Clever Car belongs to a class of motorized vehicles known as 'tilting three wheelers' (TTWs), which have been around since 1945. They have what I call 1.5-seats, consisting of a driver's seat and a cargo space behind that doubles as a passenger seat for short trips. The passenger sits with legs on either side of the driver. This type of vehicle outperforms all others in terms of cost, handling, fuel economy, all-weather driving, speed, acceleration, etc.

The Clever Car:

Vehicle cost = $13500 CAN.
Fuel economy = 2.5 Liters per 100 km (111 mpg)
Fill up the tank once every 3 weeks, instead of every 3 days.
Will seat two (one comfortably).
Leans into corners. Snappier cornering than most sports cars.
Same height and visibility as other small cars.
Crash tested, just as safe as other small cars.
Range = 200 km (120 miles)
Top speed = 60 mph

http://images.usatoday.com/tech/_photos/2006/04/26/clever-large.jpg

It's fueled by compressed natural gas (CNG) and as such can be refueled at home. Fuelmaker Corporation sells an appliance that can refuel CNG cars such as the Clever Car, Honda Civic GX, forklifts, fleet vehicles, etc. by drawing gas from your gas line just like the furnace, or barbeque.

Fuelmaker Corporation (http://www.myphill.com/)

A lightweight plastic fuel tank with ethanol, gasoline or diesel fuel would probably shave off another few hundred pounds of dead weight and increase speed, fuel economy & range. Overall a very promising design, and definitely not ugly.

Clever Website (http://www.clever-project.net/index.htm)

Because vehicle weight affects both the kinetic energy and the rolling friction directly, one can expect the fuel economy to vary inversely with vehicle weight. For example, if weight drops by half, fuel economy should approximately double, assuming the vehicle has an engine that provides roughly the same power-to-weight ratio. Comparisons can be drawn between different weight classes of vehicles, such as a Chrysler Sebring, Hyundai Accent, a Honda Insight hybrid, and the Clever Car:

Chrysler Sebring
vehicle weight = 1422 kg
fuel economy = 29 mpg

Hyundai Accent
vehicle weight = 1024 kg
fuel economy = 40 mpg

Clever Car
vehicle weight = 400 kg
fuel economy = 111 mpg

Honda Insight Hybrid
vehicle weight = 856 kg
fuel economy = 60 mpg

The Hyundai Accent is 39 percent lighter, and gets 38 percent better fuel economy. The Clever Car is 3.6-times lighter, and gets 3.8-times better fuel economy.

An unexpected result is found with the Hybrid Honda Insight: it is 66 percent lighter than the Chrysler Sebring, so one would expect it to get approx. 48 mpg fuel economy. But in fact it gets 60 mpg, roughly an additional 12 mpg due to improved engine efficiency. More than half of this improvement is due to weight reduction!

The Hybrid Honda Insight is also 20 percent lighter than the Hyundai Accent, so once again we should expect it to achieve 48 mpg fuel economy. But as shown it gets another 12 mpg on top of that. In this case 8 mpg improvement is due to weight reduction, and 12 mpg improvement due to higher engine efficiency.

These are approximations, but the basic lesson is still there. It is easier to reduce vehicle weight than to increase engine efficiency. A simple way of reducing vehicle weight is to simply shrink the vehicle. To build a 1-seat vehicle instead of 4-seats should reduce weight by 75 percent, or nearly so. This can be done without expensive engine technologies or special lightweight materials.

It has been estimated that as much as 30 percent of our current oil consumption could be displaced by biomass-produced ethanol. So to achieve full renewability in the transportation sector might require us to reduce the average fuel consumption of vehicles on the road by 70 percent. As shown above, the easiest, least expensive way to achieve this is to reduce vehicle weight by the same amount. Making 1.5-seat Tilting Three Wheelers the standard would be a huge leap toward achieving this goal.

- still produces greenhouse gasses
- still uses fossil fuel, which is still affected by peak oil, since natural gas is shipped around the world.
- requires special modifications to your house to refuel
- expensive

Still, it's interesting. Check out the elctric hog: http://www.vogelbilt.com/home.html
My fave, the Tango: http://www.commutercars.com/
And the electric Spyder (300hp) http://www.ohler.com/ev/spyder/index.html

The future of a personal transportation should be an Electric Vehicle chargeable at night and has a 300 mile range and can be recharged in 2 hours or less with a higher voltage system.

To produce electricity one can use fusion reactors, hydro power, solar power, wind power and nuclear reactor and may be some coal with good scrubber system.

Must be by the same people that made the "smart" car, by the name and look. Looks like they made the smart car even smaller. One of the major problems is the smart car is only usable for city driving and had above average weather limitations. This looks like it has the same issues.

I think this car insults motorcycles :p

Spidergoat:

I think you missed the point. The Clever Car provides nearly all the versatility of a standard vehicle (except passenger capacity) and it also achieves the weight reduction needed to achieve renewability for the transportation sector. Greenhouse gases are a secondary issue compared to oil shortages. A second incarnation of this vehicle would probably have a flex-fueled engine, able to burn ethanol, gasoline, or any combination of the two. Or it might be diesel. Or it might be a hybrid. It doesn't require special modification to your house to refuel, that is just a convenient option. The current CNG model has removable gas cylinders that can be recharged externally at a local depot. And $13,500 CAN isn't expensive for a car. It is typical for a subcompact or microcar like the Clever Car. In contrast, your favorite vehicle The Tango costs $108,000 and lacks the cornering stability of the Clever Car.

kmguru:

Fusion reactors don't yet exist. Currently there are about 230+ conventional fission reactors worldwide. Combined they generate over 10,000 metric tonnes of radioactive waste annually. We would have to build hundreds of additional fission reactors to supply enough electricity for an equivalent fleet of electric vehicles - just for North America. Where would the glowing residue go?

Exhumed:

One thing you can do with the Clever Car that you can't do with a motorcycle is drive in the rain, snow, slush, and freezing cold... Year-round, all weather. It is hardly weather-limited, any more than a subcompact or mid-sized sedan.

How can this vehicle be refueled with compressed natural gas at home, when all homes serviced by natural gas are supplied with that gas at less than 1 PSIG. Even if refueling ports are placed into the gas supply lines before the home supply pressure regulating valves, much less than 20 PSIG of VAPOR pressure will be achieved. Without very expensive equipment, home liquification of natural gas is impossible.

If you are speaking of refueling this vehicle with LIQUID propane, and permitting it to vaporize before injecting it into the combustion chamber, you have described every propane fueled lift truck in existence. No great technological achievement.

You are still dependent upon foreign petroleum.

...And $13,500 CAN isn't expensive for a car....Depends on what you are comparing to.

Tata motors is currently building factory with 100,000 cars per year capacity for their rust free* four-passenger urban car. It will not be available in US for many years as the Indian market, and then the Chinese one, will absorb the full productions even when the factory is 10 times larger.

At projected $2,200 (100,000 rupees) each it less than 1/6 the price of your "isn't expensive" car, but that is still expensive to some of India's poor, but ICICI bank will lend them money. With Tata already building the factory, I doubt that ten of these six times more expensive "clever cars" will ever be made.

In interest of "full disclosure," I have owned ADRs TTM & IBN for more than a year (half of IBN for more than two years).
----------------------------
*Frameless "uni-body" is all plastic, assembled with glue, like some airplanes are now. (Modern glues can be both lighter and stronger without concentrated stress points of rivets, etc.) Tata has bought a company that makes a continuous speed transmission; perhaps this car always operates at maximum engine efficiency. (No need to learn how to shift gears, an important plus for first time drivers). Car may have only one pedal - take you foot off quickly and it stops quickly, etc. Car is rumored to be 60/60 (top speed 60mph and 60 miles to the gallon) Hard to get details, but looks like they will sell more than Detroit ever did. This is what Detroit should have been doing instead of SUVs.

kmguru:

Fusion reactors don't yet exist. Currently there are about 230+ conventional fission reactors worldwide. Combined they generate over 10,000 metric tonnes of radioactive waste annually. We would have to build hundreds of additional fission reactors to supply enough electricity for an equivalent fleet of electric vehicles - just for North America. Where would the glowing residue go?



The fission reactors are designed wrong just like the American cars that does not last beyond 100,000 miles. We have learned a lot in the last 30 years but still using the 30 year old technology. There has not been any serious research in heat exchanger design or material alloy design using Zirconium and Hafnium and other exotic materials, liquid sodium or potassium etc. One can definitely design a nuclear power plant that generates minimum waste per year. Even in the old technology, one can extend the rebuild cycle of the heat exchanger to 5 years rather than 18 months as some designs are required to do.

As to Fusion reactors...we now have the technology. Super conducting materials and understanding of high energy lasers and high Tesla fields. All it takes is the will. My design prototype will cost about $15 billion dollars...but it is worth the risk...

Beyond fusion reactors, I am working on a non-nuclear process where an alloy matrix is excited to produce electrons...the energy input is 80% less than the output...but we think we can improve the process. It will take a few years....

Heh, what a cool toy of a car. I'd love to have one.

- N

davebehrens:

The CNG home refuelling appliance has a compressor. It slowly refuels your vehicle overnight. AFAIK it is a few thousand dollars extra. People who buy the Honda Civic GX often buy one for convenience. Also, businesses that have CNG forklifts and fleet vehicles. As you know, CNG tanks are removeable and portable, so the refuelling appliance is only one option. You aren't required to buy one, it is a convenience only for people who don't mind spending a little more to save time.

