Edison2 Very Light Car

[NeilBlanchard]

Hi,

This car has come a long way since the last one we saw -- it is very similar to the Aptera 2e in some obvious ways, and it quite different in other ways.

http://www.blogcdn.com/green.autoblog.com/media/2010/01/very-light-car-3.jpg (http://green.autoblog.com/2010/01/13/detroit-2010-edison2s-very-light-car-scoffs-at-electric-avenue/1#c24664119)
(click on picture for link)

http://www.blogcdn.com/green.autoblog.com/media/2010/01/very-light-car-2.jpg
http://www.blogcdn.com/green.autoblog.com/media/2010/01/very-light-car-7.jpg
http://www.blogcdn.com/green.autoblog.com/media/2010/01/very-light-car-8.jpg

The similarities are: streamlined body with outrigger wheels, and two seats side-by-side, composite construction.

The main differences are: ICE-only power train, 4 wheels, 1 entry door.

I like parts of this, but others are a bit odd. So, what do you think?

[evmavin]

I like the custom made tail light, clearly not a catalog item.

[NeilBlanchard]

Here's a link to their web page:

http://www.edison2.com/gallery/the-very-light-car/

[basjoos]

It has a look similar to some of the 1930's German streamliners. Although very good, I can see some places where the aero could be improved. Clear fairings over the headlights, windshield wiper at top dead center on the windshield, fillet the intersections between the fuselage/wheel covers and the horizontal arms, gap sealing around the door, and get rid of the flat terminator at the back of the boattail.

[KarenRei]

Looks about as refined as the Mk0. :P Now, hand it over to Jason Hill for six months or so...

Also, I'd much prefer a horizontal boattail to a vertical, for wind and convenience reasons.

[NeilBlanchard]

I was wondering how they made the suspension work within those fixed aero struts -- here's what appears to be the rear suspension:
http://www.edison2.com/picture/rear%20axle%20suspension%20edited.jpg?pictureId=40 66690

The shock sits closer to the car, and the top is braced on the chassis. I guess that there are two large diameter bearings on the inner end, and the whole tube rotates as the wheel moves up and down? They seem to not be showing the outer swing arm (http://www.edison2.com/picture/gearcase%2003.jpg?pictureId=4066694)? This set up bothers me -- there must be a lot of torque and bending on this tube...

And I also like the "very light wheels":
http://www.edison2.com/picture/our%20latest%20version%20of%20a%20very%20light%20y et%20strong%20wheel%20which%20can%20collapse%20in% 20an%20accident.jpg?pictureId=4066689

[speculawyer]

Well . . . it has 4 wheels so it could be stretched out to hold 4 people.

But it would never pass crash tests or current regulations as is.

[SEGsby]

I think my Fugly Meter broke. :(

[PatQ562]

Nice to know someone else is carrying the superstreamliner torch, even if not electric. Wish we knew HOW light the "Very Light Car" is supposed to be.

Pat Q

[NeilBlanchard]

Some pictures from a day at the test track:

http://www.edison2.com/gallery/nccar-test-day/

I think it will be between 1,000 and 1,200 pounds. It is faster than the Jetta TDI and got 2.5-3X better fuel economy:

http://www.edison2.com/blog/

[Rembrant]

Even the color is ugly.
Four wheels means federal safety standards. It sure doesn't look like it would pass from here.
It looks like it's further along than the MK0, but not by much.
As for aero? Still needs work. The headlights couldn't be less aero short of mounting some giant Hella's on the roof.
One door?

[SEGsby]

The idea of extruding a flat plane into the body to mount a cheap headlight, just looks awful and reduces efficient airflow.

The inset headlights that curve the outer surface around them as on the Aptera PP series, are one of the best frontal illumination design solutions I've seen for that shape.

The old Aptera MKO had the same problem. :P

[palmer_md]

The idea of extruding a flat plane into the body to mount a cheap headlight, just looks awful and reduces efficient airflow.

The inset headlights that curve the outer surface around them as on the Aptera PP series, are one of the best frontal illumination design solutions I've seen for that shape.

The old Aptera MKO had the same problem. :P

http://www.edison2.com/picture/dsc_1744.jpg?pictureId=4709878

http://www.edison2.com/picture/dsc_1744.jpg?pictureId=4709878


They obviously know about this and have a temporary solution in place for the latest tests.

[SEGsby]

Apparently it's so temporary, I'm getting 404's trying to follow your links... :(

I did look at their gallery however, and find the vehicle has a certain unappealing "movie prop" look to it, even with the front slots covered over.

[NeilBlanchard]

They don't allow direct links to pictures, I guess. Here's the gallery page:

http://www.edison2.com/gallery/nccar-test-day/

[Matthijs]

Why does the VLC have so much headroom? It looks way to tall.

[NeilBlanchard]

I agree Matt -- the roof would look better if it had a larger radius, I think. And this would lower the height, and it can't help but improve the aerodynamics (if only by reducing the frontal area); which looks to be good to start with.

[NeilBlanchard]

Hi,

Edison2 has a new video of the VLC on the track:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1PH_gZeKpNM&feature=player_embedded

And there is an longer video where they talk about the design philosophy and shows the car in various stages of development:

Edison2: The Very Light Car (X PRIZE Contender) - Video (http://www.edison2.com/video/)

[Matthijs]

I like that project a lot and the philosophy video is very nice. I like the way they talk about the feel of efficiency. But what I really DO NOT like about their philosophy is that they are focusing to much on light weight and therefore basically rule out electric drive. A Prius is more economical with ICE only? What about an electric drive Prius only? :fighting0030: They are missing the big picture and the potential of electric drive and all that surrounds it. Their main focus is on natural gas and reducing MPG.

And the noise levels of that engine are pretty high and raw.

I type as I watch the video. Added batteries to a car makes it more dangerous? Oh come on now.

[PatQ562]

Mathijs makes good points in my book. The "lawnmower" engine demonstrates the difficulties in downsizing a gas motor -- relative efficiency starts dropping off, and the car becomes noisy. The charm of electric propulsion lies in the very necessity of ultra-efficient everything, coupled with the silent glide that is the true "feel of efficiency".

Honestly, I couldn't make it through the videos, because it was apparent that this enterprise stands about where Aptera did about four years ago, when the first belt-drive gas-motor prototype was running around. I don't care as much for its styling, and the vertical tail looks like a cross-wind problem. As frustrated as we are with Aptera's stalled progress, it is far closer to being a real car.

Pat Q

[NeilBlanchard]

They have a turbo and exhaust recirculation in lieu of a throttle, and I was concerned that it would be slow (and it may not be real quick). They may have a harder time making it quiet because it may be that air flow through the engine is even more critical?

I think that Matthijs makes excellent points, too.

[palmer_md]

They have a turbo and exhaust recirculation in lieu of a throttle, and I was concerned that it would be slow (and it may not be real quick). They may have a harder time making it quiet because it may be that air flow through the engine is even more critical?

I think that Matthijs makes excellent points, too.

The EGR is not for throttle, it is to warm the air going into the engine to enhance combustion and to direct non combustible air into the engine to reduce fuel consumption. A throttle is still required to control the engine.

[NeilBlanchard]

Take a look at this photo:

http://www.edison2.com/photos/the-very-light-car/4066688

I am pretty sure that I read that they are not using a throttle, and with all this plumbing, it certainly looks like they are using something unusual on this engine...

[NeilBlanchard]

BTW, the last I heard, the VLC weighs just 650 pounds.

[NeilBlanchard]

Here's a picture from the X-Prize -- these look better with a shorter nose, I think. The near one looks like the 4-seat car.

http://sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-snc3/hs330.snc3/29099_422251346132_255167146132_5884862_3074560_n. jpg

[aptera1213]

One thing...at 650 pounds they should be cheap to make.

I imagine this will be a fairly cheap car. And the wheel wells look nice.

Gavin

[SEGsby]

Hmm, deathtrappy lookin'.

[aptera1213]

Hmm, deathtrappy lookin'.


Ha, yep....of course i only have scooters and bicycles, so that is soooo much safer than what i currently ride.

and every hummer and suv owner looks at the aptera and sez, "Hmm, deathtrappy lookin'", so there is a range of perspectives :)

that said, yeah, this is not a mainstream vehicle...opps, i mean car.

this is a niche car.









but then...so is some other similar shaped vehicle :)

i bet the the very light car people are thinking they can price this around 15k and sell a few thousand a year. and they would be right. this could sell a few thousand at a cheap price.

i just wish some other company had understood that same thing...price it as low as possible and sell a few thousand a year...cuz that is what the market is for these high efficiency, abnormal shaped vehicles is...for at least a decade or so...at that point, maybe they will change lots of minds and mindsets...but currently people see a teardrop car and think deathtrappy or ugly or hippy tree hugger elitist...and that will take time and then some more time to change.
Gavin

[randyd]

If you look at the photos here (http://www.edison2.com/photos/nccar-test-day/), you will see no exterior rear-view mirrors, but you will see a windshield wiper hanging out in the breeze, but aligned with the wind, not across it.

Can anybody tell if the X-Prize photos have external rear-view mirrors? My mind can't quite untangle the open doors, reflections, and dark colors.

[Grendal]

Hmm, deathtrappy lookin'.

Go-Carty lookin' to me... I'd take an Aptera over these any day. I want at least some mainstream comforts.

[PatQ562]

If that's carbon fiber like it appears, they won't be cheap to build even at 650 lbs. If weight is really that low, why the regular-looking tires? My 1250 lb 2CV rolls on 125-15 Michelin radials, notably smaller than mainstream tires, with a tread-contact width of about 3-inches. It would be interesting to hear more about the motor.

[eestorfan]

Ha, yep....of course i only have scooters and bicycles, so that is soooo much safer than what i currently ride.

and every hummer and suv owner looks at the aptera and sez, "Hmm, deathtrappy lookin'", so there is a range of perspectives :)

that said, yeah, this is not a mainstream vehicle...opps, i mean car.

this is a niche car.
but then...so is some other similar shaped vehicle :)

i bet the the very light car people are thinking they can price this around 15k and sell a few thousand a year. and they would be right. this could sell a few thousand at a cheap price.

i just wish some other company had understood that same thing...price it as low as possible and sell a few thousand a year...cuz that is what the market is for these high efficiency, abnormal shaped vehicles is...for at least a decade or so...at that point, maybe they will change lots of minds and mindsets...but currently people see a teardrop car and think deathtrappy or ugly or hippy tree hugger elitist...and that will take time and then some more time to change.
Gavin

Actually, for me, I wouldn't care if it sold for even $5K, because I wouldn't buy it! It's very simple...it's an ICE! If it were ALL electric, that would be a WHOLE different story. So, IMO, it is NOTHING like an Aptera.

[virtualeric]

I can't help but notice the Edison team appears to be the one Xprize team holding the flame of weight/efficiency/handling the highest -- even more so than Aptera these days. They breezed through the accident avoidance test today and I think they could be the lightest competitor, possibly in each class.

I've glanced at their website before, but today I dug deeper into it. Their dedication to minimum weight and maximum efficiency feels more like the old Aptera than the new one. I thought their design looked a little bizarre, clumsy and perhaps not crash-safe.

But then I looked into the staff's previous projects -- holy cow -- http://www.edison2.com/photos/past-work-of-edison2-personnel/ If applying a top-shelf race pedigree to weight and efficiency looks clumsy to me, color me clueless. You gotta admit, that racing background and efficiency obsession are a formidable combination! And whatever the appearance, they're forcing me (like Aptera did with 3 wheels) to expand my vision of what weight/efficiency looks like.

Their relentless commitment to weight/efficiency is the same thing I admired in the Aptera that was.
IMHO it makes more sense to take the route Edison2 appears to be taking: demonstrate the viability of a hyper-efficient vehicle in the X-prize, get the tech/weight/efficiency/handling completely dialed in, and THEN design regulatory compliance and consumer comforts into the efficiency platform -- preferably with as few compromises as possible. But first you need to have a solid efficiency platform/foundation and have it as "xprize-tested" as possible before you start making compromises.

I think perhaps Aptera jumped the gun: resting on laurels of weight/efficiency (and possibly the new egos), they may have rushed prematurely into consumer mass appeal, thereby giving up precisely what Edison2 may trump them on in the Xprize -- weight/efficiency/handling. If the Xprize is about "clean, production-capable vehicles that exceed 100 MPG energy equivalent (MPGe)", then Edison2 may be the team with the most solid foundation upon which that can be realized.

They can design consumer comforts and safety into massive SUV's. There must be a smart way to design them into an Edison2 platform (or Aptera for that matter). But first you need to have a pure, un-compromised platform of efficiency to design them into.

To make efficiency, safety, and consumer-comfort co-exist, unlike Aptera, auto & consumer industry experts have to work hand in hand with people like the Edison2 team to make that a reality -- not force them out of the company. Ultimately, an Edison2 type of brain needs the final say on where efficiency is compromised for safety and consumer comfort. A piece of me feels like Aptera lost their way when they came to that crossroad. And perhaps the stubborn, efficiency-obsession of an Edison2 type designer/engineer is what will win the day (and the Xprize) in the end.

[NeilBlanchard]

Last I heard, the 2-seat Very Light Car was ~650 pounds total.

[virtualeric]

I just had to say that.

Frequent updates, excellent writing, on message, very informative.

I might be more a fan of Edison2 than Aptera right now. Their efficiency paradigm, like others, is excellent. But unlike others, they're not going to compromise efficiency and they've got the guts and hardware to enter all three categories.

Their blog oozes innovation, courage, integrity, honesty -- I like that.

[virtualeric]

Last I heard, the 2-seat Very Light Car was ~650 pounds total.
I just posted a thread about it, but their blog simply rocks. Having the most efficient platform helps.

As they have so eloquently put it,

(at X prize) "The lesson of pure efficiency - the message of low mass and good aerodynamics - will sound loud and clear"

"Therefore it is harder to take weight out of a car than to design a new one; the Very Light Car is light because it is light."

"Our car is favored by physics. More important, however, our innovations in weight and aerodynamics apply regardless of power source, making a hybrid or electric car much more efficient"

"What matters is that this is the most efficient automobile platform ever built.

The Very Light Car: it’s all about the platform."

[chris22104]

If I can squeak 82.4 mpg on a 1160 mile trip in a first gen 2000 Honda Insight that weighs 1818 lbs (10 year old technology,) just think what a 650 lb. car could do with a much better (lower) cd and way less frontal area. Any idea on cc's of engine or cd?? Being a 4 wheeled vehicle, wouldn't it be subjected to all the US safety and crash requirements that a 3 wheel vehicle is not?

[PatQ562]

get the tech/weight/efficiency/handling completely dialed in, and THEN design regulatory compliance and consumer comforts into the efficiency platform -- preferably with as few compromises as possible.

Much as I too admire a relentless focus on lightness and efficiency, this approach is not realistic. None of the great efficiency cars (VW, 2CV, Mini) started this way. Their design was conceived from the beginning to solve a certain range of problems with creative construction. If you start with "bare bones" and then modify, you will repeat the Aptera saga - a seemingly "ready to go" design that (allegedly) required complete re-design to meet crash and comfort standards. I assume Edison2 must meet full automobile safety requirements since it has 4 wheels. Aptera at least had a choice with only three wheels.

It is very unlikely that a radically lightweight race-car type chassis can be "painlessly" modified to meet crashworthiness and comfort standards without major compromises and weight gains, even if we disregard cost issues. It would probably be easier (if expensive) to "add lightness" to an established design by substituting lighter, stronger materials, but the real answer is to radically re-think the entire packaging standard, SOLVING the problems up front thru design rather than "bandaids".

Aptera seemed to be on this path. Choosing three wheels immediately resolved several issues - inherently more efficient, AND freedom from specific statutory FMVSS limitations. They also chose a monolithic composite body shell to leapfrog past the limits of stampings or panels on tubing. They COULD have kept the cabin leaner and still be reasonably comfortable (the 2CV shows what can be done here). BUT somewhere along the line they took a different fork in the road. It was decided to make it a "real car" with a full-service interior and Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard compliance. And so, here we are.

A number of comments note how much more "real world" the Aptera seems than the other Alternative candidates. This is not a coincidence.

Pat Q

[plainar]

This competition is less about what seems, ie fancy interior and vinyl stickers, but more about performance. As they say, all that glistens is not gold.

[aptera1213]

More real world than the amp sky? Nope, the sky is way more real world...heck it was real world. :)

Gavin

[PatQ562]

More real world than the amp sky? Nope, the sky is way more real world...heck it was real world
Fair enough. I was of course referring to "original design" vehicles, not conversions. But based on Aptera's driving-test embarrassment, "looks real" isn't everything.
Pat Q

[virtualeric]

I have a feeling that unless there's a technical meltdown somewhere along the way, the Edison2 is the true "sleeper" in this contest and make smoke the others in real efficiency/performance/handling data.

Their 'very light' credo is hard to argue with in a contest founded on efficiency.

[speedgsx98]

This pisses me off. How the heck did Aptera get to 1800+ lbs. I have a 2000Honda insight also at 1800+ lbs. What gives? I think the Aptera should have been a tandem configuration in order to narrow the profile(86" still too wide, and could stand to be shorter than 175"(14'7"). It should be more like 10 or 11 ft long. Whatever it may lose in Aero efficiency it could make up in less mass.

The stupid thing is that they went with 3 wheels to avoid all the crash testing B.S. and then built the thing to be as safe(heavy) as a car. Bummer. As someone who rides a 1000cc sportbike, safety is less of a concern for me.

And I wonder why none of the manufaturers are bringing a bare bones/lightweight vehicle to market using plastics/aluminum, and a variable valve timing, aero, etc car weighing 1600 lbs, using a 6 spd manual. And I don't think the Smart Car qualifies. Way to large of an Aero profile, that's why the mileage sux even though it's a 3 cyl 1000cc engine.

Rather than building us a 2200+ lb Mazda 2 with all the creature comforts, well, I like the Toyota or Scion IQ concept. I hope it turns out to be lightweight.

Arghhh, it just sux. Things not looking good for Aptera again after this latest crash avoidance test. It should not take 40 tries to do a "lane change" maneuver. All my excitement from the last press release a couple weeks ago is starting to wane again. Reading the specs released on the 14th was it? I noticed a 39ft turning circle. My Insight is 31 ft, 2008 civic is 35ft. Sigh.

On a positive not, I do have a deposit that I placed on the Nissan Leaf.

[NeilBlanchard]

Weigh |= safety.

