,000 BTU, which is just under 29,000 calories. 180 pound person riding a bike at 15mph for 8 hours is 6,900 calories. Not counting the calories a cyclist would burn while sleeping or taking a leak, you could pedal for about four days, eight hours a day and get 480 miles (far less than 2700) for the same amount of energy as 1 gallon of regular gasoline.
There's a bunch of different ways you can look at this, but the economic cost of the energy used is way cheaper with this car. $3 for a gallon of gas versus the cost of all the food the cyclist would have to consume in their trek across 480 miles. Of course, you could factor in many different details for the true cost. Energy expended vs. energy expended, penis car wins.
(partial network outage at work, bored.)
hispeed120
Distinguished
- Mar 13, 2008
- 20
- 0
- 18,560
[citation][nom]technical101[/nom]Small moterbikes and mopeds doing more than 200 mpg have been available for more than 15 years.[/citation]
True, but neither have very good exhaust filtration systems.
True, but neither have very good exhaust filtration systems.
Completely bogus number. Say the real mile per gallon without using a charged battery.
the hybrid mpg ratings are a joke, they are fake numbers to grab public attention. Im a big fan of electric, but you need to be honest about your efficiency numbers.
the hybrid mpg ratings are a joke, they are fake numbers to grab public attention. Im a big fan of electric, but you need to be honest about your efficiency numbers.
[citation][nom]jomofro39[/nom]Now I really regret where I went to school to get my Mechanical Engineering degree...this is awesome! An overhead shot would SO look like a penis! Apple, BAN IT!!![/citation]
Don't be fooled by this, while it's cool in it's own right, it is NOT a car, and it DOESN'T get >2500mpg. My 3/4 ton truck gets the same mileage if you coast it down hill for long enough...
Take a regular (street legal) vehicle, drive in on standard road surfaces with even just an occasional stop light/sign and then submit some mpg's that impress the world.
This design is more of an exercise in material selection and aerodynamics than fuel economy.
Don't be fooled by this, while it's cool in it's own right, it is NOT a car, and it DOESN'T get >2500mpg. My 3/4 ton truck gets the same mileage if you coast it down hill for long enough...
Take a regular (street legal) vehicle, drive in on standard road surfaces with even just an occasional stop light/sign and then submit some mpg's that impress the world.
This design is more of an exercise in material selection and aerodynamics than fuel economy.
cjl
Distinguished
- Jun 18, 2008
- 432
- 0
- 18,940
[citation][nom]askdfklj21kj[/nom]Completely bogus number. Say the real mile per gallon without using a charged battery.the hybrid mpg ratings are a joke, they are fake numbers to grab public attention. Im a big fan of electric, but you need to be honest about your efficiency numbers.[/citation]
Umm....
Just so you know, this isn't a hybrid.
Umm....
Just so you know, this isn't a hybrid.
bamslang
Distinguished
- Aug 6, 2009
- 53
- 0
- 18,580
God help them in Houston. The drivers down here are horrible. I wouldn't be surprised if one of the morons driving an H2 mistakes the closed street sign to mean "Go this way" and plows down the whole group. If you don't live in Houston or near it, imagine the worst drivers in your area, now make them = to about 75% of the population, now give them all large trucks and SUVs.
[citation][nom]coopchennick[/nom]Same as racing cars on the track. It's all about development. These are the engineers to build tomorrow's technology, and this is how they do it.[/citation]
I think you missed the point. F1 is all about the engine though. They is NO WAY that they could ever put an F1 (or this prototype) body on a regular car since that would be very impractical for the average joe. These students put WAY too much R&D into the body and FAR too little into the engine. The engine they used is probably nothing very special. I think it would have been far more impressive if they had built a 100-200mpg vehicle that was AT LEAST the size of a smart car. I would be impressed if they'd designed a custom transmission and engine that would allow for a real miserly fuel sipper.
I think you missed the point. F1 is all about the engine though. They is NO WAY that they could ever put an F1 (or this prototype) body on a regular car since that would be very impractical for the average joe. These students put WAY too much R&D into the body and FAR too little into the engine. The engine they used is probably nothing very special. I think it would have been far more impressive if they had built a 100-200mpg vehicle that was AT LEAST the size of a smart car. I would be impressed if they'd designed a custom transmission and engine that would allow for a real miserly fuel sipper.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
TRENDING THREADS
-
-
-
-
Question Old text messages not showing up on new android phone
- Started by Weathered95
- Replies: 48
-
-
-
Question Asus Tuff Fx507 not recognizing new WD_Black 4tb ssd in secondary m2 slot- Started by BelgradianSalsa
- Replies: 10
Facebook
Twitter