Billy T:

I'm not sure which Tata vehicle you are referring to. Tata Motors has a website, with prices for their cars. The cheapest one I could find was the Indigo GSX 4-door sedan, which sells for Rps 556,222 (CAN $13,744). That's typical price for a small car in Canada too. I imagine someone who lives in India would have to be quite wealthy to afford one, since their purchasing power parity is about 10% of ours. It would be like me paying $137,440 for the same vehicle! Brutal price tag dude. If they are planning to market a car in India, it would have to be extremely cheap. It might be similar to the Clever Car, but even more frugal. A partially-enclosed scooter might have wide appeal there. Same thing in China.

kmguru:

Lots of people have claimed pie-in-the-sky technologies that have never materialized. The most recent example in the field of nuclear physics was the quantum nucleonic reactor. It turned out to be a fraud. Before that it was cold fusion. Also bunk. Your spectacular claim that you've invented improvements on technologies that have been around for more than half a century demands a patent if what you say is true.

Neildo:

We've all got to have a toy... I can't wait until Clever Cars are in production. I'd like a flex-fuelled one myself.

I saw that car on BBC, it's amazing, I love it and I want one!! It's perfect for city travel.

Yeah, once (or rather, if) they're released in the U.S., I'll be buying one. I love having out of the ordinary toys.

- N

...I'm not sure which Tata vehicle you are referring to. Tata Motors has a website, with prices for their cars. The cheapest one I could find was the Indigo GSX 4-door sedan, which sells for Rps 556,222 (CAN $13,744)....None are available anywhere at present. I am not even sure the factory is under construction, but think it is. I have never seen a photo of either factory or car. 100,000 Rupies is the design target price, but other than fact it will have gluded together plastic body (and frame if it is not "uni-body" construction) little else is official.

I thik it is official that it will transport 4 pasengers, but I do not know if it has 3 or 4 wheels. If you can find out more about it, please post. I learned Tata had bought or singed contract for (not sure which now) large number of continuous ratio transmissions with another firm from a financial new letter type source, but forget which now also. I bougth Tata about a year ago (at about $5 and is now around $20/ per ADR) as soon as I learned that they were comitted to the new factory. (Tara is now manily a truck and bus company and some upper middle class cars.) They are targeting the emerging first time car owner - typically one with some kids, so a car that is not much more expensive than a good motor cycle will be attractive to him. I think, but again do not know, that Tata's new car's motor may be basically a motor cycle motor.

I have not tried hard to find anything about it since buying TTM. I made my long term bet, basically on two facts: (1) that Indian government is very much aware that India is in danger of becoming a polarized society. (The current government is the left wing one and is trying hard to pump money into the country side, where much of the poor and their strength is. ICICI bank, which I also own, is rapidly opening rural offices, making small loans etc.) and (2) I like the innovation of a no-rust plastic car, put together with modern glues. (Assemply should be cheaper, even if manual in India, than the capital cost of all those spot welding robots Detrot uses and there are no stress concentration points and no metalugrical transformation at the spot weld to promote corrsion.)

Probably the ones made during the next decade will not pass US safety tests, but none will be available for export to US for at least that long. Also it is a fact that well designed plastic can absorb more energy that steel, pound for pound, so a plastic car can be safer than a steel one and yet weigh less.

It's much too expensive. Face it, with a 120-mile range, 60 mph top speed, one seat and no storage space this thing isn't actually competing against cars; it’s competing against motorcycles, motor scooters, bicycles, and walking. You can get a nice 80 mile/gallon motorcycle for a few thousand dollars.

2 seats
you don't need faster than 60 in a city,
in Latvia the speed limit in cities is 50km/h,
motorcicles don't have a roof and controllable environment

It's much to expensive. Face it, with a 120-mile range, 60 mph top speed, one seat and no storage space this thing isn't actually competing against cars; it’s competing against motorcycles, motor scooters, bicycles, and walking. You can get a nice 80 mile/gallon motorcycle for a few thousand dollars.

$12k isn't expensive especially with 111 MPG.

With the Carver One at 40 MPG though, that kinda sucks.

Also the Clever Car goes up to 80 MPH, not 60 MPG. The Carver One goes up to 120ish.

- N

p.s. Post your ideas or well wishes in their guest book, because I doubt they read Sciforums.
I did. :)

$12k isn't expensive especially with 111 MPG.
You could buy a cheap regular car that gets around 30 miles/gallon for about $9000 (perhaps a Chevy Areo). Then take the $3000 that you saved and buy enough gas to go about 30,000 miles, which should be enough to last 3-4 years - by which time you might want a new car anyway. If you don't mind driving a 5+ year old car, buy a used car and use the same math to go even farther before you approach the price of a Clever Car. And in the mean time, you get little bonuses like four actual seats and a trunk.

ah, but a regural car doesn't have the: extremely stylish and cyberpunk bonus attached to it. :cool:

2 seats
It says it has "1.5 seats." The second seat is supposed to be behind the driver. Take a look at the picture and try to imagine how comfortable you would be siting behind the driver. You have to sit with your legs around the driver!

It appears to basically be a motorcycle with a roof over it - it has all the fuel economy and utility of a motorcycle. Basically a fun toy that's nice for commuting to work if you don't worry about having to carry a passenger, groceries, or anything else. Not terribly practical, but cool. That puts it directly in competition with motorcycles that cost around $3000-$4000. The great fuel economy doesn't make a good argument for buying it as long as it costs thousands more than a regular car.

And of course, I'm pretty sure that in a head-on collision with a regular car it would probably fly apart into small pieces.

Well, full renewability in transportation is an engineering challenge. Suppose you only have the ability to displace 30 percent of current oil consumption with renewable fuel. Somehow you've got to come up with a way to keep the whole shebang moving. What can be done? I think reducing the weight of vehicles is the most direct route to solving the problem, instead of switching over to more efficient engines like we hear about all the time in the media. I suppose it's disappointing to alot of people that sometimes the solution is boring or doesn't satisfy the ego or people's need for a magical fantasy of the future.

Here's a line for ya: "Clever.... the car that will save your soul..." Dub over some ethereal new age music.

Does that work for you? It doesn't work for me.

The "whole shebang" is going to come crashing down, like it or not.

Sometime in the near future, people will have the choice to park their cars or to drive cars that consume less. Oil shortage won't be the end of civilization. There will always be a choice. And maybe there will be novel new technologies to serve as a distraction and people won't even notice the tradeoff.

I'd love to own the new Renault Clio III
http://www.renault.com/renault_com/en/main/40_VEHICULES_ET_SERVICES/10_Vehicules/Catalogue/Clio_III/index.aspx

A fantastic and beautiful car. Maybe in two years if all goes well and no better ones appear.

I saw an item in a paper a couple of years ago about a Phillipino who took the engine out of his car, put in some sort of electrical battery and "ran it" on a bucket of water per day. Never heard anything else on it. It was probably bought up by an oil company and scrapped like all the oil free inventions of modern times.

I saw an item in a paper a couple of years ago about a Phillipino who took the engine out of his car, put in some sort of electrical battery and "ran it" on a bucket of water per day. Never heard anything else on it. It was probably bought up by an oil company and scrapped like all the oil free inventions of modern times.No - He took out the "water battery" and replaced it with a "moon beam catcher" - now not only does he not need to add any water, but gasoline drips out of the bottom of the "moon beam catcher" :rolleyes:

I saw an item in a paper a couple of years ago about a Phillipino who took the engine out of his car, put in some sort of electrical battery and "ran it" on a bucket of water per day. Never heard anything else on it. It was probably bought up by an oil company and scrapped like all the oil free inventions of modern times.
Yes. No doubt the car used the water to extract oregon energy from a zero-point quantum field composed of magnetic monopoles and scalar electromagnetic waves, allowing the protons in the water to enter a hydrino state with fractional quantum numbers. They then used electrolysis to break the water into H2 and O2, then burned them in the engine to create an excess of energy.

Let's see...did I miss any?

Yes. No doubt the car used the water to extract oregon energy from a zero-point quantum field composed of magnetic monopoles and scalar electromagnetic waves, allowing the protons in the water to enter a hydrino state with fractional quantum numbers. They then used electrolysis to break the water into H2 and O2, then burned them in the engine to create an excess of energy.
Let's see...did I miss any?No, but of course that was the first version of the "moon beam catcher" which was relatively simple compared to the present version. That first version only dripped horse piss, and did require some straw input, version 2 gave low quality beer after fermentation of the straw, but the current version gives high octane gas.

No - He took out the "water battery" and replaced it with a "moon beam catcher" - now not only does he not need to add any water, but gasoline drips out of the bottom of the "moon beam catcher" :rolleyes:

Very good Billy, I have an interesting idea, you design a car and call it the Model T. Edit: oh damn, its been done before ;)

You could buy a cheap regular car that gets around 30 miles/gallon for about $9000 (perhaps a Chevy Areo). Then take the $3000 that you saved and buy enough gas to go about 30,000 miles, which should be enough to last 3-4 years - by which time you might want a new car anyway. If you don't mind driving a 5+ year old car, buy a used car and use the same math to go even farther before you approach the price of a Clever Car. And in the mean time, you get little bonuses like four actual seats and a trunk.

Sorry, in these ridiculous consumerism days of "I must have the most recent and nothing but the best" type attitudes, I forgot one is able to buy a car for under $20k. ;)

And heck, no need for four seats when most people and their grandmother drive alone, even if going out partying with a buncha people, all taking their own cars, heh.

I've been waiting for non-motorcycle vehicle to exist that is meant for just one person. It annoys me seeing all these cars driving around filled with just one person with all that wasted space. This Clever Car is a cool little toy.

ah, but a regural car doesn't have the: extremely stylish and cyberpunk bonus attached to it.

Hell yeah, that thing is just cool. It's like zipping around in the cockpit of a fighter jet. :D

And of course, I'm pretty sure that in a head-on collision with a regular car it would probably fly apart into small pieces.

Eh, nothing too different compared to other vehicles such as motorcycles or fiberglass cars that are meant to be destroyed and absorb damage.

Either way, I'm gonna be buying one of these once they're available in the U.S. The Carver One is supposed to be released at the end of this year, but it only gets 40 MPG. I was hoping on it having the fuel efficiency of this Clever Car, but that won't be released for another few years. Ugh. Oh well, the Carver One will be plenty fun to play with.

- N

Sorry, in these ridiculous consumerism days of "I must have the most recent and nothing but the best" type attitudes, I forgot one is able to buy a car for under $20k. ;)

That's a major point that people seem to overlook. A new hybrid Civic goes for around $22,000, while an equivalent regular civic goes for around $15,000. You would have to burn through $7,000 in gas before you made up for the price difference! You're not likely to do that before you get a whole new car anyway.

That's a major point that people seem to overlook. A new hybrid Civic goes for around $22,000, while an equivalent regular civic goes for around $15,000. You would have to burn through $7,000 in gas before you made up for the price difference! You're not likely to do that before you get a whole new car anyway.Point well taken, but economics not well done as you have neglected the time value of money. I.e. you can put the $7000 in the bank and start to earn interest today, but the extra gas required by the cheaper car is a future expense. For example, assume you put the $7000 in bank CD at 6%, then at end of year you have gained $420.

If the extra cost of gas with the cheaper car is less than $420 you will never "break even" by buying the more expensive more efficient car. At $3/gas, that is you must save 140 gallons with the more expensive car to break even.

I do not know the MPG of the two cars, so leave it as a simple problem for someone who does to tell how many miles you must drive that first year to save 140 gallons. Hopefully they will do also the "typical miles driven" (at $3/gal gas remember) case to see how many years you must keep the car to recover the $7000 cost difference - just guessing, but I be that turns out to be about 40 years. :eek:

The Clever Car is less expensive to buy AND gets better fuel economy than a hybrid car.

The future of transportation is personal air vehicles powered by laser highways.

What's probably going to happen is that our current car-obsessed culture will simply fall apart. As gas gets more expensive, people will have to move closer to work to be able to afford to live. The net result? Urban centers will fill up, while vast suburban ghost towns will replace most of our current infrastructure.

A very interesting idea.

The future of transportation is personal air vehicles powered by laser highways.This is a good example of thinking driven by the technically possible but economically unresaonable. - Unfortunately, a very common defect.

What's probably going to happen is that our current car-obsessed culture will simply fall apart. As gas gets more expensive, people will have to move closer to work to be able to afford to live. The net result? Urban centers will fill up, while vast suburban ghost towns will replace most of our current infrastructure. A very interesting idea.I agree with you.

For several months I have been pointing out that the 2D urban sprawl that is extreme in America is the reason why the infrastructure of the US is the worst suited in the world for the era of expensive energy. Public transport in US, as percent of average miles traveled per person must be by far the lowest percentage in the world. It will take more than a decade to move half of the private car commuters to a rebuilt public transit system (and the US and dollar will collapse before that can be done).

If you want a good long term investment, put some money in a company that makes buses - In a decade, your car will be up on blocks and a bus will circulate in some neighhoods, to take you to the rail station, etc.

Telecommuting to work via high capacity internet connections will also help some, but again the 2D infrastructure makes any hard wired system (cables) much more expensive than if the US had followed the examples of Europe and developed a 1D infrastructure (High density devlopment along rail lines, along district heating lines, with large fraction of population in high rise apartments or at least living in houses that adjoin each other and have relatively little or no yards. Etc.)

Thus, another good long term investment may be in systems that provide high band width capacity via radio waves over long ranges. What fraction of population has cable service already, despite suburan sprawl?

I do not know the data, but it would be interesting to know what is the average urban population density in various countries. One might define "urban population density" as the average number of office or factory workers per thousand square meters of land used for their residence. I.e. exclude the small part of the population that lives on large farms, but include the people living in suburban developments who drive into work each day from their nice, well-separated suburban homes. In my travels thru Europe, I have noted how many of even the relative well off still live in row houses with yards smaller that the floor area of a typical "ranch house" in the US.

This excesive 2D urban sprawl is why the US will collapse first and well before it can be changed to one suitable for the high energy cost era..

Unless.... everyone buys a Clever Car. Suddenly, no more apocalyptic energy crisis, and everyone can commute to work. Because single-seat cars are narrow, roads that were previously two lanes can be painted with three lanes. No more traffic congestion.

As for fantasies of the future: I like the one where superconducting cables are buried under highways, so cars can hover over them. Asphalt is replaced with grass, and highways become long low-maintenance greenspaces over which we fly comfortably from place to place. Grasses grown on them is turned into ethanol to fuel the vehicles.

I just like the idea of being able to walk through the decrepit ruins of our current suburban society to be honest.

Being able to see the end of an era.

If the extra cost of gas with the cheaper car is less than $420 you will never "break even" by buying the more expensive more efficient car. At $3/gas, that is you must save 140 gallons with the more expensive car to break even.

Perhaps a better way of putting it would be to say that you must use 140 gallons in a year before you pay off the opportunity cost of buying the more expensive, fuel-efficient car. After that, you can keep driving to try to cut into the actual extra $7000 that you paid.

This is a good example of thinking driven by the technically possible but economically unresaonable. - Unfortunately, a very common defect.

dude if there was anything more economical than it is this. Imagine being powered entirely by energy transfered wirelessly... The hybrid car uses hydrogen powered engine and then enters a laser highway possibly on a road that has a much friction as the maglev trains incur. Anyways I just suggest this as a possibility.

Another possibility is to not have cars at all...but rather roads that move themselves... And a moving device translates the person and what he has to catch up to the motion of the highway. Or maybe the highway will be made of many strips that will recognize when someone will step on them and thus slow down to allow the person to step on the highway...meanwhile the rest of the highway moves along...and the currently moving objects are moved around you to avoid collision. Once again just a suggestion.

Who needs a car really? This life got more to offer, different possibilities.

My favorite gems of information on this topic currently are;

Electromagnetic wheels
http://media.mitsubishi-motors.com/pressrelease/e/corporate/detail1269.html
http://www.solomontechnologies.com/wheel.htm

Smart Cars
http://www.smartcarofamerica.com/

Smart Cars are just a band-aid on the fossil fuel stab wound but when fuel prices get high enough people happily wear the band-aid. The Electric wheel is a developement thats going to be essential for anything with an electrical power supply. A combination of the two will likely be the future.

I said:If the extra cost of gas with the cheaper car is less than $420 you will never "break even" by buying the more expensive more efficient car. At $3/gas, that is you must save 140 gallons with the more expensive car to break even.You restated this as:Perhaps a better way of putting it would be to say that you must use 140 gallons in a year before you pay off the opportunity cost of buying the more expensive, fuel-efficient car. After that, you can keep driving to try to cut into the actual extra $7000 that you paid.I don't think you version is "better." So all will understand what I said, I give a numerical example:

Case 1: If the less efficient, but cheaper car uses 850 gallons and the more efficient but expensive car uses 700 gallons in a year to travel the same distance, then the expensive car is a slight savings.

Case 2: If the less efficient, but cheaper car uses 830 gallons and the more efficient but expensive car uses 700 gallons in a year to travel the same distance, then the cheaper car is a slight savings.

It is the difference inconsumption or gas saved that is important, not how much used. In economics "opertunity costs" usually refers to other potential use of the entire amount. For example, not buying any car so the full amount could be used on some other opertunity. Your version seems to state simply: "you must use 140 gallons in a year" to "break even" or over come the "opertunity cost." While one can perhaps understand this it is not IMHO nearly as clear as my version.

dude if there was anything more economical than it is this. Imagine being powered entirely by energy transfered wirelessly...You continue to focus on technology and miss the point entirely that it is economics that is decisive. As far as "energy transfered wirelessly" nearly 100 years ago that was demonstrated by Nicolie Tessla, but it was so lacking in economics that no one adopted it. I think the CO2 laser may still be the most efficient and as I recall 60% of the inpute energy is lost as heat. That is in your originaly suggewstion more than half of the energy would be lost and that alone would make your technically possible system uneconomical, even if a great deal of energy were not required to make the car hover. Hover craft are netoriouly inefficient. Get realistic about what controls choice - it is economics, not technical novelity.

I do not know the data, but it would be interesting to know what is the average urban population density in various countries. One might define "urban population density" as the average number of office or factory workers per thousand square meters of land used for their residence. I.e. exclude the small part of the population that lives on large farms, but include the people living in suburban developments who drive into work each day from their nice, well-separated suburban homes. In my travels thru Europe, I have noted how many of even the relative well off still live in row houses with yards smaller that the floor area of a typical "ranch house" in the US.

This excesive 2D urban sprawl is why the US will collapse first and well before it can be changed to one suitable for the high energy cost era..

Well, I think, thoguh I'm not sure, that most of europe has a much higher population density in the first place, even taking into account their wilderness. The US has just always had much more land than it knew what to do with, making their style of development preferred.

And the fact that we have this sprawl will, in the end, probably make the US the leader in the low energy cost arena, at least early on; nothing is a better economic incentive to develop something than the collapse of your infrastructure. When we're pushed up against the wall, and it will be us who's pushed first, we'll find the alternative. It's just that, for those in power right now, there's no reason to get off of fossil fuels. It's an easy way to make a profit. They don't want to shit their own beds when they've got a good thing going.