[NeilBlanchard]

Okay, I'm posting the answers to some of the questions that have been asked on this thread/forum about the Edison2 Very Light Car:

The VLC with 4 seats weighs about 715. It has heat, AC, a radio and every reason to eventually with about 40 lbs of stuff meet FMVSS. As a matter of fact it will deflect in a 40 % offset and may well become the best performer in that event of all (like an Indy car). In a side impact 35% collision the offending car has to travel through 18 inches of absorbing structure and the occupant never sees more than 17 g out of an allowed pass fail of 70 g. That will be better than most cars.

I am 6'4" and 250 lbs and am comfortable in the back. it has more legroom than an Audi A 8.

In effect what the VLC does is this: We substitute distance for mass. It is all about gradual deceleration. We have the world's smallest suspension in order to use that space for a preprogrammed gradually imploding structure. We are the first to do this and it will become the standard. We own the IP

We have done this before. See the horrific crash of the Doran JE4 at VIR (2 cars hitting at 130 mph speed differential (it was on speed channel for a year). Also the Edwards crash at Canada in a Daytona Prototype (that car looked like a Dallara Mc Donalds car it was our chasis design). This was the highest crash data recorded impact in the history of Grand AM we designed both chassis. The drivers walked away each time...

We are very good at this and now we are exercising our craft on this. ERROR number one in automobiles is that they engage. Cars must deflect. The VLC is full of stuff like that. It will take several years to optimize but it will show a new path.

Formula cars have withstood crashes for years with very low injury rates if you consider the circumstances...

We claim a weight of 1000 to 1200 lbs for the VLC because we know we are not over-promising there. The X Prize cars are there to be proofs of concept and they are designed to the minimum and to win. (We read the rules).

A VLC SUV with 6 seats will still get 80 mpg that is important.
We are not pushing our cars at this time. We are pushing our method, a method that is more efficient. You might choose to share this with your interested friends. The VLC is fuel source agnostic. (we really do not care). We just know that for us in the time for the X prize the ICE was more realistic and for those who see the numbers we clearly demonstrated that last week that we are right.

We have no intention to build 1000 units. As one of your friends pointed out we intend to teach someone how to build a million "VWs of the future" and we will keep their designers on task...

[PatQ562]

Their philosophy sounds like good stuff and an example of solving problems with better designs instead of patching later, but what about the dreaded side impact from all the 3000-5000 lb cars running on the roads? The torpedo cabin doesn't appear to offer much "distance" to each side.

Pat Q

[SEGsby]

I'm gonna sing the "Doom Song"!

S4qMeVmYKpk#
Doom Song! (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S4qMeVmYKpk#)

[NeilBlanchard]

I'm passing along answers:

[Before] you get to our cabin first you must work your way through our sidepods and outriggers. Those are there for the absorbing purpose mostly. Further our chassis is a diamond. When you hit it in the side it becomes longer and when you hit it in the front it becomes wider...

it is all about gradual deceleration / speed adjustment.

Our car will be much safer in some crashes and it will be less safe in others. The best advice is to not get into a crash in the first place. That is why it stops 42 feet shorter than the requirement with the no drag X prize brakes. It is easier to stop (turn) a light car. Once again physics prevails.

In the end we can only do so much. If you run straight into a Chevy tahoe with no overlap you loose. We can not help that. It is a rare type of accident but then...

The 17 G above is with a (I believe) 4000 lbs car as mandated in the FMVSS. In effect we end up sliding sideways but without serious injury... Scary but better than in most other cars...

This still needs a lot of work but it is the lowest hanging fruit and the only real way to do this. The idea that a car is safe because it is made from composites or that a car is safe because it is heavy or because it has a strong frame rail alone is not enough. This is hard to do but it can be done.

Everything is a give and take. The art is finding the best compromise.

Also:

At the X Prize shakedown all the teams were in for a surprise about how tough the requirements are. This is after all for 10 million dollars. We race for a living and in some places had real trouble, which we will overcome. The fact that the Aptera had difficulty in the lane change and then passed it with a three wheeled vehicle is a tribute to them for having done the job well. Three wheelers are inherently not as stable. (They may have other offsetting advantages). As a matter of fact the Aptera was very nice. The build quality exceeded my expectations and it looked better in the flesh than on photos.

All teams ate humble pie. Even the Tango was on the ragged edge. He consumed way too much electricity. It was not obvious but we could tell from the sound under acceleration. He will be lucky to go 50 miles if he continues to drive the way he did. We really like Rick and he has done a tremendous job but the laws of physics are not negotiable. His car weighs 3000 lbs...

The fact is Aptera did well, looked good and have something to say. The fact is the X Prize is real and the tests are hard.

The fact is there is a reason why GM has not built a 100 mpg car to date. It is hard to do.

[evmavin]

The Edison may be very efficient but it's a basic shell with bare bones insides and built like an experimental university project. Of course it will weigh less but when it ends up being a viable and marketable vehicle (which I doubt it ever will) to make it profitable it will end up close to the same weight as the Aptera. When I say marketable I mean not to a handful of early adopters. None of the efficient entries seem like vehicles anyone would really consider in significant numbers to make a profitable company, even the Aptera is challenged.

[NeilBlanchard]

A further comment that I am passing along:

This is not about Edison VS Aptera.

It is about efficient cars VS other cars which have lost their way.

It is not about electric VS ICE. It is about less to do the same job.

Aptera has spent 40 million dollars essentially building about 8 cars and doing PR and fundraising and planning etc. NOW THEY HAVE ENGAGED PRATT AND MILLER. Pratt and Miller does what we do. They are bigger and have a bigger facility. They are the same caliper playing in the same arena as us. Our Ford GTR beat them for the pole at the Petite Le Mans race last year in the hands of a retired couple.

Our car right now is to the same standard as a 1975 beetle as delivered by the dealer. that was a nice car. We are not after Aptera.

[evmavin]

What good is any efficient car if it can't sell, be produced or is not viable to the public? I thought these vehicles needed to be able to be mass produced, sure you can mass produce anything but there should be parameters. I expected the contestants to be a bit better overall.

[virtualeric]

The Edison may be very efficient but it's a basic shell with bare bones insides and built like an experimental university project. Of course it will weigh less but when it ends up being a viable and marketable vehicle (which I doubt it ever will) to make it profitable it will end up close to the same weight as the Aptera. First off, they're not built like an experimental university project -- they appear to be built more like race cars with rule-changing miniaturized parts and crash cages.

I think you're confusing having a finished, pretty interior with winning the X prize which is about efficiency first. Any car to be built out of an X prize winner will be a car based on a winning chassis/platform that must be affordable and viable to build a finished car onto.

Aptera has demonstrated, so far, that if a car company can't design the inevitable weight creep of compliance and comfort into the platform it has trouble with efficiency and other fundamental needs. It appears they're in trouble in this contest; only time will tell.

If engineers/designers/suppliers are smart about designing compliance/comfort/finish into the platform they end up with an efficient, finished car that produces an evolutionary leap in automotive design.

Is Edison2 selling the car or selling the platform? It appears they're selling the platform which means someone else who specializes in mass production works with the Edison2 blueprint and team to design final product and chassis tweaks -- this is where Aptera blew it. They let go of the innovators/designers and forged ahead with what I can only imagine is a PW yes-man team.

An evolutionary leap in automotive design and efficiency is not going to look anything like the cars we know and it will have compromises in 'features' we have come to take for granted, specifically features where the benefits to efficiency ratio makes no sense. The evolved automobile coming out of the X prize is going to look much different and be different in many ways, and I am ready to accept that. It's the only way we can get to 100mpg(e).

[evmavin]

First off, they're not built like an experimental university project -- they appear to be built more like race cars with rule-changing miniaturized parts and crash cages.

I think you're confusing having a finished, pretty interior with winning the X prize which is about efficiency first. Any car to be built out of an X prize winner will be a car based on a winning chassis/platform that must be affordable and viable to build a finished car onto.

Aptera has demonstrated, so far, that if a car company can't design the inevitable weight creep of compliance and comfort into the platform it has trouble with efficiency and other fundamental needs. It appears they're in trouble in this contest; only time will tell.

If engineers/designers/suppliers are smart about designing compliance/comfort/finish into the platform they end up with an efficient, finished car that produces an evolutionary leap in automotive design.

Is Edison2 selling the car or selling the platform? It appears they're selling the platform which means someone else who specializes in mass production works with the Edison2 blueprint and team to design final product and chassis tweaks -- this is where Aptera blew it. They let go of the innovators/designers and forged ahead with what I can only imagine is a PW yes-man team.

An evolutionary leap in automotive design and efficiency is not going to look anything like the cars we know and it will have compromises in 'features' we have come to take for granted, specifically features where the benefits to efficiency ratio makes no sense. The evolved automobile coming out of the X prize is going to look much different and be different in many ways, and I am ready to accept that. It's the only way we can get to 100mpg(e).


Selling a platform- please. Anyone can build a bare bones efficient vehicle (certainly not a race vehicle here) , who is going to "buy their platform". Seriously, who? These guys may prove to have the most efficient vehicle but after that it's only a bunch of prototypes and what is so special about their prototype when it comes to something scalable that people can buy? Nothing. I think as a competition vehicle it looks great on its on merit. How about something that can be sold in its competitive state without making it into something it is not, far from a production vehicle. This vehicle is no leap in automotive design until it can play in the automotive world as a safe vehicle, it's not difficult to make an unsafe and efficient vehicle, we could have many variations registered as motorcycles.


And there is nothing wrong with experimental university projects, they are just not finished to be marketable just like this which was my point. I can tell that people are going to defend this vehicle to death just because of efficiency alone rather than it's true viability. If it does win, I hope it spawns something marketable. Speaking of marketable, where are our friends at Myers in general?

[Grendal]

First off, they're not built like an experimental university project -- they appear to be built more like race cars with rule-changing miniaturized parts and crash cages.

I think you're confusing having a finished, pretty interior with winning the X prize which is about efficiency first. Any car to be built out of an X prize winner will be a car based on a winning chassis/platform that must be affordable and viable to build a finished car onto.

Aptera has demonstrated, so far, that if a car company can't design the inevitable weight creep of compliance and comfort into the platform it has trouble with efficiency and other fundamental needs. It appears they're in trouble in this contest; only time will tell.

If engineers/designers/suppliers are smart about designing compliance/comfort/finish into the platform they end up with an efficient, finished car that produces an evolutionary leap in automotive design.

Is Edison2 selling the car or selling the platform? It appears they're selling the platform which means someone else who specializes in mass production works with the Edison2 blueprint and team to design final product and chassis tweaks -- this is where Aptera blew it. They let go of the innovators/designers and forged ahead with what I can only imagine is a PW yes-man team.

An evolutionary leap in automotive design and efficiency is not going to look anything like the cars we know and it will have compromises in 'features' we have come to take for granted, specifically features where the benefits to efficiency ratio makes no sense. The evolved automobile coming out of the X prize is going to look much different and be different in many ways, and I am ready to accept that. It's the only way we can get to 100mpg(e).

Steve and Chris were also selling an ultra efficient platform. 1 1/2 years have passed and the evolved result is now being tested at the X-prize. It will be likely that Aptera can correct the faults that are cropping up. Hopefully they prove the strengths of Steve and Chris's design and the "mainstreaming" doesn't create a fatal flaw that they can't recover from. It would have been better if PW was a better CEO and recognized that innovators are important for many reasons including keeping you from straying too far from the original concept.

[evmavin]

Steve and Chris were also selling an ultra efficient platform. 1 1/2 years have passed and the evolved result is now being tested at the X-prize. It will be likely that Aptera can correct the faults that are cropping up. Hopefully they prove the strengths of Steve and Chris's design and the "mainstreaming" doesn't create a fatal flaw that they can't recover from. It would have been better if PW was a better CEO and recognized that innovators are important for many reasons including keeping you from straying too far from the original concept.


In many ways I think what PW did was justified, however he did not do it with startup passion, speed and experience while leveraging those changes to keep funding alive and growing. I truly believe that many of the 2e changes thus far made sense unfortunately many of the other business decisions surrounding that process were made poorly and slowly. As we know, the company would have been far ahead in funding with the right person leading promotion, Marcus played a big part in doing NOTHING for them and BLOWING one of the richest marketing and fund raising opportunities with great success. These guys tried to execute big corporate methods in a fast paced timeline while ignoring the funding which they most likely have never had to raise before in the same manner.

I have worked in management for fortune 50 companies and high-tech startups (product dev, roll out and testing, marketing) and you can't take a team from one group and force it on the other to the point of a full purge and expect things to be fine. Collaboration was lost here at a high cost. You also can't let the engineers run the show nor the marketing people alone either, if there were such marketing people at Aptera. Now they are left to peck away at funding until they burn away the bit they get.

[APTODRIV]

This is a vehicle built to win the money, period. It's built to the rules precisely, even stretching them a bit. These guys are racers and are running their program as such. They're purpose built with rulebook in-hand. Don't plan on driving anything even remotely similar to work.

[NeilBlanchard]

First off, they're not built like an experimental university project -- they appear to be built more like race cars with rule-changing miniaturized parts and crash cages.

I think you're confusing having a finished, pretty interior with winning the X prize which is about efficiency first. Any car to be built out of an X prize winner will be a car based on a winning chassis/platform that must be affordable and viable to build a finished car onto.

Aptera has demonstrated, so far, that if a car company can't design the inevitable weight creep of compliance and comfort into the platform it has trouble with efficiency and other fundamental needs. It appears they're in trouble in this contest; only time will tell.

If engineers/designers/suppliers are smart about designing compliance/comfort/finish into the platform they end up with an efficient, finished car that produces an evolutionary leap in automotive design.

Is Edison2 selling the car or selling the platform? It appears they're selling the platform which means someone else who specializes in mass production works with the Edison2 blueprint and team to design final product and chassis tweaks -- this is where Aptera blew it. They let go of the innovators/designers and forged ahead with what I can only imagine is a PW yes-man team.

An evolutionary leap in automotive design and efficiency is not going to look anything like the cars we know and it will have compromises in 'features' we have come to take for granted, specifically features where the benefits to efficiency ratio makes no sense. The evolved automobile coming out of the X prize is going to look much different and be different in many ways, and I am ready to accept that. It's the only way we can get to 100mpg(e).

I could not have said it better myself!

Here's a picture of the four cars that Edison2 brought to the X-Prize:

http://www.edison2.com/storage/Shakedown%204%20VLCs%20copy.jpg

[virtualeric]

Selling a platform- please...who is going to "buy their platform". Seriously, who?I'm not here to defend the Edison2 to death. I simply write why I think it has the most potential as a platform.

Who will buy their platform? You might be surprised.

Only time will tell which of us is speculating closer to the real outcome. I for one am not ruling out Aptera or Edison2 as a potential winner and foundation for a mass produced vehicle. But this last week I switched from Aptera to Edison2. Barring a technical meltdown, I pick Edison2 as most likely to win.

[SEGsby]

It does not look cello friendly. :(

[NeilBlanchard]

The 4-seaters probably can fit a cello? If a 6'-4" 250 person can sit comfortably in the backseat, then a cello has a chance.

[PatQ562]

One problem with a 650 lb car that seats four adults is that weight will more than double with a full passenger load. This affects ride, handling, acceleration, etc etc. This was a big problem in the early 2CV program when that car still weighed 750 lbs with aluminum construction and mica windows. Aluminum failed to meet the price expectations, and mica was impossible to wipe clean without creating static that attracted dust. The final steel, glass and rubber version weighs 1250 lbs. Even at this weight, a full load changes the pitch so much that they had to add a headlight attitude adjuster (which is actually kind of handy).

The other problem with ultralight gas cars becomes obvious when the Edison2 leaves the start line with a 1-cylinder lawnmower roar. ICE's don't downsize efficiently - there is a "sweet spot" at around 500cc per cylinder that works well for combustion efficiency and emissions. Hence the typical 2-liter 4 cyl engine. When you want a smaller lighter engine, you either shrink the cylinders, increasing friction relative to displacement, or reduce the cylinder count which increases vibration.

Pat Q

[Matthijs]

I am with Grendal here. In my opinion the Edison2 cars are the equivalent of this:

http://i42.tinypic.com/wmb4as.jpg
http://i44.tinypic.com/2dwgsr8.jpg
http://i44.tinypic.com/ornfb4.jpg
http://i44.tinypic.com/yoyys.jpg

Then it got "sold" to the "industry professionals" and look how that turned out. Aptera can also take the MK-0 out and just cream the X-Prize. So lets say Edison2 wins the prize, sells his wonderfull platform and then it gets bloated up afterwards? I see no differences. Just that edison2's approach will work better to win.

[virtualeric]

So lets say Edison2 wins the prize, sells his wonderfull platform and then it gets bloated up afterwards? I see no differences. You keep saying there is no way to have "bloat" with a "wonderful platform". I keep hearing that it doesn't matter who designs it...efficiency and compliance/comfort cannot co-exist. At least that's what I keep reading from you.

I will say it one more time and shut up -- IMHO it does matter who designs it; it does matter who is at the helm, and there IS a difference between a platform of efficiency that has intelligent, well-executed compliance/comfort...and one that does not. IMHO there is a very significant difference.

[aptera1213]

The thing is Aptera should have done one of two things:

A) Go the Tesla route..."We love the Xprize and everything it represents, but we are making the 2e not for a competition, but for customers. We need to devote time and resources to that, and so we are pulling out of the Xprize while still pulling for all the brave contestants helping push efficiency forward."

B) "We are staying in the Xprize, but will be running a MKO/PP6 version in the contest. We will be working hard on our customer version of the 2e, but really this contest has rules set up that benefit a bare bones approach. We love a bare bones approach, but also understand customers expect a certain level of comfort. So we make the xprize vehicle Spartan, but still learn tons from that. Then we make the customer car more comfortable, while still using all the experience we learned from the xprize. A win win for all."

Gavin

[Grendal]

The thing is Aptera should have done one of two things:

A) Go the Tesla route..."We love the Xprize and everything it represents, but we are making the 2e not for a competition, but for customers. We need to devote time and resources to that, and so we are pulling out of the Xprize while still pulling for all the brave contestants helping push efficiency forward."

B) "We are staying in the Xprize, but will be running a MKO/PP6 version in the contest. We will be working hard on our customer version of the 2e, but really this contest has rules set up that benefit a bare bones approach. We love a bare bones approach, but also understand customers expect a certain level of comfort. So we make the xprize vehicle Spartan, but still learn tons from that. Then we make the customer car more comfortable, while still using all the experience we learned from the xprize. A win win for all."

Gavin

I disagree with you on this one. The second Consumer Reports article said "it was obvious from the first run that they would pass the test". It also went on to say that they had 2 perfect runs that were 44.5 mph. 40 failures was certainly a slap in the face. But this is still the best chance they have to show the viability of the design. They need to do whatever is necessary to fix the suspension issue, have the driver practice the maneuver in the vehicle, and come back and pass the test next time in less than five tries.

[aptera1213]

Yes, but Aptera could still very well lose the Xprize...which will be a huge slap in the face. Much bigger than not coming. They were expected to win and win easy as they had 40 million bucks and an amazing design. And if they lose it will because they are trying to make a car to sell to the public, while the winner will likely be making a car to win the xprize...

Yes those objectives are not mutually exclusive, but it is easier to win the xprize if you make your car to fit the xprize rules and not the customer rules (ac, heat, comfy seats, etc etc).

Gavin

[Matthijs]

You keep saying there is no way to have "bloat" with a "wonderful platform". I keep hearing that it doesn't matter who designs it...efficiency and compliance/comfort cannot co-exist. At least that's what I keep reading from you.

I will say it one more time and shut up -- IMHO it does matter who designs it; it does matter who is at the helm, and there IS a difference between a platform of efficiency that has intelligent, well-executed compliance/comfort...and one that does not. IMHO there is a very significant difference.

Well I think that there are not that many people or companies that pursue efficiency like the Edison2 team and Aptera team A. Or companies that are willing to risk bringing such a car to market. I would really really love to drive the MK-0 no problem, above anything else. I really love efficiency and low power consumption more then the average person. I agree with you that it does matter who designs the platform and runs the show. But if Edison2 sells the platform maybe the one who wants to develop it further to market is a second PW.

[virtualeric]

...I really love efficiency and low power consumption more then the average person. I agree with you that it does matter who designs the platform and runs the show. But if Edison2 sells the platform maybe the one who wants to develop it further to market is a second PW. I'm with you there! One can never rule that out; in the car biz there are far too many Wilburs and far too few Fambros, Kutters, Zimmermans, Starrs, etc

[chijayhawker]

I'm with you there! One can never rule that out; in the car biz there are far too many Wilburs and far too few Fambros, Kutters, Zimmermans, Starrs, etc

Great point. You can't have too many dreamers or nothing will ever get done. However, there are those few dreamers who aren't JUST dreamers. They are "doers" as well. And then there are those "activists" who come in and muck up a dream beyond recognition. Can you imagine someone coming in behind Da Vinci and told him..."that smile isn't appealing to the masses, you need to change it so that it is." and then proceeds to break out his own brush and paint and changes the picture so it doesn't even look like the original?

:character0016:

[jhm614]

Yes, but Aptera could still very well lose the Xprize...which will be a huge slap in the face. Much bigger than not coming.

I don't agree with this. Aptera could compete, meet all the requirements to win but still be beaten by one of the more spartan entries. I don't think there would be any shame it that -- it's just means that a bares bones vehicle is more efficient than a "loaded" one.

However, if Aptera competes and doesn't meet all the requirements to win and other teams do meet the requirements -- that would be embarrassing.

All of that being said, I'm still pulling for the Aptera and I really hope that some ice-based thing doesn't beat them.

[aptera1213]

I don't agree with this. Aptera could compete, meet all the requirements to win but still be beaten by one of the more spartan entries. I don't think there would be any shame it that -- it's just means that a bares bones vehicle is more efficient than a "loaded" one.

Most people won't think, mmm so and so won, but Aptera is less bare bones...

Most will think, hey, so and so won...they are the prize winner so they are better.

It won't be right, but it won't be wrong either. It will mean that car was better at this test. Which is why Aptera should have bailed or should have gone lighter. Bringing the SO1 was not smart...it isn't geared for this test, it is geared toward sales...niche sales, but sales all the same.

Gavin

[NeilBlanchard]

It is an odd dichotomy -- that there are those who lament how complicated cars have gotten, and how dependent on computers they are now, etc. And then there are those who expect to have power everything, and seats with heating and cooling and GPS that can read your mind, and smart headlights, you name it, they want it...

I wish that Aptera had kept with the efficiency program. The understated dash of PP6(?) was a relief, and a perfect embodiment of what the 2e is all about.

I want each car I drive to be more efficient than the last.

[eestorfan]

It is an odd dichotomy -- that there are those who lament how complicated cars have gotten, and how dependent on computers they are now, etc. And then there are those who expect to have power everything, and seats with heating and cooling and GPS that can read your mind, and smart headlights, you name it, they want it...

I wish that Aptera had kept with the efficiency program. The understated dash of PP6(?) was a relief, and a perfect embodiment of what the 2e is all about.

I want each car I drive to be more efficient than the last.

I love efficiency too, who doesn't? But not with an ICE...you can have your high efficiency ICE and more greenhouse gases with $5-6/gal. fuel. I'll take the BEV at 70 cents for 50 miles! And when charged with a renewable resource, zero emissions! :)

[virtualeric]

Latest article on Edison2

http://baggyparagraphs.wordpress.com/2010/05/03/auto-x-prize-notebook/

"Kuttner proudly shows off the front suspension, which represents the opposite of the inboard-mounted springs and shocks of a Formula One car. The Very Light Car incorporates a patented in-wheel suspension. Inside the back part of the wheel, a spindle and a small coil spring do business along side the brake rotor and single-puck caliper. Kuttner restrains his pride in announcing that the patented unit weighs 6.5 pounds."

Front suspension of less than 7 pounds. This is the kind of innovation that evolves the automobile. With this kind of lightweight tech around, the teams using mass produced cars don't stand a chance...sad but true.

[SEGsby]

Hmm, dunno. Overly light suspension can fail when reality presents pavement that's less than perfect...

[NeilBlanchard]

Sure, like anything the engineering has to be tested in the real world. The VLC rims are incredibly light -- ~6 pounds, and the 145 width tires have to be fairly light (maybe 12-13 pounds?)

That article is the first time I've sen reference to the Cd of the VLC -- 0.15 is very good indeed! Obviously, very similar to the Aptera; and seeing as the weight of the VLC is *less* than half, the suspension doesn't have to be as strong. This is the multiplying benefit of lighter weight -- save weight in this part of the vehicle, and that allows you to save weight with that part...

[virtualeric]

Hmm, dunno. Overly light suspension can fail when reality presents pavement that's less than perfect... Depends on the forces it's engineered for. Crashing into a wall or another car, it'll most likely fold up along with the wheel as an energy absorber.

I can only assume they designed a pothole/speed threshold into the unit -- a maximum force it can sustain under a full load at speed for all but the worst circumstances. Otherwise you'd have disabled crumpled VLC suspensions at rush hours all over the country...LOL.

In Edison2, size/weight of parts follows car weight and maximum force that weight applies under a variety of impacts. Obviously, Edison2 believes impact forces applied to parts by the weight of the car will be far lower than the typical 3,000lb automobile, therefore the tiny size/weight of their designed parts.

IMHO, I think future auto parts will look more like Edison's stuff than today's stuff. Light/aerodynamic is the only way to get to 100mpge.

[Matthijs]

The Very Light Car, driven by Audi racing vet Emanuele Pirro (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emanuele_Pirro), finishes the 45-mph slalom course at MIS.


He is a former formula one driver. And five time Le Mans 24 hour (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/24_Hours_of_Le_Mans) winner! Talk about skills!

[aptera1213]

Yeah, and Zap has Al Unser Jr driving for them...heck he is a living legend in my part of the world...has his own museum for gosh sake...

Gavin

[SEGsby]

With so little metal in their suspension, I'm wondering how well the minimal components will age with the vehicle in places like LA, where I have to drive. They have some of the worst urban roads in the country...


Depends on the forces it's engineered for. Crashing into a wall or another car, it'll most likely fold up along with the wheel as an energy absorber.

I can only assume they designed a pothole/speed threshold into the unit -- a maximum force it can sustain under a full load at speed for all but the worst circumstances. Otherwise you'd have disabled crumpled VLC suspensions at rush hours all over the country...LOL.

In Edison2, size/weight of parts follows car weight and maximum force that weight applies under a variety of impacts. Obviously, Edison2 believes impact forces applied to parts by the weight of the car will be far lower than the typical 3,000lb automobile, therefore the tiny size/weight of their designed parts.

IMHO, I think future auto parts will look more like Edison's stuff than today's stuff. Light/aerodynamic is the only way to get to 100mpge.

[virtualeric]

He is a former formula one driver. And five time Le Mans 24 hour (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/24_Hours_of_Le_Mans) winner! Talk about skills!There's two driver names stenciled on each competition car. Between the two of them and the design of the car, it's no wonder the slideout at :57 in this video is so perfect looking.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f5ppVwCDQv0
The car loses momentum incredibly fast because it doesn't weigh anything, there's no body roll, and the driver reaction is flawless. I like the composure of the car; it looks like a lot of fun to drive.

[aptera1213]

Go Kart driving...for the family :)

Gavin

[NeilBlanchard]

I'm not sure who was the driver for that event; the FB entry that Oliver Kuttner made was that he (Oliver) was overconfident, and he told Brad the driver to take the first run at 55mph, and that is why the car spun out.

[NeilBlanchard]

An article and a new video of the Edison2 Very Light Cars:

http://blogs.consumerreports.org/cars/2010/05/automotive-x-prize-video-edison2-very-light-car-beneath-the-carbon-fiber.html

[SlowSRT4]

An article and a new video of the Edison2 Very Light Cars:

http://blogs.consumerreports.org/cars/2010/05/automotive-x-prize-video-edison2-very-light-car-beneath-the-carbon-fiber.html
Not so sure I agree with the guy about the VLC out-handling any car on the road.

The car is aerodynamically designed for efficiency rather than downforce, and has thin, low-rolling resistance tires. Doesn't exactly seem like a recipe for sports-car handling (like the Tango has).

[NeilBlanchard]

The guy in the video is Oliver Kuttner. Low mass vehicles do not need wide tires, and they change directions much more quickly.

[virtualeric]

Not so sure I agree with the guy about the VLC out-handling any car on the road.That's a bold statement made by a guy who has massive amounts of passion and money invested in the competition cars. The 55mph slide in the lane change doesn't reflect those words, but who can blame the guy for being excited? I certainly can't.

Still, the distance between wheels, the low mass, the suspension are all formidable contributors to good handling. The tango is so narrow, when he went to lithium batteries he had to add a couple hundred pounds of lead to the bottom of the battery pack to retain handling.

Adding 200lbs of lead ballast just to make something handle better isn't what I imagine as solid auto design innovation. Neither is needing nearly 2,000 lbs under your butt to keep the car from tipping over.

But I love what that car can do! However, I'm not a fan of the weight which is really going to hamstring them on the efficiency elimination rounds.

[eventhusiast]

I went to the website and looked this car over yesterday. I still can not fathom this car going into production. The only reason I see it being built is to win the contest and the prize money. It is not designed for mass sales, it wont sell to the general public. I cant believe they built that car body, it looks like a 1950's future car, not a 2010.

[NeilBlanchard]

They designed the VLC, as I understand it, for good aerodynamic drag (they claim the Cd is 0.15 -- the same as the Aptera), good crash safety (by providing crumple space and to deflect rather than engage), and for light weight. As with the Aptera, "styling" is not what drives the design, and is only used in the way things are graphically arranged.

Like the Aptera, the Edison2 Very Light Car is growing on me.

[virtualeric]

I went to the website and looked this car over yesterday......It is not designed for mass sales, it wont sell to the general public. I cant believe they built that car body, it looks like a 1950's future car, not a 2010.It's short-sighted to judge an Xprize car's viability based on its basic appearance -- viability at Xprize is about the overall vehicle platform and efficiency. There's a 4 person Edison2 that BIG people can sit in the back of. There's space for people, and the nose cone is mostly empty to have a little storage. The basics are there, but it is stripped down for XPrize.

What is your vision of a design for mass sales? Is that vision based on what the masses have been buying or what they have yet to buy that doesn't yet exist?

If the former, then god help us because everything will be heavy and spacious. If the latter, then you can predict the future. If neither, and 2010 is your vision of what people will buy, then god help us again because 2010 is yet another year of the masses buying fat, 3000lb cars.

IMHO, we need to have a paradigm shift in our vision of auto design and aesthetics. What does light weight, efficient platform, sustainable manufacturing, minimal carbon footprint look like? Do you know? I certainly don't.

But what I do know is that my expectation of what a light/efficient/green automobile "should" look like has to change because 98% of what I see now ISN'T light/efficient/green. And I'm starting to have second thoughts about the carbon-heavy footprint of composite manufacturing. Nor am I so sure (for now) of the viability of massive battery packs, the complexity of hybrid drive, regenerative braking, motor controllers, and other tech-heavy compents which all add to the carbon footprint and complexity of the vehicle in design, manufacture, maintenance, recycling etc.

I try to keep an open mind to all possibilities AND their shortcomings. Which is why I'm addicted to the X Prize; It puts all of that into play in the real world with real data output.

Edison2 is designing a super-safe, super-light, simplified, efficient car where carbon footprint of manufacturing is as small as possible. To do that requires abandoning weight, composites, and any carbon-intensive manufacturing in favor of common materials for skin, chassis and other parts. What does that look like? In its basic fundamental form, it looks like the XPrize Edison2 minus the carbon fiber.

Will this design and platform look more fashionable and slippery when it goes to production? After they've created the mega-expensive stamp molds for the skin, molds for interior, developed the other deep-pocket/mass-production elements and unleashed the designers, then yes, I assume it would look much more pleasing to the eye than what we see at the Xprize today.

The trick is to employ your imagination and picture the platform and profile of the Edison2 Xprize car all sexied up with smoother, refined lines, consumer-ized interior, and overall revamped aesthetics. But remember -- it's going to be pointy at front/rear, have wheel pods, and adhere to minimal weight/maximum aero.

Like the Aptera, the Edison2 will require a shift in our perception of what a car "should" look like. To embrace the possible, we have to let go of what we know and believe. I'm ready to do that because I want my next car purchase to be the car of the next 100 years, not the last 100 years.

[palmer_md]

it looks like a 1950's future car, not a 2010.

In the 1950's they considered 2010 to be the future.

[IanO]

I pretty much agree with everything virtualeric says. This is a race, styling is not even on the table. Aerodynamics will never go out of style. (I'm talking real measured CdA, not the 50's streamlining which was just for show.)

I'd also like to note that modern styling is already moving towards aerodynamics. Mainstream cars are smoother than they've ever been (aside from some throwbacks like the Nissan Cube and Scion xB). More and more sedans are adopting smooth window transitions and aero curved roofs.

[NeilBlanchard]

It's short-sighted to judge an Xprize car's viability based on its basic appearance -- viability at Xprize is about the overall vehicle platform and efficiency. There's a 4 person Edison2 that BIG people can sit in the back of. There's space for people, and the nose cone is mostly empty to have a little storage. The basics are there, but it is stripped down for XPrize.

What is your vision of a design for mass sales? Is that vision based on what the masses have been buying or what they have yet to buy that doesn't yet exist?

If the former, then god help us because everything will be heavy and spacious. If the latter, then you can predict the future. If neither, and 2010 is your vision of what people will buy, then god help us again because 2010 is yet another year of the masses buying fat, 3000lb cars.

IMHO, we need to have a paradigm shift in our vision of auto design and aesthetics. What does light weight, efficient platform, sustainable manufacturing, minimal carbon footprint look like? Do you know? I certainly don't.

But what I do know is that my expectation of what a light/efficient/green automobile "should" look like has to change because 98% of what I see now ISN'T light/efficient/green. And I'm starting to have second thoughts about the carbon-heavy footprint of composite manufacturing. Nor am I so sure (for now) of the viability of massive battery packs, the complexity of hybrid drive, regenerative braking, motor controllers, and other tech-heavy compents which all add to the carbon footprint and complexity of the vehicle in design, manufacture, maintenance, recycling etc.

I try to keep an open mind to all possibilities AND their shortcomings. Which is why I'm addicted to the X Prize; It puts all of that into play in the real world with real data output.

Edison2 is designing a super-safe, super-light, simplified, efficient car where carbon footprint of manufacturing is as small as possible. To do that requires abandoning weight, composites, and any carbon-intensive manufacturing in favor of common materials for skin, chassis and other parts. What does that look like? In its basic fundamental form, it looks like the XPrize Edison2 minus the carbon fiber.

Will this design and platform look more fashionable and slippery when it goes to production? After they've created the mega-expensive stamp molds for the skin, molds for interior, developed the other deep-pocket/mass-production elements and unleashed the designers, then yes, I assume it would look much more pleasing to the eye than what we see at the Xprize today.

The trick is to employ your imagination and picture the platform and profile of the Edison2 Xprize car all sexied up with smoother, refined lines, consumer-ized interior, and overall revamped aesthetics. But remember -- it's going to be pointy at front/rear, have wheel pods, and adhere to minimal weight/maximum aero.

Like the Aptera, the Edison2 will require a shift in our perception of what a car "should" look like. To embrace the possible, we have to let go of what we know and believe. I'm ready to do that because I want my next car purchase to be the car of the next 100 years, not the last 100 years.

I could not have said it better myself!

[SEGsby]

And everyone will hate the newly redesigned, heavier, mainstreamed Edison2... ;)

[virtualeric]

And everyone will hate the newly redesigned, heavier, mainstreamed Edison2... ;)*Big draping sheet, bright lights, a hushed crowd of future efficiency freaks*
*Cue the announcers voice as the veil is yanked off and the sound of "aaahh" rolls in waves from the crowd*

"Presenting the official "2010 XPrize" model: The original, original Edison2 -- Raw & Awkward, Light & Naked, and available now and as a celebration and tribute to that watershed moment in automotive history" :)

[SEGsby]

I suppose in some alternate, but similar universe; it could happen...

But not here. :(

It's all too easy for a product's focus to get lost, muddled or conflicted by committee, between the prototype phase and its final consumer redesign.

[eventhusiast]

One of the requirements for xprize is a plan for mass production. The Edison2 is geared soley on winning the economy portion of the contest. In my opinion this vehicle is not sellable to the mass market. I do like what they have done engineering wise, but the vehicle to me is just an experimental test bed. I never said the car was bad due to being a light weight design and I am all for composite vehicles. To suggest to people I dont have an open mind is simply wrong. I love unique vehicles but in my opinion the Edison team should have gone with a more stylish design that keeps there efficiency numbers. The car wont sell in mass numbers in my opinion in its present body shell design.

