300MPG

Makes me wonder just how economical a bike could be if the engineers were so inclined. Problem is even ordinary commuter bikes have near on supercar performance - I'd like to see what they could squeeze out of an engine if the tuned it soley for economy. The CGs can achieve 120mpg, but I reckon they could do better with a 250 and a slippery fairing.

I'd have thought there was a Market for this type of vehicle with petrol prices only going up etc
 
As above, a 50 isn't the pinnacle of fuel consumption due to it's lack of power.

BMW have 800's that return 65mpg and retain bike performance....id just like to see what the potential is if you say accepted a 0-60 time of 10 seconds and top speed of 120. Royal Enfield manage to get 85-100mpg out of their ancient engines and hopeless aerodynamics
 
Jonnycoupe said:
The VW L1 i guess? Awesome little thing IMO?

Evidently it is, just XL1 name now. That is much heavier than i expected though! Mine is not even 50kg heavier!
Click to expand...

It does seem heavy for all the exotic materials used, perhaps it's using a larger battery pack than your Insight?
 
Well I for one think this is brilliant! Whilst I'm not interested on this specific model/version I am pleased to see manufacturers genuinely trying their best to develop more and more cars that are more economical.

Hopefully with the rule changes in F1, we'll soon see vastly more economical performance road cars too :)
 
Jonnycoupe said:
Clown.
Click to expand...

Firestar_3x said:
Sorry i must have missed 30 minutes... So how is this car comparable to your 1983 Golf again?
Click to expand...

I love you guy's in motors, so critical of other people it's wonderful to watch :)

For a post closer to your liking: 'Photo' seems to be a rendering, meaning this is all down to CFD, CAD and general performance calculations which could mean they are all widely off and it will only ever reach 300mpg whilst doing 2mph on the electric motor. Not convinced that 800kg is actually a 'wow' improvement, given cars that are bigger and older weigh the same and carry more people - with assuming quite a few factors are equal, etc - have equal crash protection. However it could be that VW have purposely made it heavier to deal with CF's rubbish crash properties.

All in all adding up to me being hugely sceptical of it all until I see it, although in all honesty as much as huge MPG is technically interesting, it's boring and besides, hydro-carbon powered transport isn't the future.
 
Last edited:
Volkswagen-Concepts-251111159419916.jpg


Volkswagen-Concepts-251111159615216.jpg


That is a good rendering, you can even sit in it!
 
Dogbreath said:
It does seem heavy for all the exotic materials used, perhaps it's using a larger battery pack than your Insight?
Click to expand...

I think they have totally revisited this concept as the motor output is up and claiming 22miles in EV mode so yes I think you're right. The car appears to be side by side seating now aswell which would explain the XL1 name I guess. 5kWh pack should do 22miles and the pack we have here is only 50kg.

Worth bearing in mind GM claimed 230MPG for the Volt which the EPA then rated much lower with real drive cycles.
 
It actually looks quite cool :o

Even if its just a rendering.......

paradigm said:
The majority seem to be circa 100MPG. The problem with a 50 is how much you have to thrash the nuts off them to get them to shift an adult.
Click to expand...

Not too bad, but it does mean sitting on a moped, think i'd rather walk.
 
Concorde Rules said:
I love you guy's in motors, so critical of other people it's wonderful to watch :)

For a post closer to your liking: 'Photo' seems to be a rendering, meaning this is all down to CFD, CAD and general performance calculations which could mean they are all widely off and it will only ever reach 300mpg whilst doing 2mph on the electric motor. Not convinced that 800kg is actually a 'wow' improvement, given cars that are bigger and older weigh the same and carry more people - with assuming quite a few factors are equal, etc - have equal crash protection. However it could be that VW have purposely made it heavier to deal with CF's rubbish crash properties.

All in all adding up to me being hugely sceptical of it all until I see it, although in all honesty as much as huge MPG is technically interesting, it's boring and besides, hydro-carbon powered transport isn't the future.
Click to expand...

Pure conjecture that has been proven wrong. The simulations stiff is pretty impressively accurate anyway. This should do 130mpg in real life easy.

Im interested to see you substatiate your poor crash performance claims aswell... Maclaren seem to be okay with the tub on the MP4.

The only think stopping this is carbon production costs - 2006 they estimated $35k for the chassis, 2012 prediction is circa $5k.
 
Last edited:
Janesy B said:
*snip*
Click to expand...
Well I hadn't seen that, had I?

Has anyone got any typical drag figures for current typical cars and what that is?

I can't imagine that current cars are that draggy, although every little helps.


Jonnycoupe said:
Pure conjecture that has been proven wrong. The simulations stiff is pretty impressively accurate anyway. This should do 130mpg in real life easy.

Im interested to see you substatiate your poor crash performance claims aswell... Maclaren seem to be okay with the tub on the MP4.

The only think stopping this is carbon production costs - 2006 they estimated $35k for the chassis, 2012 prediction is circa $5k.
Click to expand...

130 != 300, 130 is a figure I easily believe and simulation accuracy varies from program to program, however being a billion dollar company VW probably uses a few of the best to confirm results.

I can only base crash performance on the information given to me by material experts, damaged carbon fibre isn't the nicest of materials to handle let alone be smashed into pieces when crashed. I assume a MP4-4 has been crashed?

As for production costs, the aerospace grade carbon-fibre with ~60% volume fraction is somewhere in the region of £40/kg. (Note: That figure is about a year old). Not very useful for working out what a high-volume car would cost, but maybe £5/kg? Although pure guesswork tbh.
 
Its an MP4-12...

Also why would you need aerospace quality materials? Jaguars certainly dont require aerospace grade ally from Alcoa like an airbus wing billet would! Not sure why the Vf is relevant when you havent defined the fibre (T700/T800?) nor suggested a resin?

Carbon fibre has some serious energy absorption capabilitys. automotive allows more engineering of this as you can not make a plane crash proof and most the wing is fuel anyway your materials expert will have a different view on things. F1 IS the example anyone an easily see. You make a rigid monoque then use softer metals or honeycomb core type structures to crumple. Chopped strand CFRP for example has some merit in low cost non strutural parts aswell, plenty of those in auto applications, of course you can often just use glass anyway. Many cars already do with parts 15% glass fibres, gearbox sumps for example!

mclaren-mp412c-p11-official-imploded.jpg


^^^ Carbon Tub.

The VW is 0.186 Cd. Lowest production is the E class coupe at 0.24 in boggo base spec. Mine is 0.25 as is the Prius.

Of course frontal area is just as relevant.
 
Last edited:
Dogbreath said:
Even with a traditional full fairing the aerodynamics of bikes are hopeless, unless you can fully enclose the rider.
Click to expand...

The only problem with fully enclosing the rider is what happens in an accident? I've not had a bike accident, but I can well imagine that being thrown clear would be preferable to being trapped inside.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom