DailyDirt: Making Lightweight Cars

from the urls-we-dig-up dept

Wed, Apr 6th 2011 5:00pm — Michael Ho

Only about 15% of a car's fuel actually goes towards propulsion, but making cars lighter would still significantly improve fuel efficiency. The trick will be maintaining the safety (or perceived safety) of lightweight cars... which also need to share the roads with trucks and cars that haven't been on a diet. Here are some interesting links on materials that might make cars greener and lighter.

Coal ash is a cheap waste product, but it might also be a good filler material to make cars about 10% lighter. Coal ash added to steel or aluminum could create less dense metals that are still just as strong. [url]
Brazilian scientists are working on incorporating fibers from bananas, pineapples and other plant matter into plastic car parts to make them stronger and lighter and more renewable. Instead of wood paneling on old station wagons, there might be a faint fruity smell to car dashboards, bumpers and body panels. [url]
Injecting more air into plastic parts when they're created could produce more lightweight materials. The air bubbles have to be really really small, though, so that the structural integrity of the final part isn't affected too much. [url]
To discover more interesting car-related content, check out what's driving around StumbleUpon. [url]

By the way, StumbleUpon can recommend some good Techdirt articles, too.

Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.

Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.

While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.

–The Techdirt Team

Filed Under: coal ash, fuel efficiency, lightweight cars, plastic

20 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

Anonymous Coward, 6 Apr 2011 @ 6:21pm

I can see the appeal of going green, but for me, there is nothing like having an enormous hunk of metal between me and and the other cars on the road. I do my best to keep a gap of air in the way too :) but if that ever fails I trust in steel more than crumple zones and plastic bits, and no I don't particularly care what the numbers say.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Jay (profile), 6 Apr 2011 @ 6:28pm

Time Travel
Time Travel is deemed impossible
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Lawrence D'Oliveiro, 6 Apr 2011 @ 6:40pm

15%?
Not sure how you get that 15% figure. Moving at a constant speed in a straight line, 100% of a car�s power output goes to overcoming friction.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Engineer, 6 Apr 2011 @ 6:43pm

Response to: Anonymous Coward on Apr 6th, 2011 @ 6:21pm
You should look into things more, there have been huge improvements in car safety over the years, and the logic behind large steel frames being safe is totally flawed.

Here's a quick video on topic: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=joMK1WZjP7g
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 6 Apr 2011 @ 6:55pm

Re: 15%?
You have to take into account lots of different types of friction, not just from the road. Air resistance, drive train efficiency, engine efficiency, heat energy and others have to be factored in. I'd be interested to see where that number came from though.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Roland, 6 Apr 2011 @ 8:53pm

google "henry ford hemp car"
I'm surprised no one mentioned this yet:
http://www.hiddenmysteries.org/conspiracy/facts/fordhemp.html
"Ford demonstrated the strength of the car body by smashing an ax against the trunk, only to have it bounce off."
Also http://hempcar.org/ford.shtml
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 6 Apr 2011 @ 9:27pm

Re: Response to: Anonymous Coward on Apr 6th, 2011 @ 6:21pm
Though that maybe true to some extent, many of those safety crash tests are now conducted under slower speeds than what they used to be conducted under and they get similar results (I remember hearing somewhere that the testing speed standards changed and were lowered). and read the comments of that video for more insights into that test.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 6 Apr 2011 @ 9:51pm

Re: Time Travel
To bad I wanted to go back when there was no copywrong.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Chris in Utah (profile), 6 Apr 2011 @ 9:52pm

Re: google "henry ford hemp car"
May want to completly do your car in hemp considering it grows 3 times faster than corn for fuel as well.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Pixelation, 6 Apr 2011 @ 10:26pm

"The air bubbles have to be really really small, though,"

All we need are millions of really, really tiny people to blow those bubbles.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Lawrence D'Oliveiro, 7 Apr 2011 @ 2:16am

Re: 15%?
You have to take into account lots of different types of friction, not just from the road.

I didn�t say it was just from the road.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Pixelation, 7 Apr 2011 @ 3:03am

Re: Re: 15%?
I sense some friction between you two.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Michael Ho (profile), 7 Apr 2011 @ 10:00am

Re: 15%?
Several estimates put it at around 15%, including the US gov:

http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/atv.shtml

That site explains it in most detail:

In gasoline-powered vehicles, over 62% of the fuel's energy is lost in the internal combustion engine (ICE). ICE engines are very inefficient at converting the fuel's chemical energy to mechanical energy, losing energy to engine friction, pumping air into and out of the engine, and wasted heat.

Advanced engine technologies such as variable valve timing and lift, turbocharging, direct fuel injection, and cylinder deactivation can be used to reduce these losses.

In addition, diesels are about 30-35% more efficient than gasoline engines, and new advances in diesel technologies and fuels are making these vehicles more attractive.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Lawrence D'Oliveiro, 7 Apr 2011 @ 7:45pm

Re: 15%?
But remember Newton�s First Law: a body doesn�t need any energy input to maintain a constant velocity.

So at a constant velocity, all the engine�s output is being used up in friction.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 7 Apr 2011 @ 8:36pm

Re: Re: 15%?
I was thinking the same thing.

One may argue that a heavier car requires more energy to maintain a constant speed regardless of exposed surface area and aerodynamics, but that's only because a heavier car creates more surface friction along the imperfect road/surface. If you were on a frictionless surface (ie: while ice isn't frictionless, skis on ice have less friction than cars on pavement) then the energy required to maintain a constant speed wouldn't depend on weight nearly as much.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 7 Apr 2011 @ 8:37pm

Re: Re: Re: 15%?
but that's mostly because * (I hate to make absolute statements).
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 7 Apr 2011 @ 8:52pm

Re: Re: Re: 15%?
For example, try gently sliding your hand across the surface of your table. It's easy. Now push your hand down into the table as hard as you can and try sliding it across the surface. Maintaining a constant speed is more difficult.

Sure your hands aren't on wheels, but even if you performed the same experiment with a hot wheel (gently roll the car across the surface vs pushing down hard and rolling it across the surface) the result will be that pushing it down requires more energy to maintain a constant speed. Somewhere along the line, the extra weight of (or applied to) the car produces more friction.

Much of that is also dependent upon the smoothness of the surface as well. For example, it would generally be much more difficult to overcome a bump on the road if there is more weight vs if there is less weight, especially if it's a sharp bump where the gain in potential energy due to moving up is lost as a result of the vehicle moving straight down in opposed to moving down over a smooth slope.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 7 Apr 2011 @ 9:09pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: 15%?
and, in fact, if a heavy vehicle hits a bump vs a light vehicle hitting an identical bump, my guess is that both vehicles will be slowed down by about the same amount. but the key here is that the big vehicle will apply more force to the bump than the small vehicle and so more kinetic energy is lost and it will take more energy to bring/accelerate the big vehicle back to its previous speed than it would the small vehicle.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 7 Apr 2011 @ 9:11pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: 15%?
(and, in a sense, the big vehicle could also be said to be applying more force to the air molecules around it and so more kinetic energy is lost due to that friction as well? Would you rather get hit by a big truck at 30mph or a small car).
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 7 Apr 2011 @ 9:25pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: 15%?
So, to summarize any(?) imperfection that results in friction will cause a heavier vehicle to lose more kinetic energy than a lighter vehicle and so the required acceleration energy to overcome that loss in kinetic energy and maintain a constant speed is hence greater for a heavier vehicle than a lighter vehicle.
[ link to this | view in thread ]