EDIT: before you go hog wild on me, i am sure the Edison team has a plan for mass production since it was a requirement. However, I thought that these cars that entered had to be very close to the final version. Maybe I am wrong about that, but I still believe even if they changed it up some, their vehicle will not sell well (along with some other cars at the competition). The Aptera will, if they go into production, because it does have well thought out design.

[aptera1213]

I agree. I don't see any of the xprize cars selling in vast numbers...not in the side by side or tandem....well maybe the Sky could a bit...

But no 2 seaters sell well.

The Aptera could sell 3 to 5k.
The Edison2 could sell 2k...maybe 3-5k if they win the Xprize and get that press and money.

The Sky amp could sell 5 to 10k maybe.

But yeah, Edison2 is niche... I guess perception could change, but stasis is a strong mindset to change.

Gavin

[virtualeric]

....I love unique vehicles but in my opinion the Edison team should have gone with a more stylish design that keeps there efficiency numbers......
.......I thought that these cars that entered had to be very close to the final version. Maybe I am wrong about that, but I still believe even if they changed it up some, their vehicle will not sell well (along with some other cars at the competition). The Aptera will, if they go into production, because it does have well thought out design.....Actually to your first point, that's part of the plan. I heard Kuttner say in a video of a recent awards acceptance speech that the car has possibly another 10 generations to go before it'll be a public product. Given 18 cars have now "passed" in Xprize shakedown and 4 of them are Edison2, and of those 4, 3 had zero miles, 1 was seven days old, I begin to think that they can quickly move through 6-10 design generations.

From what I know, the cars don't need to be at final production design, but they must meet some of the final production requirements now. For the rest they must prove viability that they can be (or are) designed in without destroying efficiency. The Aptera "threw long" on that one hoping that if they can prove that now, they'll stand a better chance.

And this is where Aptera may have blown it. They could've brought a lighter, more efficient earlier version and left all that weight/bloat at home. It'll hurt their numbers big-time; they could easily get edged out or spanked by cars that are more stripped down and far more efficient. The Edison2 may be that car.

IMHO, I think Aptera will be in the final running. But only if they can overcome the added weight/bloat -- which they must in order to compete. If not, they may be done by the end of June. I certainly hope not because I want them kicking A and taking names as long as possible. However, I have changed camps to Edison2 because I think they have more experience and innovation where it really counts.

That experience/innovation is why I think they can go to production without killing efficiency. I don't think any other team has a car that is all one-off parts. It's kinda like NASA/Moon stuff: to get the vehicle doing what it needs to do at the weight/efficiency required, it's going to take parts that don't exist and a (for now) awkward looking vehicle that is all about function.

When I think of Edison2, I think of that "From the Earth to the Moon" series and the segment called "Spider" where they build the ugly but amazing Lunar Excursion Module. That one is awesome and contains IMHO the essence of what the Edison2 team is all about.

[NeilBlanchard]

The 4-seat Edison2 Very Light Car has a frontal area of 1.7082 sq m (18.387 sq ft) for a CdA of 0.248 sq m (2.667 sq ft) using the "old" Cd of 0.145; or 0.275 sq m (2.96 sq ft) with the new SAE Cd of 0.161.

Some photos of the car that was in the GM wind tunnel on the highway!

http://sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-snc4/hs201.snc4/38385_449839791132_255167146132_6624736_1312616_n. jpg
http://sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-ash2/hs017.ash2/34210_449840231132_255167146132_6624738_3417652_n. jpg

BTW, I'll bet that the Cd that GM measured on the 3rd gen Prius that was so much higher than the "official" 0.25 -- was because they used the new SAE method?

[NeilBlanchard]

Here's a very good video from the X-Prize Knockout Round (and I appear fleetingly in the background).

_El-bclOhCs

Also, notice the gray-ish air *scoop* on the side of the #98 car as it appears around 0:48 seconds. I wonder if this helped keep things cooler -- I suspect that it did; because the NACA intake is recessed into the side of the car that is already set at an optimal angle for low drag. So, the air would not be able to "close in" fast enough for the NACA intake to gather much pressure. They do have the exhaust vent ideally located, right on the trailing fascia, so there would be low pressure developed there, to help draw the air through the engine air plenum.

[NeilBlanchard]

A FB post from Oliver Kuttner:

The hardest part will be stay true to the original principle of light weight and unprecedented aerodynamic efficiency. We will say goodbye to the VLC 005 and 007 prototypes which will go to museum duty. The most efficient 4 seat cars in hi...story will be super- ceded by a remake of number 10 which will become more practical. T A next generation platform true to the principles will emerge with a 15 kw/hr battery pack and electric drive. Here we hope to work with the best of our X Prize competitor friends from TW4XP, Li- Ion and E tracer to put their ideas into our platforms.
After testing we expect to be able to deliver an electric vehicle with a new standard of performance. We will reduce the VLC to its original 650 lbs and then add content. We expect a delivered weight to be around 1200 to 1300 lbs which, with the true low CD and the low mass should step up the order of performance proven possible in the X prize together with a lower price point.
We will also develop the version 4.0 with a larger conventional drivetrain. We will explore several units including the Mercedes Smart and Fiat 500 powerplants. We expect this exploration to end in a gasoline 4 seat car that weighs in under 1200 lbs with an unprecedented durability and performance standard while delivering MPG above the mid 80s. These cars will last a very long time and will be very cheap to operate because the components are just not stressed due to the low weight. We hope that in this journey of exploration we will get several partners in industry who will benefit from our work and will join in the growth we believe will be inevitable.

Our cars do not only offer obvious advantages in aerodynamics but also offer unprecedented leaps in structure/ architecture as well as in handling and driving characteristics and in potential for value / cost.

IT IS A RARE MOMENT WHEN A BETTER PRODUCT IS ALSO A CHEAPER PRODUCT AND THIS BECOMES VERY NICE WHEN IT IS BETTER FOR THE ENVIRONMENT AND OUR NATION.

We have a moment to take a breath after once again we set a new standard at the Chrysler proving grounds in low coast-down numbers by a leap.

We very much appreciate the following and many words of encouragement from all sides private and public. The X Prize set the stage and now it will be our task to stay true to our original principles of unprecedented efficiency in the platform.

I can not tell you when, but I can tell you that you will be able to buy a grandson of our VLC from the X Prize sometime in the future.

Thank you Oliver

[SlowSRT4]

Current engine has 40 hp. I could only imagine how much fun the VLC 4.0 would be with a Fiat TwinAir turbo engine making 85 hp + Fiat 7-speed DCT. :)

[aptera1213]

Yep, forget the smart engine, go for the 2cylinder fiat engine...if it can get 67 mpg in the 500, it should get 80 easily in a VLC


Interesting that they will do a vlc electric...look at the planned pack size...reminds me of when aptera was light...

Also interesting that they mention hoping to work with tw4xp, li ion and e tracer...but not aptera or zap

Gavin

[NeilBlanchard]

Here's the Edison2 blog entry on the EV version:

http://www.edison2.com/blog/2010/8/7/an-electric-very-light-car.html

An Electric Very Light Car?
DateSaturday, August 7, 2010 at 10:59AM

Edison2’s Very Light Car Scoffs at Electric Avenue said AutoBlog Green in January, highlighting the irony of our internal combustion engine powered car sitting in the midst of all the electrics at the Detroit Auto Show.

But electric vehicles are here to stay and an electric VLC makes sense. Our breakthroughs in platform efficiency make all vehicles way more efficient, regardless of power source, and in an electric help solve issues of cost and range.

Billions are being invested in electric vehicle technology for a number of reasons. EV’s provide a path to energy independence and with American jobs, whether in the creation of green energy sources or in the mining and processing of coal. As a new industry, electric cars have the potential to revitalize important sectors of our economy. Electric vehicles are particularly efficient in short-cycle applications, such as Postal Service vans or some predictable commuters, and the relocation of emissions to a distance can be an advantage. Night-time charging will utilize excess generating capacity, and as the electric grid becomes green so can the future of transportation.

Currently, however, electrics cars have real issues. Batteries are heavy, big and costly. With electric drives cars get heavier, performance suffers and costs go up. Range is especially an issue, as witnessed by the numerous EVs in the 100-mile range X Prize alternative classes that made it to the knockout stage, versus only one EV in the 200-mile range mainstream class.

The hope and plan for electric cars is that the tremendous investment in battery technology will cause the weight and expense of batteries to go down, increasing range and decreasing costs of electric cars. But another way to increase the range of electric vehicles is with VLC innovations: a car that simply takes less energy to move can go farther and faster with a smaller, lighter and less expensive battery pack.

Coming soon, perhaps: an electric Very Light Car.

There has been a vigorous and dignified discussion -- please join in!

[NeilBlanchard]

Watch the PBS News Hour this evening -- they have a story on the Edison2 Very Light Car!

[virtualeric]

Here's a link to the online video page.
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/environment/july-dec10/car_08-25.html

Great to see a bit of the spotlight swiveling over to Edison2. I hope they get the major networks to cover the prize announcements in September.

[JustWilliam]

Here's a link to the online video page.
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/environment/july-dec10/car_08-25.html

Great to see a bit of the spotlight swiveling over to Edison2. I hope they get the major networks to cover the prize announcements in September.
Thanks Neil and Eric! I've been talking about the VLC to friends and family, and now I have a great eight minute synopsis for them to view!

I'd LOVE to see them win their category.

Peace,
William

[NeilBlanchard]

Posted by Oliver Kuttner on Facebook:

1; In the shop we are working on the Version 3.5. It is essentially an X Prize car using a normal powertrain. This car will be powered by the standard gasoline engine from the Smart. The engine is too big. The transmission layout design... is typical FWD Transverse unit , which we consider clumsy in our application. Nevertheless it will be a VLC powered by an existing engine. The car will give us direct data to compare the impact of using the VLC inside method with a regular engine. We look forward to sharing what we will learn.

2; We have ordered the electric motors according to the TW4XP protocol. They will be custom made in Germany and we expect to start work on the electric VLC in end November. This car will break all the records.

3; I had a pleasant experience at the opportunity green conference in Los Angeles. Highlights include meeting Chris (the producer / Director of "Who killed the electric car". He is sharp and funny. There is a sequal coming : "The revenge of the electric car". After the panel discussion he made a comment that I considder a great compliment of which I am proud: He said "Oliver you are clearly the lion in the room." Actually it is a pack of lions, my team.

4; We were awarded the first ever Borg Warner innovation award given outside the company. This is an old company with 14000 employees around the world. This is a company that thrives on quality engineering in the post combustion realm of the ICE and in smarter power transmissions (think VW [double] clutch systems for example).
We ran their variable vein Turbo and they very much hold the same opinion toward smaller more stressed ICEs for the future.
Borg Warner also built the power transmissions in the Aptera and Zap who also got an award.

5; I got a long drive in the Aptera. It is a very nice car. For all the negative blog posts I have read they are the fools. Aptera is doing its job and they are designing and building an ever better car. In the end they are on the right side of physics and it will show. The car is very nice (even for this 6 foot 4 old German).

6; i met T Boone Pickins yesterday and there is a man with a plan.
We all need a plan. He is right. More in the next days.

We all as a nation must stand behind those who try.

I have an exciting weekend coming up and will write more soon
I may even own a facility next week?
Regards to all and thank you for your support.

[lapwing]

Posted by Oliver Kuttner on Facebook:

Frankly the Smart's engine and tranny is about the worst I can think of. Had he choosen pretty much any other Japanese or even Fiat, or Renault 2 or 3 cylinder it would matter. The Smart drivetrain is a piece of junk. :sign0007:

[NeilBlanchard]

It is the smallest displacement engine available in the USA right now, I think? It's 1L, right? It is set up for RWD, though; Oliver says FWD, though it is transverse. Maybe, they got a Canadian version with a manual transmission?

Shoehorning it in and mating it with the VLC rear suspension will be a challenge. The driveshafts need to pass through the tubes that are the pivoting supports, just forward of the rear wheels.

[Grendal]

From Oliver's post: I got a long drive in the Aptera. It is a very nice car. For all the negative blog posts I have read they are the fools. Aptera is doing its job and they are designing and building an ever better car. In the end they are on the right side of physics and it will show. The car is very nice (even for this 6 foot 4 old German).

Sorry Oliver. I respect what you have done and what you are doing but this is an uninformed statement. I have no doubt the Aptera is a nice car but people have a right to be angry with Aptera and its current management. Maybe the S0-1 is a pretty good vehicle but the current management is NOT doing its job. Sorry to disagree.

[chucho]

For all the negative blog posts I have read they are the fools. Aptera is doing its job and they are designing and building an ever better car.


Sorry to disagree.

Your response did nothing but confirm Oliver's comments.


-Chucho

[Grendal]

Your response did nothing but confirm Oliver's comments.

-Chucho

And Olivers statement is still uninformed. At this point I could list just a few of the promises broken but that has been done before. The Aptera might be the greatest vehicle ever but it is still not in the hands of even one consumer. Aptera is still holding reservations for customers that were expecting delivery for late 2008. We're still waiting.

And personally I'd like to own one someday.

[chucho]

And Olivers statement is still uninformed.

Oliver is calling us fools and you respond by calling him uninformed? How is that?

Let's see:

1) Have you taken a long ride in the Aptera?
2) Did you compete against Aptera in the XPrize?
3) Have you met and chat with PW and his engineers?
4) Do you have experience designing and building cars?


So, do you still consider him uninformed? Because very likely he still consider us fools.




-Chucho

[evmavin]

I can say yes to all but #2. The irony is that EV freaks are very patient and if not they would have no reservations.

[Grendal]

Oliver is calling us fools and you respond by calling him uninformed? How is that?

Let's see:

1) Have you taken a long ride in the Aptera?
2) Did you compete against Aptera in the XPrize?
3) Have you met and chat with PW and his engineers?
4) Do you have experience designing and building cars?

So, do you still consider him uninformed? Because very likely he still consider us fools.

-Chucho

Are you saying Oliver has watched Aptera since 2008? Because in interviews he has said he wasn't even interested in making an efficient vehicle until the X-prize was announced. His experience with Aptera began with the X-prize, which was April 2010. So he missed out on a lot of the history of Aptera. Which is why my original point still stands that he is uninformed. The point he makes is that the vehicle he put his hands on and drove in is an excellent vehicle. I did not dispute that point for many of the reasons you mentioned. I personally hope it is a phenominal vehicle that continues to improve.

So, the answer for the third time is, Yes, I still consider him uninformed as to why people are rightfully upset with Aptera. Because the animosity towards Aptera has everything to do with customer service, marketing, and honesty. All of which were not on your list...

[evmavin]

Are you saying Oliver has watched Aptera since 2008? Because in interviews he has said he wasn't even interested in making an efficient vehicle until the X-prize was announced. His experience with Aptera began with the X-prize, which was April 2010. So he missed out on a lot of the history of Aptera. Which is why my original point still stands that he is uninformed. The point he makes is that the vehicle he put his hands on and drove in is an excellent vehicle. I did not dispute that point for many of the reasons you mentioned. I personally hope it is a phenominal vehicle that continues to improve.

So, the answer for the third time is, Yes, I still consider him uninformed as to why people are rightfully upset with Aptera. Because the animosity towards Aptera has everything to do with customer service, marketing, and honesty. All of which were not on your list...


Yes, they will never understand how to talk to their audience, they had a captive one and they flushed most of them down the drain, not by late delivery but by deception and lies. I think they believe the general public is really stupid and ignorant but PW and friends have made more enemies than friends. I really wish they would end this BS and do something or fold, certain members of this company are the most pathetic excuse of business people I have ever encountered in the EV arena, they exemplify what is wrong with innovation and creativity in this country and how it can be crushed by tired business models. These guys make Zap look golden and competent.

[chucho]

Are you saying Oliver has watched Aptera since 2008?


No, I did not say that. Don't put extra characters in my typing.

But it is silly to think that only those who have followed Aptera since 2008 have the authority to make opinions about Aptera. I will just throw a wild guess, but perhaps only 5% of all the characters ever typed in this forum are real useful data. The rest is garbage.


Because the animosity towards Aptera has everything to do with customer service, marketing, and honesty. All of which were not on your list...

Mine was not a laundry list.

My intention was actually to list the reasons why I consider Oliver as informed enough as to make the comments he made. In that regard I don't see you as with the authority to call him 'uninformed'. Accept it: you don't know what he knows.

Customer! That is a good one! First of all, only Wikipedia includes the word "potential buyer" in the definition of customer. Mostly everywhere else, customer is defined as "one that purchases a commodity or service". And other than overpriced t-shirts, cool water bottles and pens, we are not really Aptera customers yet. We are perhaps prospective buyers. Aptera has no customers. We are not Aptera's customers. Got it?

Marketing? Market what? Nothing! Why criticize them for their inane marketing efforts, when these are directed to a different audience and not really to prospective buyers? It is more than obvious that Aptera's strategy does not involve us. So, why bother?

Honesty? I don't give a $h!t about dishonest practices by the current Management team. At least not yet. I don't have enough information as to say that dishonest practices are preventing Aptera to move forward. So, why bother?

And personally I'd like to own one someday.

Me too! That is why I try to remain positive.


-Chucho

[NeilBlanchard]

I'm fairly sure that Oliver Kuttner wants all/as many as possible of the X-Prize contestants to "succeed" and produce their cars; as do I. Illuminati is proceeding with their development, as are TW4XP, FVT, E-Tracer, Tango, Li-ion, etc. Aptera is one of the "oldest" efforts out there, and they were certainly the most well known going into the X-Prize. If any of these go into production, the others will see tangential effects.

[eventhusiast]

I seriously believe that only Aptera has a chance of producing their car in mass numbers. I wish some of the others good luck with their efforts (forget the scamming Li-ion and Zap companies, they have ripped too many people off). It comes down to design and mass appeal, Aptera has it. Tandem seat cars are a niche ride, that means low volume sales. Illuminati, well they need a lot of work to even become appealing. The others, well they are all in R&D and will take a lot of time and money to go forward. Edison has the money but they need a whole new car too. Tango and FVT, they have been around a long time, as long if not more than Aptera, no success so far. Like I said, Aptera is the only one that will see mass production, IMHO.

[evmavin]

I seriously believe that only Aptera has a chance of producing their car in mass numbers. I wish some of the others good luck with their efforts (forget the scamming Li-ion and Zap companies, they have ripped too many people off). It comes down to design and mass appeal, Aptera has it. Tandem seat cars are a niche ride, that means low volume sales. Illuminati, well they need a lot of work to even become appealing. The others, well they are all in R&D and will take a lot of time and money to go forward. Edison has the money but they need a whole new car too. Tango and FVT, they have been around a long time, as long if not more than Aptera, no success so far. Like I said, Aptera is the only one that will see mass production, IMHO.