...this sprawl will, in the end, probably make the US the leader in the low energy cost arena, at least early on; nothing is a better economic incentive to develop something than the collapse of your infrastructure. ...that might be true, if you could change your infrastructure more rapidly than you can (and will) collapse. A basic change in the US infrastruce away from "suburban sprawl" will take 20 years - the population can not just walk away from their houses. The collapse will take less than 10 years.

Perhaps the point is more clear with the classic example of a minimum time requirement:
Regardless of the incentive, it still takes nine months to have a full term baby.
Regardless of the incentive, it takes more than a decade to build non-sprawl housing and an adequate public transport system for the US.

What really make the salvation of the US impossible is the US is deep in debt, both publicly and privately, especially if the suburban houses and roads are to be discarded.

A solution exists: the Clever Car. This vehicle achieves sustainability.

By feeding of the souls of the innocent and pedestrians.

It's too soon to tell what new technologies will be introduced in time. Surely the larger manufacturers have something under their sleaves. These do have potential, I think, among the hip as Avatar pointed out. Aside form that I think hybrid versions of cars will hold their own against this clever thingymagig. I would like to see something that splits into more than one auto. Maybe 2 (or more) clevers combined into one to offer more space and that can be split for more nimble traveling.

Consumer Reports (http://www.consumerreports.org/cro/cars/new-cars/high-cost-of-hybrid-vehicles-406/overview/index.htm) published recently on the fact that only two hybrid cars actually pay for their increased costs within 5 years, but only if you take into account government tax credits. So hybrid cars fail the economics test, even compared to gas guzzling SUVs.

As I pointed out in my original post, half of the fuel savings of hybrid cars is actually due to weight reduction rather than a super-efficient drive system. So the fuel savings of hybrid cars are grossly exaggerated, advertised as roughly double what they actually achieve. Not even Consumer Reports figured this out. In fact, I'd bet nobody except the engineers at Honda and myself have figured this out.

Weight reduction is the best solution with the most dramatic results. Add to that improvements in rolling friction, transmission losses, fuel uptake losses, carnot efficiency, air resistance, and energy used in the manufacturing process, it is possible to vastly reduce oil consumption. It may even be possible to achieve full renewability for transportation, i.e. completely eliminate the combustion of fossil fuel. E100 here we come!

I agree with the weight idea. With the advent of nanotech and other light alloys car companies will take heed of the weight problem.

Yea, I've always found it ridiculous, that I have to drag around 3 tonnes of steel and plastic just to move my 55kg body (over long distances).

I've always thought that too. A bike will move my 200 lbs easily, and it might only weigh 20-30 pounds itself.

The Gross Vehicle Weight Rating (GVWR) is the combined weight of a vehicle, passenger, fuel, and cargo. Most light- and medium- duty vehicles (http://www.gmc.com/lightduty/gvwr/index.jsp) have GVWR upwards of 20,000 lbs. They have alot of excess capacity.

A single-seat vehcle GVWR should be less than 500 lbs, and a 4-seat vehicle GVWR would be less than 2000 lbs. The Smart Car weighs 1800 lbs, so it's about as light as it can be with standard steel construction.

The problem is nobody wants a single-seat car on the off-chance they might have a passenger or two to carry. But most drivers have failed to make the connection between their desire for occasional extra passenger capacity and the huge bill they are paying at the gas pump on a regular basis.

Want to pay significantly less for gas? Buy a Clever Car, or something similar. It's a very simple direct relationship between the weight of the car and the fuel it consumes.

....I'd bet nobody except the engineers at Honda and myself have figured this {weight reduction is effective} out. Weight reduction is the best solution with the most dramatic results. .... it is possible to vastly reduce oil consumption. It may even be possible to achieve full renewability for transportation, i.e. completely eliminate the combustion of fossil fuel. E100 here we come!I completely agree, except they "figured that out" and started the conversion to E100 in Brazil long ago (30 years back).

When I first moved to Brazil, all the cars (except the imported ones) looked like subcompacts. I am reasonably thin, but first time there was one car for four of us, I was concerned as one of the four was fat - Silently I thought "This is going to be embrassing." but we all got in just fine. My wife's GOL (a VW product, very popular is an E100 to G100 or anything in between. We have had 6 in it, but three were kids, which by law must be in back seat. I sat in back and biggest kid held smallest one in between legs. Two adults in the bucket seats of the front.)

In recent years I see many more minis on Latvian roads, when some 5 years ago the absolute majority of cars were sedans. I think this applies to most of Northen Europe.

What do you guys think about nanotechnology? Why reduce the car to a size of a peanut. Reduce the weight and strength of the frame by using nanotech. It may be expensive (not sure) but as it becomes mass produced and production techniques become more advanced prices will go down. No one needs to drive a smart or a mini. Some people need the space.

That's a good point, a car sized and strengthed carbon nanotube frame might only weight about 50 lbs.

It's been done. Last year's winner of the SAE Supermileage Competition (http://www.sae.org/students/sm2005results.pdf) collegiate division was the University of British Columbia (http://www.mech.ubc.ca/~supermileage/2005/tech_specs.htm). Their vehicle weighed 77 pounds, with an 2-inch aluminum-honeycomb chassis, and a 3-ply carbonfiber body.

With a weight reduction of 29-fold versus the Hyundai Accent I would expect the fuel economy to similarly increase to about 1200 mpg. In fact, they achieved a 40-fold increase in fuel economy, or 1608 mpg.

They likely employed strategies such as "engine-off during overspeed" to conserve fuel, such as when coasting downhill. Also, the power-to-weight ratio of the engine and it's efficiency is probably better than most automotive engines. Plus, the transmission was fixed ratio -- no shifting, hardly any losses. In contrast the minimum that a production car like the Hyundai Accent would have would be a manual transmission, and most cars have an automatic transmission, with even greater losses in fuel economy. Plus the supermileage vehicle is extremely aerodynamic, and uses slick tires (no treads) probably pumped up to high pressure with little area contacting the pavement. Obviously they went overboard here.

IMO it's fair to say that weight reduction resulted in a 29-fold increase in fuel economy, and additional strategies yielded an extra 11-fold increase in fuel economy. So, like hybrid cars, we can see that weight reduction has the most dramatic effect on fuel consumption. In fact, only weight reduction can achieve the incredible fuel economy that this vehicle has achieved.

Hybrid cars fail the economics test (http://www.consumerreports.org/cro/cars/new-cars/high-cost-of-hybrid-vehicles-406/overview/index.htm). But lightweight cars pass the economics test with flying colors! Here's how....

The Chevy Aveo costs about $10,304 CAN (MSRP), and is one of the cheapest subcompact cars sold today. But the Clever Car is a bit more expensive, estimated at $13,500 CAN. So the sticker price for the Clever Car is about $3196 CAN higher than the Chevy Aveo. Currently the price of gasoline is as high as $4.69 CAN per gallon including tax. So, the money you save buying a Chevy Aveo will buy you approximately 681 gallons of gas. But the Chevy Aveo burns more gas, so it is not quite correct to say it is cheaper than the Clever Car.

Many people finance their vehicles and they are much more sensitive to fluctuations in the price of gas. Zero downpayment, zero percent purchase financing of the Chevy Aveo will cost $214.67/mth for 48 months. If you drive 40 miles per day, 5 days per week (840 miles per month), you will spend approx. $151.52/mth for gas. Total $366.19/mth, plus the cost of insurance and maintenance.

With zero-down, zero-percent purchase financing and identical driving habits the Clever Car will cost $281.25/mth and gas will cost $35.49/mth. In total that's $316.74/mth, plus insurance and maintenance. That's $49.45/mth less than the cost of a Chevy Aveo. Many people don't care how much things cost in the long run. It's all about whether they can afford it now. On a monthly basis, the Clever Car is cheaper, and on an annual basis will save you $593.40 per year. Buy yourself a new washer/dryer, or a new entertainment center.

If you want some more solid math, there is a critical mileage value at which the two cars cost the same. The Chevy Aveo would cost $0.18 for gas per mile driven, while the Clever Car would cost $0.04 for gas per mile driven. A simple equation allows you to solve for the miles driven per month that would make the two cars equal in cost:

$214.67 + A*($0.18/mile) = $281.25 + A*($0.04/mile)
A = 475 miles/mth or 22.6 miles/day.

Purely on the basis of purchase financing and the cost of gas, and neglecting the cost of insurance and maintenance, if you drive less than this, the Chevy Aveo would be the better choice. If you drive more than this the Clever Car would be the better choice. Still, both the Chevy Aveo and the Clever Car are very small vehicles. So this comparison pits one lightweight vehicle against another, and the benefits of one over the other might be highly dependent on which criteria you use.

For example, with a 50% downpayment, the value of "A" drops by half, virtually eliminating the possibility that a standard subcompact might be cheaper than the Clever Car. So it becomes even harder to make an argument against the Clever Car based on economics.

Another aspect that might confuse people is that this is really based on mileage, not time. It might take 15 minutes to drive to work, but in that time some people would drive 12 miles by highway, while others would drive 5 miles on congested city streets. At the end of the day, the former has driven 24 miles, while the latter has driven only 10 miles. You would have to check the odometer to be more certain.

Furthermore, the Clever Car insures as a motorcycle. Insurance rates differ depending on who's driving, so I won't estimate the cost, but generally motorcycles don't cost as much to insure as a car or truck. And when mass-produced Clever Cars may be sold for much less than $13,500 CAN. The cost of gas may also rise much higher in the future.

I'd like to see Consumer Reports opinion on 1.5-seat vehicles. After trouncing hybrids, clearly weight reduction is a superior strategy.

Many people finance their vehicles...

A much more straightforward way of looking at it is that you would have to drive over 27000 miles before the clever car and the chevy aveo cost the same. That would take most people around 3 years, meaning you have to own the vehicle for around three years before the gas savings cause your vehicle to merely cost the same as an actual car.

Also, the chevy aveo has substantially more utility than the clever car, so after three years of gas savings you will have ended up paying the price of an actual car to get the utility of a motorcycle with a roof.

After six years of driving the clever car instead of the aveo you will have saved a mere $3000-$4000. It is easily worth $500/year to me (and I suspect to most people) to have the ability to carry passengers and cargo that a car offers.

Yes, you would get more passenger capacity with the Chevy Aveo than with the Clever Car. But you would get the same advantage driving a minivan.

Regardless of the time span, by sacrificing passenger capacity the Clever Car will consume

- 46 percent less fuel than the Honda Insight (hybrid subcompact)
- 64 percent less fuel than the Chevy Aveo (subcompact)
- 74 percent less fuel than the Chrysler Sebring (full-size sedan)
- 77 percent less fuel than the Chevy Equinox (SUV)
- 84 percent less fuel than the Ford F150 (2-door standard pickup truck)

The price of the Clever Car is comparable to existing autos. It does have a passenger seat which doubles as a cargo space. You can drive it year-round in a variety of weather conditions. If a future incarnation of the Clever Car were flex-fuelled instead of CNG-fuelled, and the government mandated a 30% ethanol-in-gasoline mixture as a minimum, and 100% ethanol availability at the pumps, we could as a nation have a fully-renewable and sustainable transportation sector.

For all your talk about how favorably the clever car compares to regular cars, you still don't seem to want to acknowledge the fact that it would take most drivers around three years to merely break even on the price of a clever car as compared to a cheap regular car.

It does have a passenger seat which doubles as a cargo space.
My wife and I go to the grocery store together and come back with several bags of groceries. This is the sort of normal behavior that would be impossible in a clever car.

Only if you pay the full price of the car when you buy it. Alot of people pay monthly instead, and on that basis one can easily argue that the Clever Car is cheaper, and the lower cost is realized from the first month of ownership.

Even if you pay the full price when you buy, remember that the Chevy Aveo is one of the cheapest cars sold in America. I totally acknowledge that, compared to a Chevy Aveo, it would take a few years to break even with the Clever Car. But it WOULD break even. A hybrid would not. And the Clever Car would be cheaper than nearly any other car on the road. It's not a bad deal.

When comparing car prices and cost of increased fuel consumption, has anyone accounted for the incease in amount driven in summer and the summer jump in gas prices? I'm not really sure where to look for averages on that, or if they amount to much.

Some info here (http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/steo/pub/fsheets/PetroleumPrices_files/slide0118.htm) on fluctuations in gas prices over time. On the graph it's hard to see seasonal variations, although there is a hint at some small regular fluctuation, and long term variations seem to be much more significant. As you can see the price is rising. The graph shows prices all the way back to 1980, in both actual price (nominal) and prices in 2005 dollars (real). By clicking on "Real Petroleum Prices" you will find a downloadable MS Excel workbook file named "petroleumprices.xls" containing a spreadsheet entitled "monthdata". It gives monthly prices for gasoline, diesel, heating oil, and crude oil for Jan-1980 projected through Dec-2007, all given in 2005 dollars. You have to have MS Excel software to view this file, or another spreadsheet program that can import MS Excel files. If you plot a graph of this data over the last few years only you might see a seasonal variation, but you have to do it yourself. I tried it and couldn't tell if the "bumpiness" of the graph is seasonal or not. The bumps seem to be much closer together over the last few years than in previous decades, so it doesn't necessarily indicate a seasonal cause, but it doesn't implicate an other trigger either. Over decade timespans the price varies more significantly.

The basic problem is...... Energy = Work.

Even if an engine is 100% efficient, the fuel you are burning only contains so much energy. If you want your gasoline to go further then you have to reduce the amount of WORK needed to move the car from A to B. That is, reducing or eliminating things that make it harder to move. Suppose you have to push the car, using good 'ol muscle power.... The first thing that would make it easier to push would be to make it lighter. It's 10-times easier to push a car that weighs 300 lbs than one that weighs 3000 lbs. The car engine has the same problem, but it can't complain. The car that is easier to push also gets better fuel economy.

how 'bout the "clever truck"?

The EPA cited laboratory tests showing that the technology has the potential to dramatically improve the fuel economy of urban vehicles used in applications such as package delivery, shuttle and transit buses and refuse pick-up. The EPA estimated that when manufactured in high volume, the added costs of the hybrid components could be recouped in less than three years through lower fuel and brake maintenance costs.

In the series hydraulic hybrid diesel, a high-efficiency diesel engine is combined with a unique hydraulic propulsion system, replacing the conventional drivetrain and transmission. The vehicle uses hydraulic pumps and hydraulic storage tanks to store energy, similar to what is done with electric motors and batteries in hybrid electric vehicles. Fuel economy is increased in three ways: vehicle braking energy is recovered that normally is wasted; the engine is operated more efficiently; and the engine can be shut off when stopped or decelerating.

The diesel hydraulic hybrid truck is potentially eligible to qualify for a tax credit that is up to 40 percent of the incremental cost of the vehicle under a provision of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 for medium- and heavy-duty vehicles.

Hybrids work. That's a proven fact. But high gas prices are needed to make them economical. Either way, you are looking at high cost of gas or high cost of vehicle.

The Clever Car is not a hybrid. It directly increases fuel economy by reducing weight. The car costs roughly the same as other cars, but uses a tiny fraction of the fuel. Overall costs are lower and it still gets you from A to B in a timely manner, and in a variety of weather conditions.

Here in the UK we are seeing an ever increasing number of "gas" stations springing up. I emphasis gas for our colonial friends over the pond as opposed to petroleum ;) I was told recently, but have not seen it, of a car now on the road, that changes to electrical drive at low speeds , then when speeds up on motorways etc, changes back to fuel.

More data on India's Tata Motors* small, efficient, mainly-urban** use, plastic (no rust / never repaint), durable, 4 wheel, US$2,200 car:

The 100,000 Rupies car is due out by CY 2008, and is by far Tata’s biggest push into the passenger car segment. There will be no competitor at this price point. The compact car will have a 30 bhp engine, and will seat 4-5 people. The target market is the “bottom of the pyramid” - or the lower middle-class to middle class Indian, who is looking to change to a car from a two-wheeler. With India’s burgeoning middle class of over 300 million people, the car has a large market. Its customer is less in cities like Bombay and Calcutta, than the smaller towns and perhaps even villages of India
--------------------------------------------------
*Tata Motors is part of the Tata Group (India's "GE")*** has 65% market share of all trucks sold in India and also exports. TTM contributes approx 20% of Tata Group profits.

**Top speed on level ground is approximately 60 mph according to prior, unofficial reports.

***As GM is on its way to bankrupcy, it would be an insult to call TTM "India's GM."

Seems you were right. This car will be manufactured in kit form in West Bengal (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/West_Bengal) and assembled by local businesses throughout India. The low cost is obviously due to the fact that parts are to be made in India. PPP there is roughly 10 percent that of western countries, so a car that costs 1/10th the price is no surprise. Until now cars sold by Tata were made in Brazil and elsewhere, and were extremely expensive for most Indians. Here are some media links for Tata Motors:

Tata Motors plan Rs 1 lakh car (http://www.tata.com/tata_sons/media/20030311.htm)

Tata selects Bengal for small car (http://www.tata.com/tata_motors/media/20060519.htm)

Tata Motors Press Releases (http://www.tata.com/tata_motors/releases/index.htm)

It will be interesting to see how Tata's Rs 1 lakh car performs compared to the Clever Car. It may be cheap, but what is the fuel economy? India's Purchasing Power Parity (PPP) is purposely only 10 percent of ours because of their export driven economy. But crude oil is still traded in US Dollars. That means a liter of refined "petrol" is sold for about 100 rupees in India ($2.42 per liter Canadian Dollars). Western consumers would be screaming like banshees if we had to pay this much for gasoline. For what fuel price range or miles driven would Tata's small car be the economical choice?

Clever Car is designed to be extremely lightweight and to carry only 1 person most of the time. That is why it's fuel consumption is so low, roughly 110 mpg. Tata Car is being designed to carry four people, so I am assuming that no efforts have been made to reduce its weight below that of a subcompact and therefore it will get the same fuel economy, roughly 30 mpg. This is a huge assumption. And because of the difference in currencies, one must decide which country the car will be driven in:

Case 1: Both cars are sold in India.

First we calculate the zero-down, 48-month purchase financing cost:

Cost of Clever Car = R560,279 = R11672.48/mth
Cost of Tata Car = R100,000 = R2083.33/mth

Fuel cost of Clever Car = (R378.50/gallon)/(110 mpg) = R3.44 per mile.
Fuel cost of Tata Car = (R378.50/gallon)/(30 mpg) = R12.62 per mile.

R11672.48 + A*(R3.44/mile) = R2083.33 + A*(R12.62/mile)
A = 1044.52 miles/mth

For this much driving the two cars cost the same (neglecting insurance & maintenance). If you drive less, the Tata Car will be the more economical choice. Unless you are a mail courier or other delivery person who puts on alot of miles this would probably not be a hard choice. If you drive a set distance, say 500 miles/mth, then the above equation can be reworked. The fuel price at which both cost the same then is R1534.26/gallon, roughly four times what the current price is. It is likely in the foreseeable future that the Tata Car will be the most economical car to drive in India, even compared to the ultra-fuel-efficient Clever Car.

