Casey Putsch discuss building a car with "over 100 miles a gallon" and "zero to 60 in under 5 seconds"

[linux.poet]

The car itself appears to be made of fiberglass. I question whether it would be able to meet highway safety standards (in any market), as I suspect that it manages its impressive gas mileage and acceleration numbers thanks to a combination of low weight

Recreational vehicles are made out of fiberglass. It is a valid vehicle building material. Usually RVs support said fiberglass with wood, which is why they are slow lumbering gas guzzlers. The issue would not be the fiberglass, it would be the support material and durability of the support material for the fiberglass.

—————

The solution to the American energy efficiency problem is as uncomfortable as it is realistic: raise the speed limits. The distance from Los Angeles to New York is 2,824 miles one way. If you take the trip at 65 mph, the average speed for an American freeway, this is about 44 total hours on the road. Divide up the time into 16 hour driving segments, the maximum amount of time a human being can spend behind the wheel, and it’s a 3 day trip. This favors slow, comfortable, cargo hauling vehicles that can get to cheap remote campsites to spend the night.

If the speed limit were raised to 100 mph, then said 2,824 trip would take 29 hours, which is 2 days behind the wheel. Raise the speed limit to 200 mph, and the time to get between Los Angeles and New York is 1 day, with 14 hours behind the wheel. Raising these limits will favor faster and lighter vehicles that can actually go that fast. It would require special one-way high speed driving lanes, but it could be implemented between cities (not in the city) and save those drivers money in food, time (aka lost productivity/wages), and camping gear and fees.

If these faster and lighter vehicles earn 100 mpg, that will prove to be an even bigger economic incentive to make the switch, as opposed to 10 mpg for the big truck. Getting from New York to LA in a truck requires about 283 gallons of gas. At $3 a gallon, that’s $849. A 100 mpg vehicle would only use 29 gallons of gas to travel the same distance, for a cost of $87. That is a cost savings of $762. $87 is also less than the average plane ticket at about $150 apiece. The future of American energy is small, light, and fast cars. That’s how you get the kerosene guzzling planes out of the sky and the gas guzzling trucks and SUVs off the road.

Now this guy may not have the correct solution, but he’s on the right track.

 

[durangodawood]

...The solution to the American energy efficiency problem is as uncomfortable as it is realistic: raise the speed limits. The distance from Los Angeles to New York is 2,824 miles one way. If you take the trip at 65 mph, the average speed for an American freeway, this is about 44 total hours on the road. Divide up the time into 16 hour driving segments, the maximum amount of time a human being can spend behind the wheel, and it’s a 3 day trip. This favors slow, comfortable, cargo hauling vehicles that can get to cheap remote campsites to spend the night.

If the speed limit were raised to 100 mph, then said 2,824 trip would take 29 hours, which is 2 days behind the wheel. Raise the speed limit to 200 mph, and the time to get between Los Angeles and New York is 1 day, with 14 hours behind the wheel. Raising these limits will favor faster and lighter vehicles that can actually go that fast. It would require special one-way high speed driving lanes, but it could be implemented between cities (not in the city) and save those drivers money in food, time (aka lost productivity/wages), and camping gear and fees.

If these faster and lighter vehicles earn 100 mpg, that will prove to be an even bigger economic incentive to make the switch, as opposed to 10 mpg for the big truck. Getting from New York to LA in a truck requires about 283 gallons of gas. At $3 a gallon, that’s $849. A 100 mpg vehicle would only use 29 gallons of gas to travel the same distance, for a cost of $87. That is a cost savings of $762. $87 is also less than the average plane ticket at about $150 apiece. The future of American energy is small, light, and fast cars. That’s how you get the kerosene guzzling planes out of the sky and the gas guzzling trucks and SUVs off the road.

Now this guy may not have the correct solution, but he’s on the right track.

Physics is working against you in that air resistance increases with the square of the speed.

 

[Hans Blaster]

The solution to the American energy efficiency problem is as uncomfortable as it is realistic: raise the speed limits.

It isn't. Speed destroys fuel efficiency.

The distance from Los Angeles to New York is 2,824 miles one way. If you take the trip at 65 mph, the average speed for an American freeway, this is about 44 total hours on the road. Divide up the time into 16 hour driving segments, the maximum amount of time a human being can spend behind the wheel, and it’s a 3 day trip. This favors slow, comfortable, cargo hauling vehicles that can get to cheap remote campsites to spend the night.

If the speed limit were raised to 100 mph, then said 2,824 trip would take 29 hours, which is 2 days behind the wheel. Raise the speed limit to 200 mph, and the time to get between Los Angeles and New York is 1 day, with 14 hours behind the wheel. Raising these limits will favor faster and lighter vehicles that can actually go that fast. It would require special one-way high speed driving lanes, but it could be implemented between cities (not in the city) and save those drivers money in food, time (aka lost productivity/wages), and camping gear and fees.