Yes, the only one that really HAD a chance.

[rayfellow]

I'm fairly sure that Oliver Kuttner wants all/as many as possible of the X-Prize contestants to "succeed" and produce their cars; as do I. Illuminati is proceeding with their development, as are TW4XP, FVT, E-Tracer, Tango, Li-ion, etc. Aptera is one of the "oldest" efforts out there, and they were certainly the most well known going into the X-Prize. If any of these go into production, the others will see tangential effects.

I think you have it right.. the Aptera is a good product. My problem is a lying CEO a PR guy who's english and spelling ability would get him fired on any other job, and a CFO who should not handle money... thus the team C sentiments.

[NeilBlanchard]

Another update from Oliver Kuttner (say KOOT-ner!) on Facebook:

Last weekend we had a great meeting I would like to share with you. In the end this is what it is all about.

Because three of our team members live in the Long Beach area we all flew in to meet there. The mission of the meeting was to agree on the fundamentals of the VLC 4.0. This version will be the definitive pre-production prototype.

This car will fully incorporate bumpers, proper final glazing and all the details we require on a car sold in the USA today. We all had our own ideas of how to polish the VLC and to meet those requirements. Coming in we expected to give up some of our efficiency as a trade.

I am happy to report that the meeting was a definitive success. We feel strongly that we will be able to retain perhaps all the efficiency virtues we proved available with VLC 3.x (the X Prize cars). The main differences will be the emergence of bumpers, larger more comfortable door entries, A somewhat radical approach to a catastrophic accident that promises to give the VLC an edge with heavier cars and a new treatment of the A Pillars. In effect we will substitute the A pillars with a central spine of substantial nature, we call it the Alpha pillar.

The Alpha pillar will provide a new approach to safety while giving opportunity for better aerodynamic efficiency.

We can not give too many details. What we can say is that the 4.0 is promising to be almost as much of a leap the VLC 3.0 was. As I predicted the X Prize cars are now essentially obsolete.

The weekend included a new member in our team, Jason Hill known from his work on the Porsche Carrera GT supercar and the Aptera will join our ranks as the refinement automotive industry insider.

Other members of the meeting were Barnaby Wainfan (aerodynamics, Peter Barnett (ergonomics and industrial design specialist from Northrop Gruman), Ron Mathis our chief designer Brad Jaeger who has become a bit of a specialist in FMVSS besides the other hats he wears and Alex Wolfden our composites and plastics specialist as well as myself.

It was a powerful weekend in good company, I am very proud of my team and we promise you that we will change the [paradigm], we know how to -- with real numbers...
Regards Oliver

(Minor editing: adding some paragraphs, etc.)

[rayfellow]

I love these guys. They are making me excited with the addition of really smart focused people and going in a direction that is so pleasing. A super efficient, ready for prime time vehicle. It's not quite as dramatic as the Aptera was/is. But it's more practical in the 4 seats and narrow width. Actually.. the looks are growing on me too. I had this thought - In a parking lot at a local University and looking out over a bunch of VLC's and the students wondering where he/she parked theirs. It is the next 1960 VW bug.. I do believe. Now if they can get the price down to under $15K.. or $20K with a battery pack - he he.

[rayfellow]

From the VLC Blog:
WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 13, 2010 AT 11:03AM | EMAIL ARTICLE | PRINT ARTICLE
At Edison2 we try very hard to talk facts and only facts. For us, the numbers the Very Light Car made in coastdown testing both confirmed what we had hoped and opened some new vistas.

We’ve discussed the meaning of ABC coastdown numbers in previous blog posts; now let’s talk about the consequences.

By definition, a horsepower is 33000 ft.lb/min; it’s the work that a good horse could reliably deliver when, say, lifting coal out of a mine. A fit man can expend about a horsepower for short bursts: for example, a 200 lb man running up a 10 ft flight of stairs in 3 seconds (200 x 10 x (60/3) = 40000 ft.lb/min = 1.2 hp).

The beauty of ABC coastdown numbers is that we can calculate the overall drag for any given speed. From there we can then calculate the power required to drive the car and the energy needed to cover a given distance.

Consider the spreadsheet below. Based on our coastdown ABC numbers, this tabulates the power required for the VLC to run on a level road at a range of speeds.

VERY LIGHT CAR

(Unfortunately, the table didn't paste up too good - but his following comments are still understandable)

The power numbers are really quite astonishing – only 3.5 hp to drive the VLC at 50 mph. The great virtue of such a low power requirement is that energy requirements are also spectacularly low. Using our platform, the range of an electric car stops being a problem.

In the table, for a given speed in the left column, the ABC numbers are used to calculate overall vehicle drag in pounds; knowing drag and speed, we can calculate power in horsepower and kilowatts (1 hp = 0.746 KW). Knowing the power requirement in KW and speed allows us to calculate energy use per 100 miles. For example, at 50 mph, it would take 2 hours to drive 100 miles, so the energy required is 2 hours x 2.63 KW = 5.26 KWH.

Where this gets interesting is the Range column. The numbers here are calculated from energy use and battery size and efficiency. Here we’ve used 16 KWH for the battery size (like the Chevy Volt) and, based on our research and some very competent advice, assumed 84% for overall efficiency for the battery, controller and motor.

It is significant how this works out: 204 mile range at 60 mph reminds us why we chose an internal combustion engine for the X Prize. For the competition we needed to (and easily did) demonstrate a 200 mile range with our Mainstream cars, and 204 miles with a battery cuts it far too close. We could have fitted a larger battery, but the extra weight would decrease overall efficiency.

The numbers don’t lie and wishful thinking doesn’t cut much ice with physics. So the consequences are, if you want an electric car with realistic range it’s going to need to look pretty much like the Very Light Car. If it looks like an ordinary car, it’s not going to go very far before it needs recharging.

[PatQ562]

The willingness to share engineering numbers and their implications is a refreshing contrast with Aptera, which never (to my knowledge) shared over-the-road performance of the "PP" series, and clamped down even harder under PW and gang.

Brace yourselves for several more years of development, even at best, given that VLC 4.0 is still in the concept stage, but it's good to know someone is keeping the dream alive, and that they have the right attitude.

We need hardly point out that 200 mile range with today's 16kWh battery is a very healthy result, one that could improve by 16-20% by the time the vehicle might reach market. Rapid charging becomes increasingly practical when the battery is kept small.

Pat Q

[xrhstos5]

Anyone notice this yet? From Neil's post of Kuttner's update on Facebook:

"...and the Aptera will join our ranks as the refinement automotive industry insider."

CORRECTED - See Neil's post below, I read it wrong. It is NOT Aptera that will consult for Edison2...

[NeilBlanchard]

The full quote you may have wanted is:

The weekend included a new member in our team, Jason Hill known from his work on the Porsche Carrera GT supercar and the Aptera will join our ranks as the refinement automotive industry insider.(Emphasis is mine.)

[Grendal]

My guess is they hired him for the exact same reason Aptera did. To refine and make beautiful a functional concept. You only have to look at the Mk0 and see the huge improvement to the Zen. The Edison2 vehicles are more refined than the Mk0 was but need that Jason Hill refinement to reach the consumer friendly stage of the Zen/PP6.

[JustWilliam]

I really admire Jason Hills design work. This is great news!

[NeilBlanchard]

http://www.edison2.com/blog/2010/10/28/what-a-difference-a-year-makes.html

Take a look at the picture...

[PatQ562]

Many readers are kind enough to post links to interesting articles. It would be nice however to include a 1-sentence summary of the "takeaway" for those of us with limited time. Does "take a look" refer to the Aptera visible in the 2009 SEMA picture? It does point out how little visible progress Aptera shows over the last year, but in 2006-2008 Aptera was cranking out one prototype generation after another. There is a period in any development where VISIBLE progress seems stalled while the product "gets real" as the result of testing, debugging, refinements, and production documentation. There's still a faint hope this is occurring with Aptera, although the product vision is sadly tarnished. The Edison2 people have taken up the torch, but they too have years of development before reaching market.
And I too can't wait to see what Jason Hill is going to bring to the table.
PatQ

[NeilBlanchard]

Yes Pat, you nailed the point of my comment. Sorry I wasn't more explicit -- I tried to post the picture directly, but they have some sort of script preventing this...

In the year that Edison2 VLC went from a hollow shell to four working prototypes (actually they built 10 cars to various stages), and the Aptera 2e went through 1 iteration in that same year. The VLC came in well under their weight targets, and the 2e gained about 600 pounds.

[PatQ562]

But in fairness to Aptera (notably, under Team A) there was rapid iteration of prototypes early in their development as well. My main point is that regardless of team focus and results-orientation, Edison2 is a couple of years behind Aptera in the design cycle. Team B's seemingly unnecessary revisions would be more acceptable to the fan club if the goal was MORE rather than LESS efficiency, but we perceive a depressing loss of focus (trying to shift a niche vehicle more towards the mainstream). Even if Edison2 stays true to the vision I predict a similar agonizing delay between "final production prototype" and the emergence of legally saleable vehicles - especially in the 4-wheel market.
PatQ

[SlowSRT4]

It doesn't matter much how much progress they make in a year or how great the design is or how efficient it is if it never comes to market in any way, shape, or form.

I personally think the VLC has a chance at making production. But it will take years of hard work before that can happen.

[Grendal]

But in fairness to Aptera (notably, under Team A) there was rapid iteration of prototypes early in their development as well. My main point is that regardless of team focus and results-orientation, Edison2 is a couple of years behind Aptera in the design cycle. Team B's seemingly unnecessary revisions would be more acceptable to the fan club if the goal was MORE rather than LESS efficiency, but we perceive a depressing loss of focus (trying to shift a niche vehicle more towards the mainstream). Even if Edison2 stays true to the vision I predict a similar agonizing delay between "final production prototype" and the emergence of legally saleable vehicles - especially in the 4-wheel market.
PatQ

Good point. Also Edison2 is attempting to break into the 4 wheel car market and all that comes with that. This will create a lot of hurdles for them to have to overcome. Aptera was theoretically able to bypass those hurdles under the 3 wheel motorcycle angle. But Aptera has clearly lost the momentum that Edison2 now has because of their X-prize win.

[Grendal]

Here is an article with the top ten stories for 2010. It's for mid-Virginia and winning the X-prize ranked #7 for Edison2 and the VLC.

http://www2.newsadvance.com/online/2010/dec/30/top-10-stories-2010-ar-744163/

[PatQ562]

Due to Edison2's focus on lightness and strength, I think this is a reasonable place to post a suggestion to check out Ecomotors.com. They have been working on a "true leap forward" in ICE design said to increase efficiency by 50% while reducing production cost. This is a bold claim, but at least the motor design is quite interesting. Their stated focus is on power density - more power from a lighter motor. Reducing weight of course helps all around. The motor is a forced-induction, 2-cylinder, 2 stroke, opposed piston diesel design. The resulting package delivers the power strokes of a flat-four in half the size with the same inherent balance of operation. Numerous advantages are claimed using an extensive combination of ingredients - the opposed pistons move half as far, and therefore can rev higher, there is no cylinder head or valve train, the electrically boosted turbocharger can spool up in advance of starting, or to eliminate turbo lag, and can generate auxiliary power at other times. Several other system-oriented assets maximize results, with a particular emphasis on exploiting electro-mechanical assets.

This came to my attention due to a Scientific American article lauding "green technology" investor Vinod Khosla, who seeks realistic opportunities to invest money to improve efficiency and reduce environmental impact. He looks for significant improvements that are "scalable" - ones that can be ramped up to true mass production, and with the economic advantages to succeed without subsidies. Interestingly, he questions whether electric cars with conventional lithium batteries will meet this test -- the batteries need to be reduced about 90% in cost. He is investing in several innovative battery technologies however.

Happy New Year - may 2011 bring better news in the vehicles we are waiting for.

Pat Q

[NeilBlanchard]

Thanks for the update Pat -- I'd seen this motor a little while ago, and it will be interesting if they can make this work.

Another interesting engine is the Cyclone external combustion engine (http://www.cyclonepower.com/) -- an efficient and power dense steak engine. It burns virtually any liquid fuel very cleanly, including so-called waste oil.

[PatQ562]

A high-tech steam engine (hot enough to broil "steak" no doubt <G>) that appears to pass a basic reality check with respect to Carnot cycle limits. Efficiency "approaches that" of a good diesel motor (which is very good for a steam engine), by using plausible engineering technique such as regeneration and very high working temperatures, and it is said to raise pressure within 5 seconds of start-up. Much of their projected value rests on ease of controlling combustion and fuel flexibility, which is an asset of most external combustion motors, but may not mean much to the average US motorist relative to state-of-the-art ICE motors. Cost of production and durability have yet to be proven in the real world, but it looks like a thoughtfully designed system.

[rayfellow]

I asked on Facebook, and here's the reply... we wait.. and may be rewarded.

Rayfellow:
What's happening at Edison 2's shop? I really want to know what you all are up to... now.

4 hours ago · Like · Comment
Ron Mathis:
I can only say, we're working. I think you'll like what you see when we're ready to show it. This stuff doesn't happen just by wishing for it but with the way we're doing it, the results will come

[palmer_md]

The new E2...

http://www.edison2.com/storage/IMG_0828.jpg

http://www.edison2.com/blog/2011/1/11/what-have-we-changed.html

[NeilBlanchard]

Thanks for the post, Michael! The wheel pods are now much more firmly attached -- it looks good. I'm puzzling about the tube-like form on the top edge of the from wheel pods...

I think we are already seeing the hand of Jason Hill in this design?

[palmer_md]

The end of the "tube like form" on the top edge of the wheel pod looks like it would be a good place to put the side view camera, or a turn signal light, or both.

[randyd]

Or a legally-required mirror. ;)

[palmer_md]

Or a legally-required mirror. ;)

Mirror would be hard to do. I believe a camera can give a wide enough angle view to still be useful when turning the car and backing up slowly, but a mirror would just point out into the "wild blue yonder". Even the camera might not work too well, but I'd try one to see.

I suppose either one could be made to articulate to always point in the same direction as the wheel articulates, but again I think the camera would work better this way. The mirror on the door is a standard location that I don't think should change.

[SEGsby]

It's got cute little wheel skirts. :)

How do you see out the back window? It looks so high from the driver's line of sight, it seems more like a skylight?

If it had more provision for cargo in the back, this could be the new Aptera...

[NeilBlanchard]

I'll bet they are for side view mirrors -- they would then swing when you steered; which would be different. They do look slightly angled like a mirror would need to be. Also, they would have to be rigid with very little vibration.

So, another question I have is -- *how* do the front wheels steer? I.E. if the front strut is forming a bumper, then it would have to telescope a wedge-shaped section, allowing the pod to pivot, but not have a gap?

[SEGsby]

A video of this on a turntable, would help...

Hard to make judgments based on a single angle from a single picture.

[Grendal]

The first thing that occurred to me was, "how can you stear it?" Though, I'm certain Oliver is on top of it.

Another thing I noticed is that the rear wheels seem wider than the front wheels. Anyone else notice this? Is it an optical illusion?

[palmer_md]

The first thing that occurred to me was, "how can you stear it?" Though, I'm certain Oliver is on top of it.

Another thing I noticed is that the rear wheels seem wider than the front wheels. Anyone else notice this? Is it an optical illusion?

The first thing I noticed was that it was only about 12" long and has probably the lowest CdA ever.

[Grendal]

;) Yes. Well, except for that...

It may have an amazing CdA, but its wheels don't move and there is no engine at all...

[NeilBlanchard]

I think that the wheel track width do appear slightly different, but I think it is tricky to judge, because the width of the chassis is tapered to the back more than the front.

I think it is over 24" long -- maybe 28" or 30"? The split face CMU (concrete blocks) in the background are 16" long, and that makes the pattern on the floor (stained concrete slab?) looks to be about 24" wide.

Also, a 1/5th scale model is common and that puts the length of the model at about 30" +/- (I am planning on building a 1/5th scale model of CarBEN which will be 33" long.)

So, it probably still has the lowest CdA for a four seat car! ;)

[rayfellow]

This came to me.. it may explain some of the issue raised about prespective etc.

From the Edison 2 team:
You may have noticed we have a new blog entry, about our new design and model we are showing in Detroit. The model is 1/4 scale, and we have a full scale mock-up we are playing with in the shop. We are also exploring different drive-trains, including electric, and hope to start safety testing fairly soon.

Yes there are some new people working with us.

It is going to be an exciting, busy year.

David Brown

Edison2
1415 Kemper Street, Suite J2
Lynchburg, VA 24501
434-326-0016 office
434-409-3045 cell
dbrown@edison2.com

[NeilBlanchard]

Thanks Ray -- I didn't see that information. Are you getting email notices from Edison2, or is this on the blog and I just missed it?

[rayfellow]

Thanks Ray -- I didn't see that information. Are you getting email notices from Edison2, or is this on the blog and I just missed it?

I emailed them.. here's the full correspondance - back and forth... I think it's sucha cool car. I know they are busy.. but want to know what they are doing.

Here it is:
Thank you for your interest and I am sorry to be slow in getting back to you.

You may have noticed we have a new blog entry, about our new design and model we are showing in Detroit. The model is 1/4 scale, and we have a full scale mock-up we are playing with in the shop. We are also exploring different drive-trains, including electric, and hope to start safety testing fairly soon.

Yes there are some new people working with us.

It is going to be an exciting, busy year.

David Brown

Edison2
1415 Kemper Street, Suite J2
Lynchburg, VA 24501
434-326-0016 office
434-409-3045 cell
dbrown@edison2.com



On Dec 30, 2010, at 7:47 PM, David Strong wrote:

I have been following your Edison 2 and wondering what's happening in
your shop, you business plan to make a consumer friendly vehicle,
the possible power configurations using electric as a hybrid or sole
power source.

questions questions, questions??? new employees doing some of this
stuff?

Basically.. what's happening> none of your business - or we;re not
sure yet, stay tuned.. all acceptable answers.

Thanks and maybe post to your blog.

David Strong

[NeilBlanchard]

Thanks -- so it is a bit bigger than I thought. Quarter scale would put it over 3 feet long.