Case 2: Both cars are sold in Canada

Cost of Clever Car = $13,500 Canadian Dollars = $281.25/mth
Cost of Tata Car = R100,000 = $2419.31 Canadian Dollars = $50.40/mth

Fuel cost of Clever Car = ($4.40/gallon)/(110 mpg) = $0.04 per mile.
Fuel cost of Tata Car = ($4.40/gallon)/(30 mpg) = $0.15 per mile.

$50.40 + A*($0.15/mile) = $281.25 + A*($0.04/mile)
A = 2098.64 miles/mth

Again, the Tata Car wins, unless you are on the road all the time, day and night. I'd like to see how the Tata Car stacks up against the Clever Car in other ways, such as safety, styling, comfort. So far no photos are available, no actual performance statistics. And this is a purely economic victory.

Keep in mind that the Tata Car does nothing to reduce fuel consumption. This car would drive oil consumption up globally. It does not achieve a sustainable level of fuel consumption for the North American market. To do so requires at least a 70 percent reduction in fuel consumption, and only the Clever Car does this. The Clever Car wins by achieving 100 percent renewability for the transportation sector. If the price of fuel went up continuously, eventually people in India who drive Tata Cars would respond by driving fewer cars. Car sales would plummet. In Canada, people who drive the Clever Car would avoid this by simply switching to biofuel, consuming a sustainable amount and allowing the same number of cars to remain on the road. Car sales would remain stable.

Interesting stuff!

...In Canada, people who drive the Clever Car would avoid this {cost of gas increase} by simply switching to biofuel, consuming a sustainable amount and allowing the same number of cars to remain on the road. Car sales would remain stable.You are not seriously suggesting that Cold Climate Canada, CCC, can produce bio fuel in greater quantity or cheaper than Hot Humid India, HHI, are you?

As HHI is already producing significant quantities of bio-fuels, especailly bio-diesel,* (not compared to their fuel need, but to other global producers, Brazil and US excluded) I will give you 10 to 1 odds HHI beats the "bio-pants" off of CCC. Does CCC produce any?

This from your second ref is worth reproducing here:

" The plant will be spread over an area of 700 acres with additional facilities for a vendor park. The total investment is likely to be over Rs 1,000 crore, including direct investment by Tata Motors as well as investments by its vendors. The plant will initially employ 2,000 people and is expected to create more than 10,000 jobs among vendors and service providers in the vicinity of the plant. Ratan Tata clarified though the number employed would be 10,000, the Tata Motors project would have a far-reaching impact on future investments in West Bengal. He commended the state government on the speed and manner in which the project was arranged. "
--------------------------------
*Tata's car will come in both gas and diesel versions.

Biofuel production might compete with food production depending on how it is made. The following stats indicate that Canada has 10-times more arable land per person, so biofuels in Canada are less likely to affect food production than in India.

Canada's arable land area = 411,300 square kilometers
Canada's population = 33,098,932
Canada's per capita arable land = 0.0124 sq.km per person

India's arable land area = 1,464,900 square kilometers
India's population = 1,095,351,995
India's per capita arable land = 0.00134 sq.km per person

I also want to announce the invention of the "green car" - it greatly reduces the emmission of greenhouse gases, even more than alcohol fueled cars.

It is simple, but does require some new techonolgy, as it uses carbon dust for fuel. Yes, it is true that the exhaust is pure CO2, but that has a much weaker green house effect than the Di-Hydrogen Mono-Oxide, DHMO, released by all fossil fuel cars and even by those powered by alcohol.

A car that can totally eliminate the release of DHMO would really be a "clever car" because DHMO is released in great quantities by all current cars and the proposed hydrogen-powered fuel-cell car's exhaust is pure DHMO!!!! - How ungreen can you get???

Molecule for molecule, DHMO is about 5 to 10 times worse as a greenhouse gas than CO2. DHMO is especially damaging when released at high altitude, so perhaps the first step to protect the Earth is to convert all planes to graphite fuel. On an energy content per pound it is higher than jet fuel , I think, so there is another reason to switch.

... Canada has 10-times more arable land per person...Not surprizing. who would want to live in CCC? :D

Outdoor ice skaters excepted, of course.

"Clever Car". Stupid name. They're so afraid someone might not see how clever they were in inventing this car, they put clever right in the name.

Anyway, what's so clever about it? I had a Geo metro that got about 55 miles to the gallon, would seat five, and had space for cargo! Also, back in ninety-five when I bought it brand new, it only cost about six grand.

As a 4-wheeled vehicle, the Geo Metro is about as lightweight as it can be. It is hard to achieve half the weight, and thereby double the fuel economy, of a Geo Metro without switching to a motorcycle configuration. A motorcycle is basically a car with the chassis cut in half lengthwise. And it is stable on two wheels. The Clever Car is aptly named because it is a fully-enclosed vehicle (all-weather) designed like a motorcycle with the tilting that makes them stable while cornering. Unlike a motorcycle, you don't have to put your foot down on the pavement to keep the Clever Car upright.

It's not all *that* clever: vehicle designs like the Clever Car have been around for 60 years. But now, with rising gas prices, the inherent advantages of this design are now apparent (but weren't before).

Nice to see that the letters "M" & "G" will not disappear from the front of cars made in the USA when GM goes bankrupt (I doubt that Renault and Nissan can save it in US, because it has been managed so badly by high paid CEO, who are now packing their golden parachutes; but the GM division in China is doing well, so that is probably what Renault and Nissan want.)

I am referring to the news that a Japanese company plans to begin building the old MG in Oklahoma and selling it for about $20,000.

Costs as much as a low-end full-size car.

Uses fuel that no one, and I mean no one carries. If the customer could attach a propane cannister to it, it would have a lot more potential as you can exchange those almost anywhere and the fuel costs for propane are competitive.

Being that small it should be an electric hybrid and have a lot better fuel economy. The primary engine for the hybrid should be either flex-fuel in some way or able to use any fuel, period.

No one is going to know how to work on it.

This vehicle does not meet my current needs. It would actually be better off working on gasoline.

Right. Well, an interesting historical chart here (http://www.torontogasprices.com/retail_price_chart.aspx) shows that gas prices have gone up 10 percent in the last couple months. And diesel prices have never been higher.

Want to spend less at the pump? Lose weight, say researchers.

"The study's conclusions are based on those weight figures and Americans' 2003 driving habits, involving roughly 223 million cars and light trucks countrywide.

It will appear in the October-December issue of The Engineering Economist, a peer-reviewed journal published by the American Society of Engineering Education and the Institute of Industrial Engineers."

source (http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=thestar/Layout/Article_Type1&c=Article&pubid=968163964505&cid=1161775029111&col=968705899037&call_page=TS_News&call_pageid=968332188492&call_pagepath=News/News)

This also applies to the weight of the vehicle. The less the vehicle weighs the less fuel it will consume.

This vehicle concerns me

1st - What if it gets hit, it'll fling around like a jack rabbit
2nd - It's 13,000 bucks! Someone with a good truck could just come by and steal the damn thing cuz it's so small!!!
3rd - What mechanic alive would even know how to begin repairs on something like that?!

I once saw a full-size sedan get T-boned in the middle of an intersection by another full-sized sedan that ran a stop sign. It did a '360' and came to a stop up on the sidewalk 10 feet from woman with a baby stroller.

Nobody seriously hurt. Just a little stunned.

I think if a car is designed to protect the occupant, e.g. crush zones but without crushing the occupant, 4-point safety harness, helmets, air bags; then even if a small car gets tossed in a collision the injuries might not be life threatening. Safety is mostly about design rather than size, but obviously you gotta be careful no matter what you drive.

Also, cars get stolen all the time. I think even a Clever Car would be too heavy for someone to just pick up and walk away with.

And most mechanics these days are pretty highly trained. So I wouldn't be worried about that.

Dear Sirs,
We are interested in your products and we want to cooperation with you
We are trading and manufacturing company and also we want and glad to be your exclusive representation for sell your products in IRAN
Please send us details of your product specifications and price and e-catalogue and CD and catalogue and samples by DHL or EMS.
Please introduce your web site address.
We look forward to hearing from you soon.
Sincerely,
Ali Sadeghian
Atieh Golha Trading & MFG Co.
Address: 3unit-num20-11eastern st-sazman barnameh northern-ferdous western blvd-aria shahr- sadeghieh sq-Tehran-IRAN
Zip postal code: 1483754563
E-mail: manager@aqbuild.com
Tellefax: 0098-21-44170598

http://www.blogsmithmedia.com/www.autobloggreen.com/media/2006/12/vectrix.jpg

Check this thing out! For sale soon in the US.
http://www.vectrix.com/

68 miles on a 2 hour charge, 75 miles on a full charge, regenerative braking, high performance, $11,000

Check this thing out! For sale soon in the US.
...68 miles on a 2 hour charge, regenerative braking, high performance, $11,000Nice, but any scooter will save money, get thru city traffic better, reduce CO2 pollution and many cost much less.

True, but they create greenhouse gasses, and the two-stroke ones are particularly polluting.