If these faster and lighter vehicles earn 100 mpg, that will prove to be an even bigger economic incentive to make the switch, as opposed to 10 mpg for the big truck. Getting from New York to LA in a truck requires about 283 gallons of gas. At $3 a gallon, that’s $849. A 100 mpg vehicle would only use 29 gallons of gas to travel the same distance, for a cost of $87. That is a cost savings of $762. $87 is also less than the average plane ticket at about $150 apiece. The future of American energy is small, light, and fast cars. That’s how you get the kerosene guzzling planes out of the sky and the gas guzzling trucks and SUVs off the road.

People don't drive from NY to LA unless they are driving a moving van or taking a classic American road trip. If there goal is to get to LA quickly, we have an efficient, fast, and affordable mode of travel -- planes.

Now this guy may not have the correct solution, but he’s on the right track.

The more I hear, the more he sounds like some huckster who conned a ill-informed "journalist/pundit".

 

[RocksInMyHead]

Recreational vehicles are made out of fiberglass. It is a valid vehicle building material. Usually RVs support said fiberglass with wood, which is why they are slow lumbering gas guzzlers. The issue would not be the fiberglass, it would be the support material and durability of the support material for the fiberglass.

True. His prototype appears to have little in the way of support structure though.

The solution to the American energy efficiency problem is as uncomfortable as it is realistic: raise the speed limits. The distance from Los Angeles to New York is 2,824 miles one way. If you take the trip at 65 mph, the average speed for an American freeway, this is about 44 total hours on the road. Divide up the time into 16 hour driving segments, the maximum amount of time a human being can spend behind the wheel, and it’s a 3 day trip. This favors slow, comfortable, cargo hauling vehicles that can get to cheap remote campsites to spend the night.

If the speed limit were raised to 100 mph, then said 2,824 trip would take 29 hours, which is 2 days behind the wheel. Raise the speed limit to 200 mph, and the time to get between Los Angeles and New York is 1 day, with 14 hours behind the wheel. Raising these limits will favor faster and lighter vehicles that can actually go that fast. It would require special one-way high speed driving lanes, but it could be implemented between cities (not in the city) and save those drivers money in food, time (aka lost productivity/wages), and camping gear and fees.

If these faster and lighter vehicles earn 100 mpg, that will prove to be an even bigger economic incentive to make the switch, as opposed to 10 mpg for the big truck. Getting from New York to LA in a truck requires about 283 gallons of gas. At $3 a gallon, that’s $849. A 100 mpg vehicle would only use 29 gallons of gas to travel the same distance, for a cost of $87. That is a cost savings of $762. $87 is also less than the average plane ticket at about $150 apiece. The future of American energy is small, light, and fast cars. That’s how you get the kerosene guzzling planes out of the sky and the gas guzzling trucks and SUVs off the road.

Now this guy may not have the correct solution, but he’s on the right track.

A fully-loaded 737 gets ~75 MPG per passenger and gets you across the country in 4-5 hours. If you want more efficiency, but somewhat slower, there's always high-speed rail (which would require similar levels of infrastructure to building dedicated high-speed vehicle lanes). The best of Japan's bullet trains has about triple the energy efficiency per passenger compared to a passenger jet (in the neighborhood of 200-250 MPGe).

There's really no universe in which personal vehicles will beat mass-transit options for efficiency. Their only advantage is in convenience.

 

[durangodawood]

....There's really no universe in which personal vehicles will beat mass-transit options for efficiency. Their only advantage is in convenience.

Maybe in a universe where certain physical constants are different?

 

[linux.poet]

People don't drive from NY to LA unless they are driving a moving van or taking a classic American road trip.

Or they are trying to haul a free rock saw from New York to L.A. Good luck fitting that in an airline check bag. Sometimes for smaller households you can just throw the entirety of your worldly possessions in a truck and skip the moving van altogether. And since people move around regularly in the U.S. chasing employment, having a truck in your garage may not be so dumb.

Never mind the entire trucking industry either, aka those who drive semis.

A fully-loaded 737 gets ~75 MPG per passenger and gets you across the country in 4-5 hours.

But it’s more expensive. By the lime you factor in airfare, check luggage costs, hotel and rental car, and having to buy things at your destination you couldn’t get through TSA for exorbitant prices, it’s cheaper to throw a tent and a cooler in the back of even a 40 mpg car and just drive to your destination.

(Of course, I could push the argument into absurdity and suggest that bike touring is the most economically efficient way to get around, but by the time you factor in lost wages and food cost it’s cheaper just to pay for the gas for the drive.)

People dictate their lives based on economics and incentives, not efficiency. My argument has nothing to do with physics, it has to do with economics.

It should be relatively straightforward that the faster and lighter your vehicle is, the cheaper your trip is. The heavier and slower your vehicle is, the more expensive it is, and that everyone should be economically incentivized to buy smaller, lighter, and faster cars. But that’s not what’s happening. There are economic incentives in American life for people to have and own trucks and SUVs, so people buy them.