[rayfellow]

Ckeck this out for Edison 2 - verbage and a video - from the Detroit Auto show... Interesting 7 passenger model being designed. Wow

http://www.engadget.com/2011/01/12/a-tour-around-the-x-prize-winning-edison2-very-light-car-video/


A few months ago, three teams split $10 million in prizes, finally claiming the Progressive Insurance Automotive X prize. They're all at CES, and we got a chance to speak in detail with one of the men behind one of them, Edison2's Oliver Kutter, about the design of the car and, ultimately, what's going to come next thanks to that $5 million in cash the company walked away with. Read on for the details from that conversation, including why this tiny thing could actually be safer than a traditional car, as well as a video walkthrough, and pictures of the winner of the two-wheeled X-Tracer too.
Automotive X-Prize winners

The Very Light Car appropriately weighs a few ticks over 800lbs and is powered by a 250cc motorcycle engine (the same one used in the funky little Yamaha WR250X). That may not sound like a lot of power, and indeed it isn't, but the idea here is of course efficiency. The team managed 102mpg during the competition, but have elsewhere scored 109, and that's just the beginning.

This is the third iteration of the car, and the company is already hard at work on the fourth, with electric power coming. That won't be the end, though, with more revisions to be made and, hopefully, a production version that could, believe it or not, seat seven. Part of the reason why it has so much room is because the suspension is entirely built into the wheels, a layout we unfortunately weren't allowed to see (it's hidden under the white bits of paper) but enables the axle to be completely rigid and the interior to stretch right to the corners of the body.



If your first thought is that this layout plus its tiny, low-rolling-resistance tires give it crummy handling, prepare to be humbled: the VLC pulled 1.18g on a skidpad, matching a $300,000+ Pagani Zonda C12 S. If your second thought is that it's a deathtrap, we'll be happy to dissuade that too. It's made of carbon fiber, for one thing, which is incredibly hard to damage. For another, its diamond shape gives it incredible rigidity from either frontal or side impacts. Finally, the placement of the wheels and tires outside of the body means they can be shed in a crash -- throwing off kinetic energy and reducing the overall force of the crash.

Ultimately the Virginia-based company is still a ways away from a version that you or I can try to go break our own records in, but with a fleet of experienced racing engineers fiddling with CAD files and laying up the carbon we'd like to think good things are coming. But, then, we are optimists.

[randyd]

I'll bet they are for side view mirrors -- they would then swing when you steered; which would be different. They do look slightly angled like a mirror would need to be. Also, they would have to be rigid with very little vibration.

Oh, I don't mean that they would actually work well as mirrors. The the rigidity needed to make them useful mirrors will be impossible to achieve if the wheel skirts are part of the un-sprung mass. They will bounce all over the place, and they will steer with the front wheels, making them great for looking at your spiffy paint job. But they would, I presume, meet the letter of the law.

THEN, with the law satisfied, you can do all kinds of interesting things with cameras and displays. I agree that seeing out of the back of the vehicle will be very hard without either a larger back window or cameras.

[NeilBlanchard]

The main thing about the Edison2 VLC is that the wheel pods are *not* part of the unsprung weight -- they do not move as part of the suspension. This is one of the main design features of the VLC.

The rear wheel pods did move a bit, but this new design changes all of that. They are far more robustly attached, now. The front wheel pods still have to steer, though, and exactly how that works remains unknown by looking at one picture of the model.

A backup camera would seem to be needed, for sure. And maybe it would have side view video mirrors in addition to the optical mirrors?

Some screen shots of the Engadget video:
http://img810.imageshack.us/img810/9275/4scaleprototypemodel1.jpg
http://img130.imageshack.us/img130/237/4scaleprototypemodel2.jpg
http://img843.imageshack.us/img843/7963/4scaleprototypemodel4.jpg
http://img37.imageshack.us/img37/5681/4scaleprototypemodel5.jpg
http://img407.imageshack.us/img407/9718/4scaleprototypemodel6.jpg
http://img94.imageshack.us/img94/7871/4scalemodelofxprizecar.jpg


The new model is definitely larger than the X-Prize car.

[PatQ562]

A note for Neil - is it my computer (Macbook pro) or do your pictures come thru hugely oversized on everyone's machine? They're actually hard to take in.

Pat Q

[SlowSRT4]

A note for Neil - is it my computer (Macbook pro) or do your pictures come thru hugely oversized on everyone's machine? They're actually hard to take in.

Pat Q
I'm on a MacBook Pro 13". :biggrin: The pictures are quite large for me as well, as the resolution of my screen is only 1280 x 800.

[NeilBlanchard]

Sorry folks -- I forget that my screen captures of my 24" iMac are too big. I've downsized them; are they better?

[randyd]

Yes, these are sized perfectly, (on MY macbook pro :) )

And thanks for the correction Neil. This design keeps surprising me.

[PatQ562]

So having figured out the picture situation (thanks Neil), are we seeing a front view? How are the front wheels supposed to turn?

Pat Q

[palmer_md]

Just speculating, but I believe it will work just like the xprize car. If you look at the two models both are built with rigid front wheel pods (no articulation), but we know for sure that the xprize car had front wheel pods that articulated with the steering.

per Neil

The front wheel pods still have to steer, though,

[PatQ562]

But the "X-prize" axle shrouds were thin and thus it was possible to articulate the wheel pants at least within a somewhat limited range (a question I always had about their pants geometry anyway). I guess more will be revealed as the model becomes a rolling prototype.

Pat Q

[NeilBlanchard]

Yes, there would have to be telescoping wedges or something to allow the wheels and pods to pivot. These new ones look pretty long, though; so it will be a challenge. The trailing edges of the pods on the X-Prize cars just missed the side of the car by about 1", and there was a bit of interference with the entry doors when the wheels were turned.

I'm sure they will solve it...

[SEGsby]

The updated design makes for a great spaceship...

Will have to see a working prototype to get a better grasp of the front pivoting.

[rayfellow]

Thank you Neil - for explaining how the front wheels turn, and are also unsprung weight. How exactly they have wheel travel up and down - for bumps etc. and stay within the confines of those pods is amazing innovation. I expect others may try to copy -and hopefully pay Edison 2 copy right fees.

I am curious about the light weight and lack of sound insolation. I would be curious to hear from folks who have driven or been passengers in the Edison 2 and how the sound level is.

[NeilBlanchard]

The front suspension works differently from the rear suspension. The front is a trailing arm setup that is attached to the steering pivot, and the spring and shock absorber are housed within the rim of the wheels.

The rear is a trailing arm housing a chain drive, that pivots the whole support tube. The spring and the shock are inboard, on the rear. The drive shaft is inside the support tube.

This works for rear wheel drive only -- the Aptera front suspension is elongated double 'A' arms, and so the front wheel drive shaft fits into the set up easily.

It is interesting that the main purpose of having *everything* be as aerodynamic as possible, lead to the fixed wheel pods on the Edison2. I think it would be possible to make the exposed drive shaft of the Aptera be much lower drag than it is; so one design decision or another is not necessarily "required" to achieve lower drag.

[xrhstos5]

http://www.evxteam.org/
(see at the bottom of the page):

...
We are thrilled to announce that Edison2, the X PRIZE winner, has built a chassis of their Very Light Car (VLC) for us to use for our next project, the creation of an all-electric version of their prize winning car.

...
The EVX Team has designed an all-electric drive train to power the Very Light Car. We will be showcasing our work in the Spirit of Innovation Awards and at the Green Grand Prix this spring. Building on Edison2’s ground-breaking engineering, the EVX Team will create the most efficient electric car on the market.

[rayfellow]

http://www.evxteam.org/
(see at the bottom of the page):

...
We are thrilled to announce that Edison2, the X PRIZE winner, has built a chassis of their Very Light Car (VLC) for us to use for our next project, the creation of an all-electric version of their prize winning car.

...
The EVX Team has designed an all-electric drive train to power the Very Light Car. We will be showcasing our work in the Spirit of Innovation Awards and at the Green Grand Prix this spring. Building on Edison2’s ground-breaking engineering, the EVX Team will create the most efficient electric car on the market.

That's what I'm talking about... Keeping it light, less batteries, small light motor(s). Should be awesome.

[PatQ562]

Maybe this time we'll get better documentation of the achieved results. Looking forward greatly to see what will happen.
Pat Q

[NeilBlanchard]

Thanks for the update! I hope we hear lots of details.

[rayfellow]

This came off Edison VLC Facebook - enjoy:

Oliver Kuttner The technical development is moving fast. On a technical front the car is not fighting us at all.
Once again I am proud of this team. As we are all spread all over the USA it is a bit different than traditional. I will explain what I mean:
In effect the bodyshape for the VLC 4.0 is developing in 4 different places following 4 independent teams. All work to retain the efficiency characteristics and add consumer usability and style and compliance with the laws.....
1; The fundamental driver in all matters Aero is our chief Barnaby, together with Peter our Long Beach group is creating a data file which you saw in the form of an early windtunnelmodel at Detroit. Even this shape has evolved and is getting ever more such that "the air does not know the car was there". Barnaby is an ever present force making certain the aerodynamic requirements are not compromised.
Peter Barnett's main "forte" is cockpit design. Decades of experience are showing... his hand drawings are exquisite, his ideas about fundamentals for ventilation and other considerations are making nuance adjustments which will make everything else fall in place later.
That is the cad mode series one.
2; Our newest member Jason Hill and his group at Eleven are taking the above and giving it a polishing from the stylist's perspective.
Once again it shows when you work with the best. Jason brings many details that go far beyond styling. From manufacturability to consumer interaction there is little that is not on their mind. Here we create a seperate different datafile which on surface looks similar but is not. Jason' team is now working on their own file that on the surface looks the same but.....
This second data file looks very promising also.
3; Bobby and Ron in the shop have embarked on a very ambitious third trajectory. A 4 D built full scale buck is being modified into an "A" and "B" side. Here we actually build a full scale model of what it is we want. We modify the shape, Then we pull a mound and make a prototype part and install that body on a car. This way we can sit in it, we can hold and feel the entry we can see the visibility issues etc.
We are now on full scale interpretation number 4 and 5.
This is a powerful tool. Being abler to actually stand next to it and sit in it.... All the data from the model (and sometimes the other way around) goes into a third computer model.

All the dimensions from what we learn are shared with one and two above. This way all three independent data files become cars which we know will on the first try.

The people at 4D Studios then turn these files into wind-tunnel models.
Those models then go through a series of tests. We learn from those. In time we select the best features of each and we will deliver what will be the shape of the VLC4.0

I am extremely pleased with the process. There is no doubt in my mind we are moving at a very rapid pace. The result of the 4.0 should be much better than what we had in mind only three short months ago. I expect this process to eliminate several in between versions, in effect meaning that after 4.0 we might as well be at lets say 7.0... had we not embraced this multi-prong attack.

The best part of all this is that all parties get along and respect each other well and move forward together. This is a special team and a special moment. I am certain that these people with the most extraordinary past will talk about this with their grandchildren...

We will have a meeting in the next months where we all get together and we finalize all decisions and then we move to the 4.0 car.

Separately we will do a series of crash tests later in the year. The facility has been determined and the cars are in construction. We expect our tests to yield good results which will surprise many. Once we have lab certified numbers proving that we can build a 1000 lbs car and can collide with a 4000 lbs car and have our passengers survive well (our goal is not to meet the standard but to shine) we feel we have answered to the last remaining big question.

We will have performance , (handling braking etc) better than normal.
We will have more passenger room than many cars.
We will have unprecedented efficiency.
We will have the lowest emissions in the world.
We will provide a car with good safety characteristics
We will have all of this in a stylish package that COSTS LESS and is fully recyclable....

It will be hard to argue with .... but then we do not have to convince everybody...

I hope you enjoyed the update. we have been very very busy.

[NeilBlanchard]

Thanks Ray -- I had not seen Oliver's update.

[PatQ562]

Good to hear optimism from Edison2. Meanwhile, Urbee is another visionary outfit with a LONG way to go, but fighting the good fight regarding weight and streamlining. They're deluded thinking they can get the rated 9kWh energy from 6 x 6V/240Ah lead acid, but if they ever get real they could use about 12 Flux Power 260Ah lithium batteries and save some weight. Trying to do more with less, including a small ethanol powered charge-sustaining motor.
Urbee has received enthusiastic publicity for "pioneering" the first "3D printed body". So far this refers to their scale model, and such technology is fairly common these days for prototyping, but such material is not all that strong even for plastic. No word on what the actual body uses, or any specs, as they are still running a bare-frame proto.

[randyd]

Good to hear optimism from Edison2. Meanwhile, Urbee is another visionary outfit with a LONG way to go, but fighting the good fight regarding weight and streamlining.

Now that's a vehicle I could like *more* than an Aptera. I had not heard of them before. Thanks for the head's up Pat!

They're deluded thinking they can get the rated 9kWh energy from 6 x 6V/240Ah lead acid, but if they ever get real they could use about 12 Flux Power 260Ah lithium batteries and save some weight. Trying to do more with less, including a small ethanol powered charge-sustaining motor.
Ethanol motor? meh

Urbee has received enthusiastic publicity for "pioneering" the first "3D printed body". So far this refers to their scale model, and such technology is fairly common these days for prototyping, but such material is not all that strong even for plastic. No word on what the actual body uses, or any specs, as they are still running a bare-frame proto.

3D printing? meh.

Rear wheel steering? Although unconventional, it should be simpler than both powering and steering using the front wheels. I like unconventional that makes engineering sense. I wonder how it would do in the "moose test"?

[PatQ562]

I missed this "feature" of the Urbee. In my younger days, before front wheel drive became common, I entertained a 3-wheel EV I was going to call the Fishtail, using a "simplifying breakthrough" of a standard (ie VW) transaxle in front, and a single cable-operated steering wheel in the back. Unfortunately, such an arrangement has numerous dangerous flaws, as a quick push-powered mockup demonstrated. You cannot have normal return-to-center castoring on the rear wheel, as the side force in a turn increases the steering angle rather than returning-to-center (ie, it's unstable, in the same way a normal car goes unstable if operated at high speeds in reverse). You can't have "anticastor" either, as this is unstable in its own right. Therefore, the best you can hope for is a perfectly neutral vertically pivoting rear wheel with no steering feel at all. One would need centering springs, and hope the geometry doesn't shift enough under load to go unstable. Then there's the whole problem of unexpected handling in tight turns. If snugged up to a curb, the rear wheel may become trapped trying to turn into the curb to drive the front away from the curb, and you can't steer the front sideways out of a tight spot. In effect, the whole parking situation gets reversed. It's relatively easy to drive INTO a space, with the vehicle handling approx like a normal car backing into a space, but you would pretty much have to back out, which would be difficult in traffic.

Anyone casting a realistic eye on this project will sense a lot of wishful thinking and untested hypotheses, starting with the difficulties of low power lead-acid EV's in a frigid climate zone. Dreams are all very well but I prefer to build on a tested foundation rather than quicksand.

Pat Q

[palmer_md]

E2 has found some inexpensive help in building their business plan and in getting the final design for the car worked out. What a great way to keep the startup expenses down as well as a great way for a student to get real world experience for a senior project.

http://www.edison2.com/blog/2011/2/28/sweet-briar-college.html

Can't see much from this photo, but I'm curious about the final exterior design as done by Jason Hill.

http://designby11.blogspot.com/2011/03/edison2-design-meeting-last-week.html

If they keep up this kind of work, well end up having to rename this the unofficial VLCForum. It's already become the unofficial competitors of Aptera forum, but I see E2 VLC as the real competition. VLC is doing all the things that I liked about the original Aptera in 2007. It's scaled composites all over again just 5 years later. Lightweight, efficient, and affordable transportation.

[rayfellow]

I've been reading Edison 2 Facebook comments. I hope this is ok to post here. I find these comments so refreshing and innovative. Enjoy Oliver's thinking

As I get older I have come to the conclusion that successful people are often successful because they were in the right place at the right time. Continued in comments:
April 14 at 10:15am · Like ·


I am in Detroit today, I am walking about with the clear feeling that something is going to break here in a good way. The time may be right for something to happen:
April 14 at 10:23am

Oliver Kuttner There is an immense talent pool here. People know how to do things that take a lifetime to learn. There is an attitude to hold on to the past to do one more time what has worked before. Slight variations are ok. Wholesale change requires large amounts of money ---and risk.. Risk at a time when many have suffered at the hands of a brutal recession... Nevertheless it is clear that something will have to happen. Especially on the second Tier there are suppliers who see the writing on the wall and who want to be part of the future. It is clear to all that the electric bandwagon while important is not going to save the industry. I am getting the meetings... weather they will change into real support and a movement remains to be seen. However there is no path past the laws of physics and people are open to the discussion. The job is so big. I have the feeling it is going to fall in place because it is "the right thing to do".
rt
April 14 at 10:29am · Like

Oliver Kuttner I am very proud of my team who at all times and at all costs always stays with the principle: "CAR FIRST". We design the best most efficient platform possible and the rest will take care of itself. Our version 4.0 is taking shape and it is becoming a beautiful car....with the same brutal efficiency of the X Prize car. You will see it soon. For now i want to share our business philosophy which is every bit as important as the car itself in order to get us to succeed:
April 14 at 10:32am · Like

Oliver Kuttner Edison2 will not become a car company. I have seen too many new car companies fail. Instead we will be the out of the box unrestrained research company that devises the method of doing the VW of the future. That is something that does not exist. We will unite a number of people who all benefit from and have an interest in a lighter rescaled automobile of the future. These firms will have a seat on the table and will contribute to an important project. We are looking for the socially conscious investor who is willing to put money into a venture that could change the world and bring large return or may find itself just another firm that hits a seemingly solid wall in the industry.
April 14 at 10:40am · Like

Oliver Kuttner I FEEL THE WALL CRUMBLING. Borg Warner who is the premier Turbo Charger company Is our supporter. (They do a lot more with special post combustion emissions and twin clutch and transmission components). It is too early to say but I feel we have a Body systems manufacturing partner in the making. We have at least two large companies looking at a agreement that will end with a license agreement. Both have built millions of cars in the past. Our mission is to develop a method and perfect it first. Our main challenge in the 4.0 will be to achieve safety and to prove it to the world. We are very confident we can do it. It is the key to adaptation in a widespread model to our technology. In the end we can sell a license to a firm in India that does not put much weight on aerodynamics but wants wheel travel or a firm that wants to build a purpose built Taxi for the world. As a team Edison2 and its partners will know how to build a light efficient car very well. We will have the time advantage in a big industry. A Industry in which you do not want to take risks as they equate to large losses. here we will become a very good proven bet for those who chose to tap the knowledge we have been accumulating for years...
April 14 at 10:51am · Like

Oliver Kuttner If as an industry we change to a car that moves the people instead of
itself then we save materials from the production to the recycling. If the car is more efficient and durable in its use then there is more energy saved. If this car is safe, attractive and handles better than the cars you are used to then it will sell by the millions. It will become a new car segment. We are certain we are on the path to developing this better car. We are doing it with a relentless eye on cost. It is our intention to deliver this better car for a lower price than what we are used to. While the world is becoming an ever more complicated place we are trying to go back to elegant simplicity while retaining the function people need. We have an outreach program and you can hear us speak around the USA. We will start to keep you informed about that. HOWEVER "AFTER ALL IS SAID AND DONE WE WILL MAKE SURE MORE IS DONE THAN SAID". Not the other way around as is so common today.
April 14 at 10:58am · Like

Oliver Kuttner ‎"Less is more" is really the only way forward. We all need it out of consideration to the future generations and as our responsibility to fiscal matters corporate and as a national security item. If the GM Ultralight had developed into a mass produced VLC in the 90s we might have never gone to Iraq... Afghanistan... We might not have an industry that was hurt and we might have a positive balance of trade as the rest of the world needs this new approach. It is never too late. However now none can say they did not know it can be done. The X Prize proved that. What we do is the foundation that makes it possible to have real electric cars that can actually go somewhere and that do not require $15,000.-- fuel tanks.... it can be what makes the world better for bicyclists, it makes our roads last longer.... In short: IT IS THE RIGHT THING TO DO. The events in the Gulf and ow Japan show we must contain our thirst. A great American innovator once said that a fat man can not run as fast as a thin one. His Name was Henry Ford. "Less is more" combined with elegant and smart engineering is the only answer and it is never to
late. We owe this to the next generation.
April 14 at 11:07am · Like · 1 person

Oliver Kuttner The GM Ultralight was a great car project. The EV1 was a great car project but in the end they were still a car as we know it. The VLC is fundamentally a different architecture than any car in history. It is the first ever large light car. As such it offers a greater leap in efficiency than ever before. It also offers a potentially greater leap in answering the safety question. That may just be enough that it can be truly disruptive to the industry. We and our current and future corporate partners believe so. For all our sake let us hope that the perfect storm of circumstances is emerging that allows us to realize the promise of breaking the mold. Maybe, just maybe Edison2 is in the right place at the right time... What we propose will happen sooner or later, sooner is better for everybody... it is just work...
April 14 at 11:15am · Like · 1 person

[Grendal]

Oliver seems to be taking the Burt Rutan business method. Take big ideas that are game changers and prove they work. The ideas then trickle down to the corporate mass producers and they begin to mass produce them. Burt Rutan had a hand in the GM Ultralite vehicle Oliver is using as an example. Lets all hope that the corporate people actually begin to build from Oliver's ideas.