Honda Metropolitan 49 cc

http://powersports.honda.com/assets/images/model/c028_029_030_031_photos_all/scooters/2007/Metropolitan/LargeHoriz/Metropolitan_purple_kanji.jpg

Vespa old style 200 cc

http://www.vespausa.com/images/GT_excgray_main.jpg

Yes, those are nice, but the maxi-scooter is nicer for highway driving. You would have to compare it to one of these:
http://www.burgmanusa.com/burg400.jpg

True, but they create greenhouse gasses, and the two-stroke ones are particularly polluting.why do you say that? I ask for two reasons:

(1) the electricity you recharge the vectrix with very likely came from burning coal at less than 40% conversion. Then at least 5% was lost on the way to your house in wires and transformers but the total coal lost was greater than 65% because to get that 5% in electric power to loss, required 5/0.4 = 12.5% more coal. More than 60 + 12.5 =72.5%% of the coal lost before it gets to charge your battery. The battery charge/discharge cycle is probably less than 75% efficient and with 5% lost heating the electric motor of the vectrix the coal burnt (in energy terms) is at least 72.5/0.8 = 90.6% lost. In reality there is also the self discharge loss when battery is not in used (during the night etc.) so to keep it simple, lets say about 5% of the energy in the coal gets to power the wheels of the vectrix. The simple cheap vespa etc. gets at least 20% of the energy in the gasoline to the wheels. By this analysis, the vectrix will add about 4 times more CO2 to the air than the Vespa (and I have not even considered the fact that the Vespa is smaller and lighter so takes much less energy per mile of travel.)

(2) The visible smoke that comes out of the exhaust pipe is not necessarily "pollution" (unless you have some freshly washed white sheets etc. near by.) It is mainly fine carbon particles that can help make clouds form, and they may reduce global warming.

I am reminded of time long ago when I saw a lady in ignorance, but meaning well, drive up to the recycle deposit in her Cadillac, get out, put four or five soft drink bottles in the bin and then drove away, feeling very good about "helping the environment."

I am sure that even if I have some minor mistakes above, the vectrix is NOT good for the environment compared to the much cheaper Vespa (Also the manufacture of the Vectrix surely does much more damage than making a Vespa, but I will not go into that nor mention the toxic metals pollution that the dead batteries will make in the dump/ground water? someday.)

PS BTW, when poor student I had a Vespa and during one summer drove it on high way about 10 miles to work each day (A friend at Cornell with car helped get it to Stamford Conn, where the summer job was.)

I think you're incorrect. Electric engines are very efficient, and the batteries can be recharged from a solar array on your roof. Even if you get your power from the grid, upgrades in the sources of electricity to the grid can be easily made. In some states, you have the option of getting a percentage of your power from renewable sources like wind, hydroelectric, and solar. If you get your power from a coal fired plant, it's still better, since the US has alot of coal. Think about all the energy required to recover that oil and ship it to the gas stations. Any methods of capturing greenhouse gasses will be better applied to a power plant, since it is a central source.

The vectrix also does not require oil, or the same kind of maintenance as a combustion engine.

Good points SG, the grid is powered mostly by nuclear, natural gas and hydro electric where I live, but I can never understand why some people believe that ONE coal plant is worst than the equivalent number of internal combustion engines???

I'd love one of those electric scooters.
Quiet, clean, and far cheaper to run than gas.

On a performance note, electric motors make 100% of their torque at all speeds, so they can be very fast. Also if all your driving is in an urban area, the exhaust is far away at the power plant, not going into the lungs of pedestrians and joggers.

They also dont idle...:cool:

When the battery technology improves - and lithium polymer batteries get cheaper...transporation would be a revolution. All you engineers out there, start tinkering on battery technology.

It's probably already perfected, and the auto companies are suppressing it.

http://www.thunderstruck-ev.com/fullbody%20right.jpg (http://www.thunderstruck-ev.com/jackal_home.htm)

SUMMARY: Kiss Detroit/US leadership goodby.:(

I learned of the Chery by announcement that it would be sold in Brazil in about 2009 back in 2006 (and posted notice in these forums,but forget where so no link). Here is the latest on it:

" ... The Chery A1 is a cute little car. It's a four-door hatchback, with a 1.3-liter engine, dual air bags and antilock brakes. The two-tone interior, with air-conditioning, power windows and a CD player, is surprisingly appealing for a car that sells for just over $7,000 in China.

It may not quite live up to American standards. The engine needs refinement, and some parts don't fit as well as they should--not to mention concerns about the safety of anything made in China these days. But it's just the type of low-cost small car Chrysler needs if it hopes to grow both here and overseas.
...
Chrysler, which lost $2 billion in the first quarter, can't afford the $1 billion or more it would take to develop a new generation of minicars. Nor does it have the small, efficient engines it would need to power them. ...Chrysler's small-car solution, instead, lies with Chery Automobile, a Chinese carmaker with bold ambitions of its own. Chery has been building cars for just eight years but is already China's fourth-largest auto manufacturer, with sales of 300,000 vehicles in 50 countries last year, and plans to sell 1 million cars a year by 2010.
...
Starting next year Chery will build up to 100,000 vehicles, similar to the A1, that will be sold under the Dodge brand in emerging markets. By 2009 Chrysler and Chery plan to co-develop another small car, perhaps the Dodge Hornet, which would be good enough for the U.S. market.
...
Chrysler must also worry about its engineering know-how walking out the door. As with most Chinese manufacturers that learned the business by tearing down cars and reengineering the parts, Chery has run into a few skirmishes over intellectual property rights. In 2003 its QQ minicar debuted six months before a nearly identical car built by General Motors in Korea, the Chevrolet Spark. GM sued Chery in China, accusing the company of copying its design. GM lost.
...
"Chrysler took a silver plate and gave it to them," says Erkut Uludag, a partner in the Detroit office of Roland Berger Strategy Consultants, referring to the latest deal. By collaborating with an established American carmaker, says Uludag, Chery will quickly learn lessons that otherwise would have taken years, like how to nurture a brand in the U.S. or build a dealer network.
...
General Motors' next Buick will be co-developed with Chinese engineers. It's only a matter of time before Buicks are exported from China as well.
...
Chrysler started doing business with Chery four years ago, when it was building just 90,000 cars per year. Back then Chery bought engines from Chrysler's Brazilian operations. Today Chery makes its own engines--20 different ones, ranging from a tiny 0.8-liter up to a 6-cylinder now undergoing testing--with the help of avl, an Austrian engineering firm. Chery sprang to prominence recently amid a well-publicized plan by entrepreneur Malcolm Bricklin to export 250,000 Chery-built luxury cars to the United States. Chery eventually dumped Bricklin in favor of Chrysler
...
By the end of August Chery will celebrate making its one millionth car. Its complex is more vertically integrated than most U.S. factories--stamping body panels and building engines and transmissions, along with cars, all on one site. This year it will produce 400,000 cars in two shifts. Yet its plants aren't especially up to date. While the paint shop is as modern as any U.S. factory's, workers wearing respirators (but no eye protection) still use small paintbrushes, rather than automated tools, to slather sealant on critical weld spots.
...
Managers tout the Chery Production System, or CPS, which is modeled after the vaunted Toyota Production System, but Chery's operations seem less efficient. Workers scamper over the car's frame--and each other--to attach seats, instrument panels and wiring harnesses. Even supplies are handled inefficiently, with rows and rows of auto parts stacked up along the assembly line, awaiting installation.
... "
{Billy T Note: Observe that US is not the leader or ideal to copy anymore. -More evidence that US is in decline competitively, but strongest evidence is US steel industry, mostly vintage WWII. It needed US government aid about three years ago to avoid bankrupcy, but now China is buying all the steel that can be produced by anyone.}
CONDENSED FROM:
http://members.forbes.com/forbes/2007/0903/044.html?partner=globalnews_newsletter

PS Chery motors may eventually only sell in China as India's Tata motors is now building factory to produce an all plastic body, glued together (as some airplanes are now - as cheaper to make and stronger than rivets), four-wheel, never-rust , never-repaint, automatic continuous transmission gears system, four passenger, top speed around 50 or 60 mph, and at least 60mpg (perhpas 90mpg as it is light weight) car to sell around the world for about half the price of the Chery! Phase I of factory is designed for 100,000 units per year, but walled site is huge and expansion to 10 million units per years will easily fit. I know these details as I invested in Tata some years ago, but some are confired now at:
http://www.forbes.com/opinions/2007/08/05/india-autos-cheapest-oped-cz_zog_0813indiaauto.html
Where Chery and other makers of the future car are also discused. ("future of auto" is part of this thread's name.)

This is a pretty old thread. For better data you should check out this newer thread, which compares the Clever Car performance with a bunch of other vehicles:

http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=1508527&postcount=45

I'm not trying to predict what everyone is going to be driving in the future. Different people will make their unique choices. And regardless of fuel economy people will often make choices based on lifetime cost, or utility, or monthly cost, or even just appearance. For example, an individual probably would not buy a bus due to poor fuel economy and cost, but the same individual might buy monthly bus passes if they are cheaper than monthly purchase financing of a car. On the other hand, public transit is often subsidized by taxes, in the absense of which they might be the same cost or even more expensive than cars. No one really knows.

IMO sustainable transportation is essential to future prosperity. Without it we cannot move people, goods, or services around. If we have to reduce gasoline consumption by 75 percent to achieve sustainability, then we should employ every engineering solution available to achieve it, while at the same time allowing people to choose which vehicle they use. If reducing drag coefficient to 0.20 and weight by 50 percent achieves that goal, without sacrificing utility or passenger capacity, or making financing prohibitively expensive, then we should do that. Otherwise, if there is an energy crisis we'll be balls to the wall without a solution available. And then we can't move goods and services or people around, and the world stops.

NEW DELHI, SEPTEMBER 7 : Even as home grown automobile manufacturer Tata Motors is all set to launch its ambitious Rs 1 lakh car next year, market leader Maruti Suzuki has assured its shareholders that the car from Tatas would not be a competition to it and it would stick to its own strategy than reacting to competitors plans. ...Responding to queries from its shareholders at the annual general meeting here managing director Jagdish Khattar said the company would continue to focus on its own plans. ...Fiscal 2006-07 has been the best year for the company both in terms of sales performance and financial results. Net sales of the company increased by 21.6 per cent and net profit grew by 31.4 per cent over the previous year...."