 

[Aryeh Jay]

It isn't. Speed destroys fuel efficiency.

You are not wrong. In the relm of "fast" gas burning warships, the difference between 20 and 25 knots, (not even a measly 6mph) is almost 50% of what it takes to reach 20 knots. You ain't gonna make that Kessel run in under 12 parsecs.

 

[Yttrium]

If the speed limit were raised to 100 mph, then said 2,824 trip would take 29 hours, which is 2 days behind the wheel. Raise the speed limit to 200 mph, and the time to get between Los Angeles and New York is 1 day, with 14 hours behind the wheel. Raising these limits will favor faster and lighter vehicles that can actually go that fast. It would require special one-way high speed driving lanes, but it could be implemented between cities (not in the city) and save those drivers money in food, time (aka lost productivity/wages), and camping gear and fees.

You wanna drive a fiberglass car into an EF4 tornado on a regular basis?

Good luck with the handling.

 

[Trogdor the Burninator]

Cool car, but let's be realistic. It's a fibreglass 2-seater low-slung car with no emissions controls, no airbag, no ABS, no radio, no aircon, no glovebox, no sound deadening, no crumple zones, no dashboard padding, a non-retractable lap seat belt, no pre-tensioners, a fixed plastic side windows, and a plastic windscreen. And that's before we get to modern safety equipment like auto-braking and stability control.

There is no conspiracy - it's not a production car.

 

[DaisyDay]

If the speed limit were raised to 100 mph, then said 2,824 trip would take 29 hours, which is 2 days behind the wheel. Raise the speed limit to 200 mph, and the time to get between Los Angeles and New York is 1 day, with 14 hours behind the wheel. Raising these limits will favor faster and lighter vehicles that can actually go that fast. It would require special one-way high speed driving lanes, but it could be implemented between cities (not in the city) and save those drivers money in food, time (aka lost productivity/wages), and camping gear and fees.

Casey Jones, gonna reach 'Frisco
Casey Jones, but we'll all be dead
Casey Jones, gonna reach 'Frisco
Gonna reach 'Frisco but we'll all be dead.​

Lightweight chassis, high speeds - what could go wrong?

 

[johansen]

I do think he has probably achieved the numbers he claims, but I have serious doubts that they can be achieved at the same time, that a fully-certified (safety and emissions) production example will match them, or that the vehicle can be mass produced economically.

I don't. 100mpg on a track, sure. but not when accelerating to 60 in 5 seconds every 10 miles. 100mpg daily driving? no.

its possible to get 70mpg relatively easily out of a first gen honda insight (lithium ion batteries are now available thanks to some guy on the east coast). getting 80, 90MPG is difficult.

 

[Trogdor the Burninator]

I don't. 100mpg on a track, sure. but not when accelerating to 60 in 5 seconds every 10 miles. 100mpg daily driving? no.

its possible to get 70mpg relatively easily out of a first gen honda insight (lithium ion batteries are now available thanks to some guy on the east coast). getting 80, 90MPG is difficult.

People were getting down near 3.5L/100 (so not quite 70mpg) out of early 90s Honda Civic VEI sedans - and they were regular petrol-powered Hondas with a economy-focussed engine and low resistance tyres.

As for 100mpg - Volkswagen had a concept car over 10 years ago that would do 260 mpg. And it didn't have a stuck-on plastic windscreen and no proper seat belts.

The problem isn't that we can't make cars that do 100 mpg. The problem is that people by and large won't buy them. What people want, especially in the US, is monstrous, hulking SUVs and pickup trucks.

 

[FireDragon76]

Knowing something about diesel engines (my family used to own a VW Jetta, and I did a little work on all sorts of engines from time to time when I was younger), I'm very skeptical this would be all that practical for a mass market car that people would actually want to buy. Diesels are very efficient and produce alot of torque, but their power output is relatively limited for their size/weight.

The amount of pollution made by diesel is also very high, especially particulates and nitrogen oxides, which contributes to smog to an ordinate degree. All that dirty exhaust gas can also muck up the engine itself, particularly exhaust gas recirculator valves, which are no picnic to clean (most mechanics would rather replace the part altogether when it clogs).

 

[SimplyMe]

I'd like to point out that my car can go 0-60 in 4.5 seconds and is EPA rated at 117 MPGe; as well as being a 5 passenger car with about 25 cubic feet of cargo space. Not sure why I should care about a 2 seater diesel car that is slower, isn't as efficient, and has none of the safety tech or amenities of mine.

 

[Pommer]

I'd like to point out that my car can go 0-60 in 4.5 seconds and is EPA rated at 117 MPGe; as well as being a 5 passenger car with about 25 cubic feet of cargo space. Not sure why I should care about a 2 seater diesel car that is slower, isn't as efficient, and has none of the safety tech or amenities of mine.

I have lusted in my heart for your car.
(Sorry 0 sorry)