[PatQ562]

Very inspirational!
I personally appreciate the focus on cost. We will never change the game unless it makes immediate economic sense to average consumers. The old VW met this test.
As long as high efficiency is only available at a high price, only rich people can afford it - the people who need it the most don't have the money up front. Government could take a role in this, for example by raising the gas tax and using the funds to reduce the price of vehicles with increasingly good efficiencies. Thus, people of average means would be able to see the savings right away rather than having to wait many years, and people who really need a large vehicle could still get one. But such a program requires political will, superb salesmanship, and inevitably gets politicized, so it's WAY better if the car is inherently low in cost AND gets great efficiency.
There is a well know "green investor" whose name escapes me - I mentioned him a while back. He looks for opportunities that make a real difference. One his required attributes is scalability (can it reach true mass production?). We haven't reached this with composite construction -- too much hand labor -- although I think there was some proposal in connection with the VW "1 liter" car. Edison2 focuses on metal construction, albeit aluminum, which is clearly producible in mass quantities.
The problem with the "Burt Rutan method", much as I admire his work, is that established companies have way too many incentives NOT to change the game. We need a visionary, like Henry Ford, who will go the distance and actually MAKE the revolutionary product at a breakthrough price, so people can start using it and spreading the word.
Pat Q

[palmer_md]

and actually MAKE the revolutionary product at a breakthrough price,

I thought that was the iPad?

[rayfellow]

The EV breakthrough will happen when the cost is low. A light car using less materials and less batteries will cost less and can attract an average income person. The Edison VLC - lightness and cheap building materials could be that breakthrough vehicle (ala VW and the Ford Model T). Oliver's idea of being the engineer rather than the production plant... well look what happened to th Aptera. Kind of scary. Henry Ford was a one-of-kind guy who made the transition to a low per unit cost car. Porch had the German government. All three (Edison VLC, VW and Model T) use the KISS approach.

For Edison VLC, finding that 'car company' to build in quantity requires a leap of faith by the production company to invest in the marketability of an unproven product.

I would like to see Edison VLC start producing vehicle and measure the response terms of acceptance and demand. At that point the manufacturing company would need to take a much smaller 'leap of faith' to produce in quantity. I feel it in my bones, that such a car will sell very well. Edison would be in a much stronger position when negotiating the value of the VLC with a 'car company'.

And now... as I re read Oliver's comments, he is actually putting the building team together... It will be interesting to see how it comes together.

[SEGsby]

Can't wait to see the latest generation VLC...

[rayfellow]

Want an Edison 4 kit for $25,000? Here's Oliver from his facebook... Interesting.


Oliver Kuttner
As we are getting ready to build the 4.0 and we will do some destructive testing it has occurred to me that weather we build 20 or 100 copies is really not very different. The question becomes are there 100 takers for a VLC 4.0 kit? That could well be the most efficient learning vehicle on earth? The price would be around 25k. The power-plant could be electric, motorcycle or small ICE and would not be included. I am just asking contact me direct or email contact @edison2.com please. here is a chance to get a VLC for a handful of people in 2012.
11 hours ago · Li

[palmer_md]

I don't do Facebook, but I'm definitely in for this option. I'd love to have a VLC roller.

[NeilBlanchard]

I would love to have VLC, as well. The one challenge with using a VLC with an electric drivetrain is that it will only work with rear wheel drive, and this limits the regen a bit.

[rayfellow]

I remember Oliver saying at some point that the car was so light, and the cost of regen so high, that it wasn't economical to install regen breaks on the VLC.

[NeilBlanchard]

With an electric drivetrain, there is virtually no additional cost for regenerative brakes. The energy you get back is proportional to the weight, so it will mean just as much for any weight car.

[PatQ562]

In terms of energy savings, the more efficient the car, the less total energy used, thus the less there is to be saved (in dollars). This may come into play if the car is sufficiently light and cheap - the cost of regen may not be "worth it" -- and there IS some cost to working out the controller circuitry that hooks to the brake pedal.

However, in terms of range extension and economizing the battery size, the effect of regen should be equally applicable to all size vehicles, as Neil notes, and the cost of the regen control elements should not be THAT much. It's more a matter of development time and cost to get the "feel" right.

Have there been pictures published of the next-gen Edison2? The offer to get a "glider" for $25K is highly intriguing, as an alternative to building up something on a 2CV chassis. And does the offer include steering, brakes, lights, etc - "everything but the powertrain" ?

Pat Q

[NmGfan]

I'm still not convinced that regenerative braking saves much beyond brake pad and disk wear on a light-weight energy efficient EV. Regenerative braking on a Prius is very effective because the pack is incredibly small (1.4kWh) and its power is used primarily for acceleration or low speed short range drives. With a pack 10 to 15 times larger, the regenerative contribution to overall motive power is significantly less and may be even less advantageous. Somewhere on this site is a post from EVMavin that mentions how much power he was able to recapture after driving his converted Yaris to the top of a steep hill/mountain and regenerative braked his way back to the bottom of the hill. It was an impressive 25% of the power consumed to get to the top.
Driving around town accelerating away from a stop and then using regen braking for the next stop, it's pretty reasonable to assume that one might regain 25% of what was spent on each acceleration so long as the deceleration was as strong as the acceleration. If there is aggressive acceleration and a modest amount of regenerative braking deceleration, that 25% recovery diminishes pretty quickly.
Does regenerative braking actually extend an EV's effective driving range significantly (25%+) or does it just recover some spent energy (25%) from the last acceleration to use on the next and save friction brake component wear? Seems like the later to me...

:happy0025:

[NeilBlanchard]

Wasted energy is wasted -- how can regaining some energy not be worthwhile? EV's have to be efficient.

The FVT eVaro gets 100% of it's active braking from regenerative braking, and so even if it is only 50% efficient (I think good generators are more like 80%?), that is still 50% of the kinetic energy (the mass of the car X the speed) regained while braking and put back in the battery; rather than heating up the brakes.

[rayfellow]

I have noticed that Oliver has deleted his comments regarding Edison 2 or 4 kits. I think I may have been wrong in cutting and pasting that information to the Aptera site.

Oliver, if you read this.. my bad... Sorry

[palmer_md]

Perhaps he got way more than the 100 inquiries he was looking for.

[rayfellow]

I started to think of the close to the chest techonology as well, and wondered if it were a smart thing to do. Unless they have all patents they need to protect themselves.

Anyway, in theory, it would make for a real world testing ground for their VLC.

[palmer_md]

He reworded the post on the blog....

http://www.edison2.com/blog/2011/5/11/a-few-questions.html

[rayfellow]

This is on the Edison VLC blog. It points out how very efficient the VLC is compared to the Leaf and Volt.

Enjoy:
Maybe there is room for another way of comparing electric cars.

We liked the format of the X-Prize competition because competitions are inherently fair: cars ran in the same conditions and energy consumption was measured by a clear metric, MPGe, so there was no cherry-picking numbers or conditions. For example, the efficiency events were run on a closed track without altitude gain or loss, and the energy used was very carefully measured by competent and impartial judges. Under MPGe the energy consumed by vehicles with diesel, ethanol, electric or hybrid drives is referenced to the energy contained in a gallon of gasoline.

But the problem with MPGe is that you have to explain it all the time. For all the X Prize Foundation’s efforts, and the EPA’s, and the Department of Energy’s (they all use and promote the MPGe metric) it’s just not that easy to understand.

But the other day Edison2’s engineering staff were asked a sensible question about our new electric model: how long does it take to charge? Our short answer was, “quickly enough to be acceptable and viable for most people” and, as you would expect, there was a longer answer as well. Real-life charging time depends on how far you go and how fast you go. Of course that’s true of all cars but it’s energy not spent on pushing a heavy car with ordinary aerodynamics that really counts. So, as we like to do, we ran the numbers.

Some of our early blog posts explained our coastdown figures, which are derived using a recognized SAE standard and measure total resistance to motion caused by aerodynamic drag, rolling resistance and mechanical losses. The VLC’s coastdown numbers are the best ever for a 4-seat car and therefore our energy consumption, regardless of energy source, is also the lowest ever.

That’s a bold statement but the problem lies in getting its significance out in an easy-to-understand way. How about how long to recharge after driving a certain distance and speed?

Our performance projections for our electric VLC model take into account a little higher rolling resistance than the X-Prize competition cars (because the batteries make it heavier) and allow for 84% total efficiency through the charger, batteries and electric motor, a figure we think is realistic. On that basis, the electric VLC will take slightly under 4 hours 30 minutes to recharge from a standard 110 Volt 15 Amp socket after a 100 mile run at 70 mph.

To put that in perspective, neither the Nissan Leaf nor the Chevy Volt can actually go 100 miles at 70 mph before their batteries go flat. In fact, the EPA rates the Leaf at a 73 mile range and Nissan concedes it takes 20 hours to recharge from a 110 V socket. Also according to the EPA, the Chevy Volt will go 35 miles on its battery and Chevy says it will then take 10 hours to recharge.

So, 100 miles for 4 ½ hours of charging, 73 miles for 20 hours or 35 miles for 10 hours. You make the call.

[PatQ562]

4.5 hours charging at the legal 120V limit of 1500W (12A or 80% of the plug capacity) is only 6750 watt hours. Is it possible to use only 67wh/mi at 70mph? This is much better than the now-legendary 85-100wh/mi of the early Aptera, or the 100wh/mi of the Monotracer. I couldn't find Edison2's published coastdown specs, but I think I recall a 60mph number of 6HP (which is awesome - almost 50% less than the EV1). This is a power flow of 5321W after accounting for 84% efficiency, ie 88.7wh/mi, or 8869wH for 100 miles, which would be slightly higher at 70mph, say 9500wH. These are believable numbers compared to the other ultralight benchmarks, but almost 50% higher than their implied claim. This is not the first time their published numbers don't add up. Even if they are unaware of the 12A limit, and charge at 120V/15A, that only provides 8100wH which is still 15% short.

It's just annoying that such an advanced project is making elementary math errors in crunching the numbers.

I would hasten to point out that a 10kW battery pack can be recharged in only about 1.5 hours with level II service (240V/32A), which is fast enough to entertain road trips or lunch breaks, so it's not that I don't appreciate their drive to use as little juice as possible.

Pat Q

[NeilBlanchard]

Thanks Ray! Here's the link to the blog post:

http://www.edison2.com/blog/month/may-2011

The HP to move the VLC at 60MPH is just 3.5, I think?

[palmer_md]

http://www.edison2.com/blog/2010/10/13/and-the-consequences-are.html

The power numbers are really quite astonishing – only 3.5 hp to drive the VLC at 50 mph.

A = 6.31
B = 0.1862
C = 0.00433

Efficiency = 84%

kWh = 16

[PatQ562]

Thanks for the link. I couldn't find it.

Keep in mind these coastdown numbers were taken on the ICE powered car; Edison2 rightly mentions a slight degradation for a heavier battery powered car. The W(adj*) numbers shown below add 10% power for this added weight, and 15% to cover typical motor/controller/transmission losses. This is the net power drawn from the battery, and can be related directly to battery capacity to estimate range. The numbers Edison2 cites for wh/mi are at 100% theoretical efficiency and therefore not correct. They allow for losses when estimating usable battery range, but it's easier if you account for your losses as the power is used, just like you would measure in the real world.

For the speeds of most interest:
SPEED HP (100% eff) W(adj*) Wh-mi
30mph 1.3HP 0.94kW 1250W 47
40mph 2.2HP 1.65kW 2200W 55
50mph 3.5HP 2.63kW 3507W 70
60mph 5.3HP 3.95kW 5267W 88
70mph 7.6HP 5.65kW 7533W 108
80mph 10.4hp 7.8kW 10373W 130

This exercise once again illustrates the penalties of driving faster, even for a super-streamlined car. To estimate range, decide what usable battery capacity is desired, and divide that number by the wh/mi for a given speed. For example, a battery with a real-world capacity of 10kWh would support about 200 miles at 35mph, but only 100 miles at 65mph.

I repeat that these numbers are exceptional, about twice the performance of the EV1. My only point in boring in on the exact values is not to build false expectations.

With current (say, Flux power) technology, at 100wh/kg, a 10kWh battery (=12.5kW at 80% DOD) weighs 125kg, or 275lbs. This adds approx 25% more weight to the basic Edison2+driver, justifying a 10% increase in estimated drag. The exciting next-generation battery developments, if true, could provide double or triple this range with the same weight, or the same range with only 100 lbs. A 250 lb, 25-30kWh battery would provide up to 340 miles range at 60mph, a game-changing number indeed.

Pat Q

[NeilBlanchard]

Please note that the Nissan Leaf battery pack has a DOD of ~95%, and the DBM Kolibri battery has a DOD of ~97%.

Going by the numbers on the Illuminati Motor Works 'Seven', that takes 5HP at the same speed that the Edison2 VLC takes 3.5HP; and that the 'Seven' consumes 160Wh/mile -- that would put the VLC at ~102Wh/mile. (Keep in mind that the 'Seven' weighs 2,900 pounds, which has to be more than 2X as much as the electric VLC.)

So, the Leaf battery would give the VLC a range of ~223 miles. And the 63kWh Kolibri battery would very close to 600 mile range; 500+ would be quite doable. Also note that the Kolibri battery is ~282Wh/kg.

[NeilBlanchard]

More from Oliver Kuttner:

At Edison2 we have added staff and are refining our initial prize car concept. We now drive a sports model with an automatic transmission AC system and 89 MPG highway (Lab tested). This car performs like a 3 series BMW. We are weeks away from an electric VLC that will outperform a Nissan leaf in range and performance and efficiency by a factor. It has 4 seats and it weighs under 1200 lbs with a 10 kw/hr pack.

The real work has been in getting the cars to a method where it can be produced in large numbers. We are deeply involved in making the cars safe in detail and have run many crash simulations with real crash tests to come. Our new facility will house several miles of road course and urban course a crash rail and other features. We intend it to grow into the Light car development center. The VLC has gotten a major cosmetic reworking with very good results and this car which we call the 4.0 will exist in less than a year. That car will be the father of the production car. The VLC method chassis and suspension will prove to be a major ingredient to making cars more efficient and it will be available to others. The work of developing a completely new car is daunting but we are at chassis 18 and moving.

This is a very difficult journey but we know we have something that can change the industry. This knowledge is the direct result of the X Prize without which we would still be working on racing cars. We are proud to say we have not lost one man since the X prize. The quiet and very competent Ron Cerven from Li Ion has joined us and we are happy to be working on some very out of the box electric and later hybrid solutions which have great potential beyond the obvious.

Electricity will be the main part of the equation of the car of the future, there is so much more than people know but it can only happen in truly efficient platform cars... As we have always said we are a platform company and that is what we are concentrating on. Our goal is to deliver to the world a platform that weighs much less and handles much better while surviving crashes better and costing less..... We are well on the way, but there is much work still to do. WE will license this platform to any competent car company that needs it. An infrastructure of very light parts suppliers still has to be built but it is happening and one day in the not too distant future you can buy a front cross member with suspensions brakes and all that you can carry with one hand....In time the same will be the case with a chassis that weighs little and passes FMVSS.

We like where we are, We are open to all that are interested and we thank the X prize for putting us on this track. Cars with less material that consume less energy because they are easy to push are the future, regardless if powered by gasoline, diesel electricity or as a hybrid. There is a 2 X to 3 X energy consumption reduction out there just waiting for the taking. It requires careful design and engineering but so did making cell phones possible for the masses... Thank you X Prize, Best wishes to all Sincerely Edison2.

[PatQ562]

Inspiring news indeed.

Encourage Oliver to look into the Local Motors / build-your-own model for early adopters, as we have seen all-too-well the difficulties of entering the market in direct competition with the big boys. I fear that no mainstream company will take a risk on an ultralight car. The great economy cars of the past were all launched as do-or-die efforts by new or struggling companies (Ford in 1908, VW and Citroen post-WW2, and Austin, just struggling to survive). These companies had nothing to lose and everything to gain by trying radical solutions. Who is in this boat today?