I posted this to also show how the market for cars and demand for gasoline is growing, US like it or not. (They are the largest car maker in India - Growth % not large because of a small base.) China's is growing even faster.

Above condensed from:
http://www.indianexpress.com/story/215142.html

Tata's 1 lakh car is a beauty and getting raves:

"NEW DELHI, January 12: Just two days and the verdict is out. If the millions thronging Hall No 11 at Pragati Maidan is anything to go by, the people’s car Nano is an overwhelming hit, even before anybody outside the company has driven it. With the initial lot (250,000 units) expected to disappear even before it reaches the showroom, Tata is seriously threatening Hyundai for the number two spot in the auto industry. If the potential demand of 2 million cars is any indication, Nano is all set to sweep India, if not the world, in a very short span of time. ..."

From:
http://www.indianexpress.com/sunday/story/260827.html

Please someone who can post other photos, especially one showing the interior, with it center located instrument group (So located as some markets drive on otherside of road and Tata is thinking long term, when there are more Nanos than any other car in the world. From photo, I guess Indian drive like the Brits on the left.)

From Kmguru's post 773 in Thread "more great economic news" :
Tata Nano

http://www.hindustantimes.com/Images/2008/1/a3dbfd22-2e12-4f05-914b-446053d65bacMediumRes.JPG

I do not think the car is being produced yet. That is because there have been some attacks and fire at the Singur factory by local communist extremists. See wiki on singur.

The model displayed is a prototype. For some reason, no interior picture is available at Tata site.

http://www.hindustantimes.com/Images/2008/1/a3dbfd22-2e12-4f05-914b-446053d65bacMediumRes.JPG
I understand this car is a two cylinder...like the V-twin on a motorbike.

So I'm wondering how it can generate enough power to carry four people at 100 clicks???

Even the lowly Beetle was four cylinders no?

"In 1933, Adolf Hitler submitted sketches to Ferdinand Porsche of a proposed 'Volks-Wagen' a basic vehicle that should be capable of transporting two adults and three children at a speed of 100 km/h (62 mph). The People's Car would be made available to citizens of the Third Reich through a savings scheme at 990 Reichsmark, about the price of a small motorcycle at the time."

Nano is a 624 C.C. 33 HP engine. Our lawn tractor is 25 HP two cylinder. When going uphill, it strains. Without a twin turbo for the Nano, it will remain as a toy. May be the after market will boom with the turbo chargers. They should think about a diesel which will have higher torque. Time will tell how it holds up to Indian roads and people stuffing inside. I bet the engine will burn out in 6 to 8 months.

They should think about a diesel which will have higher torque.
Thats a good idea. I'll bet the price of vegetable oil in India is cheaper than diesel oil...or soon will be.

They dont have to convert it to biodiesel either, in such a hot climate.

They dont have to convert it to biodiesel either, in such a hot climate.

Yes, that is true. They could start with the diesel, and preheat the vegetable oil through the exhaust heat exchanger and make it go.

Horsepower of an IC is more related to the total volume of the combustion chamber(s) not the number of cylinders. I had use of a one cylinder diesel heavy workboat once which had plenty of power and a realtively large flywheel. That was years ago, but as I recall you could release the compression to hand spin up the flywheel and then when it was rapidly spinning, seal the combustion chamber and she kicked right over (no battery problems etc.) but obviously you do not want the weight of a large fly wheel in a car.

There are two main problems with only one cyliner. One is that lack of dynamic balance (Why 2,4,6 and 8 cylinder motors in cars are common to achieve this) and the other is the need for storage of energy (in a flywheel, almost always) as it comes infrequently in four cycle ICs. (Part of why most small, one-cylinder, out board motors are two cycles as the power stroke comes twice as often.)

another photo of the Nano at:

http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/...cs/2689913.cms
Sorry I can not upload it- Perhaps you can?

Here are some specks:
* 624 cc engine
* 33HP petrol engine
* Mileage of 20 kilometers per liter
* Passed full frontal crash test, the offset and side-crash test
* Bumper to bumper length 8% shorter than Maruti 800
* Legroom is expected to be 21 pc more than Maruti 800.
* The car meets the Bharat 3 (Euro 4) emission standards.
* The car that will come in two variants - AC and non-AC
* Will come a dealer price of Rs one lakh (about $2600 US$ now, but more later as the dollar continues to lose value) plus VAT and transport charges. (presumably for the non-AC version* with cloth instead of leather seats)
* Commercial launch in mid 2008-09

Note a liter is 0.246 gallons and 1.6km = 1 mile. That is 47+ mpg (quite close to the rumored 50mpg and often reported as 50mpg.)
------------------------
*Rumor has had it for more than a year that the Nano has automatic transmission with continuously variable gear ratio. If true, and if the lowest gear is low enough, then 33 horses in that light car will have no trouble climing up any hill, even with 5, relatively large, Indians seated in it.

Smart Car with GSXR1000 engine (http://thekneeslider.com/archives/2005/06/08/smart-car-plus-gsxr-equals-smartuki-a-very-smart-car)

Horsepower of an IC is more related to the total volume of the combustion chamber(s) not the number of cylinders.
The lowest powered production car was probably the 1950s Fiat 500, with a 13 hp two cylinder engine.

So I guess it is possible.

Old and new versions:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DHTukFiw18c

China seems (to me) to be leading the hybrid field at the moment; See:

http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=1713635&postcount=256

(I'm avoiding double posting, but could have been here.)

Perhaps there is secret Chinese/ Indian agreement? Tata get global cheap gas car market and China get the more expensive (but still relatively low priced) hybrid global market. One thing sure is despite Mitt's promisses yesterday, Detroit is dead in a decade. I am almost sure that China has a extra, little known, advantage if Li-ion battery is best for hybrid as China is main supplier of litium to the world, I think. They can set the domestic price lower than the export price. (Not "fair" perhaps, but US sets gas price lower than rest of world to make Detroit's monsters viable and China is a managed economy for this sort of thing.)

Off point, but I am also almost sure that all tungesten comes out of China. Good thing that compact floresents are taking over as China could turn the lights out allover the world in less than a year if it chose to do so.

India's Tata Motors paid MDI $28 million* a year ago for the right to build and sell Tata-branded Aircars in India. MDI is shipping a prototype to Tata this summer. Tata will either reproduce that car or, more likely, install the MDI technology in one of its existing cars, such as its recently unveiled Nano. A U.S. company called Zero Pollution Motors has purchased a license from MDI to build an Aircar factory in the States.

The absence of combustion allows MDI to use a lean aluminum engine casing. MDI's engine weighs 80 pounds, a third the weight of the powerhouse in a Toyota Corolla. The fuel is air compressed to 4,350 pounds per square inch, or 300 times the pressure of the air you breathe. Negre insists that despite the enormous pressure, the tank, in a collision, would split down its sides, harmlessly expelling the air in a giant phoomp.

Now for the drawbacks. The car's limited range would require plenty of fill-ups at compressed-air service stations, except those don't exist. Drivers could fill up at home by plugging in the car's onboard compressor, but that would take four hours. The Aircar weighs only 1,873 pounds (unfueled) and might not meet the safety regulations of the U.S. Negre says he can upgrade the safety features: "If we want to be in the U.S., we will have to pass, and that's what we plan on doing."

{See full atricle & pictorial diagram of motor at: http://www.forbes.com/forbes/2008/0505/058.html?partner=globalnews_newsletter }
-----------
*Hope they know what the Aircar in India is worth. - I have owned shares of TTM for years, before they announce the world's cheapest car Nano (at US$ 2500) -Bought mainly to get out of dollars and thought rapid wealth increases in India and large population would make big increase in both demand for financing (homes and cars mainly) and cars. (I own more in ADRs IBN of ICICI bank than Tata Motors. IMHO, if you are interested, the current slump in Indian stocks is a "buying opportunity" not likely to last.)

Cars running on air - the ZPM

http://zeropollutionmotors.us/beehive/wp-content/uploads/2008/01/citycat_orange_s.jpg

They just released a car that lets you know when someone is in your blind spot. Wouldn't that mean that your car was continually dinging at you???

Fine with ya all, but I am going with the nanotechnology as the key to the future of everything including cars assembly.

Presenting: Volkswagen Nanospyder

http://www.carbodydesign.com/archive/2006/11/01-volkswagen-nanospyder/_Volkswagen-Nanospyder-1-lg.jpg

A car that assembles and disseintegrates itself for many nanomachines.

http://www.carbodydesign.com/archive/2006/11/01-volkswagen-nanospyder/Volkswagen-Nanospyder-detail-lg.jpg

this is by the way the future I have seen and talked of

a car of nanotechnology supported by hydrogen fuel cells, solar power, wheel-mounted electric motors and inflatable organic body panels.

ah, just think. We try to solve all our problems by not changing what we do, but how we do it. We need something completely new, something completely fresh. What I think is funny is that we're falling into an energy crisis, but all around you there is enough energy for trillions of years, even at our skyrocketing demands and population increases. Converting one penny to energy would probably power the United States for an hour by itself. Off that tangent, how is something like that going to help us? Say every single person in the world drove one of those, and the engines were modified for 85% Ethanol. Plus, every spanking grain of biomass grown in the world is used for Ethanol. This still wouldn't solve the problem. Oil regenerates so slow, that even if we made our engines 100% efficient (which is impossible, no heat, sound, or light generated, everything that rotates in the engine weightless, and 100% lubricated with no friction etc) plus everything I stated above, oil still wouldn't regernerate fast enough. It would almost eliminate our pollution, but our oil reserves will still run dry. And what then?

Its too expensive for a two banger death trap.