Also encourage them to look up Winston Battery, CORRECTION: LSP cells, as one example of emerging battery technology that will further improve the range and weight of EVs. This should be factored into their ultimate game plan - they can demo their performance and technology with today's medium range batteries, while using advanced specifications to show what should be possible in a very few years by the time they reach the market.

Pat Q

[PatQ562]

The June 22 issue of AutoWeek gives Kuttner, and the Edison2 project, a nice one-page profile under their regular Movers and Shakers column. After a recap of his automotive roots, their success at X-Prize, and their race-car engineering background, notable quotes include "Our car is the first lightweight big car. We can build a five-seat, 1200-pound car with all the bells and whistles". (Sticklers for accuracy however may note that the Citroen 2CV, a "regular" size 5-passenger car by European standards, weighs 1250 lbs). Their plans for the Very Light Car 4.0 call for a year of prototype development, a year of selling to a manufacturer, and 2 years to reach market, placing earliest possible delivery in 2015-2016. Too bad Citroen isn't the fiercely independent company of old - they might actually have been interested.

Pat Q

[NeilBlanchard]

Some "indirect" news on the Edison2 Electric VLC; at least the one being built by the West Philly High School team:

http://www.sciencefriday.com/program/archives/201106242

They mention getting ~240-247MPGe, if I remember correctly.

[PatQ562]

They mention getting ~240-247MPGe, if I remember correctly.
If electric powered, that would be about 140wh/mi, a "good but not great" result relative to our informal holy grail of 100wh/mi. As I am in the middle of composing a spreadsheet reconciling a half-dozen or so documented EV performance ratings, I must immediately note that posted EPA results (such as Leaf, Volt etc) include recharging losses, which typically add about 15-20% additional energy loss to the power drawn from the battery. If the number above includes such losses, then the wh/mi used from the battery (the number we most commonly use here), equals about 120wh/mi.
According to the table I created about 6 posts back, according to Edison2 posted numbers their 60mph draw is 88wh/mi, an achievement equal or better than the early Aptera, and reasonably in line with a somewhat higher result published on the much heavier VW 1L test car.
FWIW the link did not take me to an EV report, so I am relying on the above quote.

Pat Q

[PatQ562]

Please note that the Nissan Leaf battery pack has a DOD of ~95%, and the DBM Kolibri battery has a DOD of ~97%
I am not sure where Neil got this information. While multiplying the Leaf's EPA rated wh/mi and the corresponding EPA range, the kwh consumed comes out to about 25.5kWh, which is slightly higher than the published battery size of 24.5kWh. This left me a little baffled until I realized that the EPA correctly rates overall "wall to wheels" results, which include battery charging losses. Recharging a battery can easily take 15-20% more than the power drawn from the battery, because the charger will have about 90-92% efficiency, and the battery recharges at a somewhat higher voltage than it gives under load, adding another 5-10% to the replenishment energy, plus of course any incidental losses in fan cooling etc. When taking these losses into account, the battery power used for the Leaf's rated range is about 21kWh, a safe and reasonable 85% DOD. It would be highly inadvisable to actually allow users to run a battery down to zero, not only due to wear-and-tear, but because even the best BMS systems can be taken by surprise regarding where "true bottom" lies after many partial charge/discharge cycles.

Pat Q

[palmer_md]

Here is another interesting blog post from Edison2. I can't wait to get my hands on one of these. Fantastic.

Edison2’s 4-seat electric car ran 45 laps of a 2.03 mile track in 2 hours, 6 minutes and 42 seconds. After this, our meter upstream of the charger showed it took 9.89 kWh to recharge. The empty car weighed 1031lb.

http://www.edison2.com/blog/2011/7/20/the-limits-of-the-possible.html

[NeilBlanchard]

Thanks Michael! They got ~108.3Wh/mile which is totally impressive.

[PatQ562]

Edison2 is being properly cautious about interpreting their results - findings are not entirely trustworthy until shown to be repeatable. However, these results were obtained on a real track, with some cornering which I give credit for. Note however, that average speed was only 44 mph. At this speed they obtained a "wall to wheels" efficiency of 108.3 wh/mi. It's hard to imagine a lighter or more streamlined vehicle, so this indicates that real-world efficiencies at freeway speeds are likely to be closer to 150wh/mi.

NOTE however, an important factor that must be kept in mind: "Wall to wheels" is about 20% higher than "battery to wheels" which is what determines range and battery size. We see both numbers used indiscriminately, which confuses comparisons. The Edison2 run probably consumed about 8.24kW from the battery, thus achieving about 90wh/mi from the battery, and getting 92 mile range (at a very easy speed) from less than 10kWh. THIS number needs to be compared to the 160wh/mi numbers posted by Illuminati7 and Dolphine for highway runs at 55-60mph, whereas the Leaf ratings, like all EPA ratings, are "wall to wheels" and therefore need to be compared to the 108.3wh/mi result.

Aptera's early claims of 85wh/mi (from the battery?) at 55 mph remain somewhat hard to believe, compared to Edison2's results of 90wh/mi at only 44 mph, although Steve did claim that 3-wheels saved an appreciable amount of drag. It becomes apparent how extreme the design must be to achieve numbers anywhere close to 100wh/mi at normal freeway speeds. Anyone planning a "full size" 4-wheel car should presumably expect results in the 160wh/mi range, similar to Illuminati/Dolphine, if not 200wh/mi, even with serious measures to reduce drag.

Pat Q

[NeilBlanchard]

I detect a new profile of the nose / windshield / roof:

http://www.edison2.com/storage/Electric%20VLC%20NCCAR%20%20copy.jpg

And it looks like there is now a single central 'A' pillar.

[Grendal]

That A pillar looks like a trick of lighting through the windshield to me.

I'm curious if this is a modified version of one of the X-prize vehicles.

[palmer_md]

It's the VLC version 4 which is shown in model form on earlier posts in this thread.

[palmer_md]

http://www.apteraforum.com/showthread.php?t=3909&page=5

[NeilBlanchard]

Here's the X-Prize version with the more conventional pair of 'A' pillars:

http://baggyparagraphs.files.wordpress.com/2010/05/edison2-very-light-car-07.jpg

[palmer_md]

That A pillar looks like a trick of lighting through the windshield to me.

I'm curious if this is a modified version of one of the X-prize vehicles.

After looking at this on my computer instead of my iPhone, I think I agree with you. It does not look like the VLC v4, but rather a modified xPrize version vehicle. I had read in their blog that they wanted to go with custom compound curved glass for the front in the xPrize similar to what is shown, but could not get it built in time, so that is why they went with the simpler solution as seen on the xPrize car.

It does look like a single central A pillar. You can see a shadow on the dash, and you can see the window come to a point at the front of the car. It looks like the door line comes to a point there as well. I'd be interested to see the front doors open. It would have to be hinged from this pillar, and the swing would be very strange.

[NeilBlanchard]

The doors do appear to be hinged on the single central 'A' pillar; and so the side window is melded into the windshield or vis versa.

This probably corrects the door swing geometry that used to interfere with the front wheel pod if it was pivoted so the trailing side is close to the car.

I like the looks of this "cab forward" profile; and it might allow the front seats to be moved forward a bit, as well. It might also improve the aerodynamic drag somewhat?

[NeilBlanchard]

Okay, here's some information (but no pictures of the new versions):

http://news.consumerreports.org/cars/2011/07/automotive-x-prize-winner-edison2-forges-ahead-with-new-design.html

So, I think the electric version is v3.0? V4.0 is the one that Jason Hill is working on, maybe?

[shotgunslade]

All of these wonderful concept cars, (maybe Aptera isn't so wonderful any more), like Acimoto, T3 Motion R3, Edison VLC V.3.0 ELV, FVT Evaro, even the Myers Duo are so tantalizing, light, efficient (no more than 175 W-hrs/mi battery to wheel), cool looking, and unavailable. I've got $30,000 or so, give or take the Federal subsidy, burning a hole in my pocket, wanting to buy something cool, and nobody is producing anything for sale.

I don't want a Leaf. It's too old school car converted to electric drive. I want something that is the next generation, even if it's the next generation that wasn't. It's got to be fun and it's got to be an adventure.

If nothing comes along before 2012, I guess I will just buy a Prius C and convert it to plug-in. Boring, but, I suppose practical.

[SEGsby]

The VLC just does not have the grace and flowing contours of the Aptera PP series...

[palmer_md]

The new VLC 4.0 is much more refined and has a bit more aesthetics. Jason Hill's influence no doubt about it, but I agree it still does not have the "it" that the typ-1 had going for it.

[palmer_md]

It does look like a single central A pillar. You can see a shadow on the dash, and you can see the window come to a point at the front of the car. It looks like the door line comes to a point there as well. I'd be interested to see the front doors open. It would have to be hinged from this pillar, and the swing would be very strange.

ok...correct about single A pillar, but totally wrong about how the door hinged. I'm not sure I like this method. I wonder if the version 4.0 has the same door structure?

fXyYxlLDWgY?

[SEGsby]

Needs a cargo area in the back that's useful...

[Grendal]

I wonder if the version 4.0 has the same door structure?


I doubt it. This seems like a testing mule.

Didn't the driver look like the Li-Ion driver from the X-prize?

[palmer_md]

That is correct. Edison2 hired Ron a few months ago....

More from Oliver Kuttner:

Quote:
This is a very difficult journey but we know we have something that can change the industry. This knowledge is the direct result of the X Prize without which we would still be working on racing cars. We are proud to say we have not lost one man since the X prize. The quiet and very competent Ron Cerven from Li Ion has joined us and we are happy to be working on some very out of the box electric and later hybrid solutions which have great potential beyond the obvious.

[NeilBlanchard]

Some additional details on the Electric VLC:

http://news.consumerreports.org/Edison2-electric-VLC-driving-large.jpg (http://news.consumerreports.org/cars/2011/09/edison2-reveals-electric-very-light-car-achieves-310-mpge.html)
(click on image for link)

[PatQ562]

Consumer's Reports seems to "get it", lauding the light weight (1030 lbs) and its compounding advantages in reducing battery size, and hence, faster recharge time, an often-overlooked reason to focus on maximum efficiency as such, rather than just bulking up the battery to get the desired range.

That said, Edison2 achieved about 110 wh/mi (310MPGe) at only 45 mph, a very "softball" speed, running 91 miles on "less than" 10kWh. Given the extreme attention to weight and streamlining, this figure indicates how tough it really is to achieve anything like 100wh/mi especially at freeway speeds.

Pat Q

[Grendal]

It looks like they have a license plate stuck on the back that is really helping on the aerodynamics. There is a thread on the Tesla Model S forum discussing how license plates are ruining otherwise aerodynamic vehicles with their silly placement.

Also the picture shows what looks like a really uncomfortable seating arrangement.

But since it's unlikely we'll ever be able to buy the Aptera this will be the choice for anyone wanting a lightweight aerodynamic vehicle for the forseeable future.

I'd love to see Oliver buy up the remnants of Aptera and do it properly. He'd bring back the innovation that was lost with Steve and Chris.

[PatQ562]

Regrettably, if you have been reading Edison2's material, they have been realistic about their unlikeliness of becoming a ground-up 4-wheel car manufacturer, so they are not promising us Edison2's in the foreseeable future. Their hope is to change the game by licensing some of their trick technology such as suspension-within-wheels, but this of course depends on the willingness of some existing maker to offer a radically new ultralight, ultrasleek platform. If the mainstream producers wanted to do this, they would already by well along with their own development - the overall concept has been published for decades (per Hypercar and similar efficiency-oriented explorations).

The "breakout" we hoped for depended on exploiting the 3-wheel motorcycle exemption to get hundreds or even thousands of ultra-efficient vehicles into the niche market of "early adopters" at a reasonable cost, in the hopes that their results would ultimately speak for themselves and gain broader support. Alas, with the "mainstreaming" of the Aptera, and the even more mainstream EV designs from the big companies, we are not going to get this demonstration.

In other news, it would of course be an obvious revision to provide a streamlined shape leading back to the license plate location.

Pat Q

[NeilBlanchard]

I have some additional details on the track test, directly from Oliver Kuttner:

The average of 45 mph that we did with the electric VLC is around NC Car. That is a really tight track. To get 45 average you have to go 70 on the straight. it is almost impossible to get 45 average in my Jetta TDI there, and if you do you need a new set of tires after a day.... so that [VLC] will do 310[MPGe] on the highway... all day long.

I heard (not from Oliver) that the electrics may have come from someone we are familiar with.

[SEGsby]

Sounds potentially EPIC... ;)

[PatQ562]

The average of 45 mph that we did with the electric VLC is around NC Car. That is a really tight track. To get 45 average you have to go 70 on the straight.

That sounds fairly impressive and puts 110wh/mi in a much better light as a stand-in for a brisk everyday suburban driving cycle.

Pat Q

[Grendal]

Just a little speculation on my part, but it seems that 100 wh/mi seems the optimal number for a lightweight aerodynamic vehicle. It's around the number the Zen hit and now the eVLC. Anything less would seem to take a radical change to structural materials. Or make a vehicle that would not be "user freindly".

[rayfellow]

And the 'look' of the car is growing on me.

Edison has a way of holding their cards close to the chest. I am so curious about the details.. and which lucky car company will have the balls to take it on to production.

[PatQ562]

I have to agree on the "100wh/mile" benchmark as a practical limit. This has been demonstrated at least twice on highly optimized, 2-abreast seating platforms, and it's hard to imagine what more could be done with freeway-capable platforms.

Tandem seating would be the only way to significantly reduce frontal area, and even setting aside the unpopularity of "1+1" seating, the width of a comfortable 1-seat cabin is actually not much less than a cozy 2-across cabin that is quite comfortable for the usual case of a single driver. Offset 2+1 seating (1+1+1 if you will), as shown in recent concept cars, is actually a very usable compromise that approaches the frontal area of 1+1 seating.

I'm going to stir the pot a little by suggesting that after defining your minimum passenger compartment, a narrower wheel track with 4 enclosed wheels will be more acceptable than the external 3-or-4-wheel pods that make a lot of people nervous, and with underfloor batteries, need not be at all tippy. My instinct suggests that enclosed wheels with good fairings will be at least as efficient as outboard pods, which always seem to have frontal areas considerably larger than the wheels they enclose, for several reasons.

Pat Q

[Grendal]

The eVLC gets 245 MPGe rating!

http://green.autoblog.com/2011/10/11/edison2-evlc-nabs-shocking-epa-rating-of-245-mpge/#aol-comments

[NeilBlanchard]

You beat me to it! This is very good. Interesting though, how this does not seem to correlate with the weight of the VLCe vs the Illuminati '7'; which got 207MPGe and it weighs 2,900 pounds.

[Grendal]

More details from the press release:

Edison2's Electric Very Light Car achieves 350 MPGe

A new standard is set in automobile efficiency

(Lynchburg, VA – October 10, 2011) – In EPA accredited tests last week, Edison2's prototype electric Very Light Car (eVLC) dramatically raised the bar on automotive efficiency. The eVLC delivered 352 MPGe (miles per gallon gasoline energy equivalent) in the EPA City cycle and 347 MPGe Highway cycle, for a stunning 350 MPGe combined.

Just as impressive, in the same tests the 4-passenger eVLC demonstrated 114 mile range on only a 10.5 kWh battery.


It was with the other three driving cycles that the number dropped to 245 MPGe. Those cycles are aggressive driving, AC on full blast, and Cold weather driving. You can see that those extra three cycles would be the ones that would kill the efficiency of the eVLC or any other aerodynamic, hyper efficient vehicle.

[gremlingrrl]

Congrats to Edison2! They've raised the bar.

Now if they could get an inspected and approved street-legal (not manufacturing plates, but a real VIN) prototype on the road, maybe they'd be up for a road trip with IMW. :)

[gremlingrrl]

You beat me to it! This is very good. Interesting though, how this does not seem to correlate with the weight of the VLCe vs the Illuminati '7'; which got 207MPGe and it weighs 2,900 pounds.

I'd like to know what was done to the car between it's September 91 mile track test that achieved 310 MPGe (http://news.consumerreports.org/cars/2011/09/edison2-reveals-electric-very-light-car-achieves-310-mpge.html) and the actual EPA test.

The EPA test is aggressive and should have lowered the MPGe results, not raised them. How did they tweak the car between tests to raise efficiency?

[Grendal]

It did lower the number: 245 MPGe. The 350 MPGe was only for the first two cycles, highway and city.

[gremlingrrl]

It did lower the number: 245 MPGe. The 350 MPGe was only for the first two cycles, highway and city.

The testing they had done on the track wasn't described in the previous article like anything in the EPA city/highway test, but that might just be an omission in the article (describing 91 miles at 45 MPH).

And the testing in the press release, citing an air conditioning mode and cold weather conditions weren't part of the EPA 74 test as of March 2011. So if those phases of the test are new, there's no clear comparison between IMW 7 or the 2011 Nisssan Leaf.

But a cold weather condition is a welcome addition to the test.

[PatQ562]

Edison2's prototype electric Very Light Car (eVLC) dramatically raised the bar on automotive efficiency. The eVLC delivered 352 MPGe (miles per gallon gasoline energy equivalent) in the EPA City cycle and 347 MPGe Highway cycle, for a stunning 350 MPGe combined.

These are the two EPA tests most commonly cited in reports on vehicle performance. 350MPGe is slightly better than the highly sought 100wh/mi efficiency touted by early Aptera experiments, and seems in line with what should be expected for a car with such low weight and drag compared to benchmarks such as the EV1 and current mainstream BEVs. Running 114 miles on a 10.5kwh battery is another reality check comparable to the early Aptera claims. Congratulations for achieving documented results that are 2-3 times better than mainstream or even EV1 results. It CAN be done after all.

As noted, ironically, the more efficient the basic propulsion, the greater the percentage impact of heating and cooling loads, but you're still starting from a better foundation and using less energy than a heavier, less streamlined car.

Now if only you could buy one...

Pat Q

[Schrodinger]

Congratulations Edison2 on this inspiring performance.

Although I wonder if the results are with or without the license plate.

Seriously, if the government is going to require a 72 square inch air-brake be bolted on the back of your oh so slippery design, you might want to include a cowling.

[NeilBlanchard]

On another thread, someone wondered what the 4th generation VLC looked like, and here's what we have so far:

http://www.edison2.com/storage/IMG_0828.jpg

And here are some stills captured from a video:

http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/163/4scaleprototypemodel3.jpg/