PDA

View Full Version : British Inventor Unveils 8000 MPG Car


Mother_Marjorie
May 13th, 2006, 10:29 PM
http://www.allheadlinenews.com/articles/7003538016

British Inventor Unveils 8000 MPG Car

May 12, 2006 2:18 p.m. EST


Julie Farby - All Headline News Staff Writer

London, England (AHN)—A British inventor unveils the world's most fuel-efficient vehicle, a three-wheel “TeamGreen” car capable of doing 8,000 miles to the gallon.

The 45-year-old inventor, Andy Green, from the University of Bath, built his budget eco-motor for just £2,000, and will be the sole British contender for the title of the world's most fuel-economic car in a global competition being held later this month.

It has taken Mr. Green more than two years to design and build the car, which will be the fourth eco-vehicle he has built. He holds the British record for fuel-efficiency, with 6,603 miles to the gallon in a previous car.

According to the report, the new vehicle is powered by a single cylinder four-stroke engine with a capacity of just 35cc and runs with a special management system incorporating fuel injection.

A spokesman for Bath University says, "Andy Green is keeping the spirit of the lone British inventor who takes on the world very much alive."

RVD
May 13th, 2006, 10:34 PM
http://www.allheadlinenews.com/articles/7003538016

British Inventor Unveils 8000 MPG Car

May 12, 2006 2:18 p.m. EST


Julie Farby - All Headline News Staff Writer

London, England (AHN)—A British inventor unveils the world's most fuel-efficient vehicle, a three-wheel “TeamGreen” car capable of doing 8,000 miles to the gallon.

The 45-year-old inventor, Andy Green, from the University of Bath, built his budget eco-motor for just £2,000, and will be the sole British contender for the title of the world's most fuel-economic car in a global competition being held later this month.

It has taken Mr. Green more than two years to design and build the car, which will be the fourth eco-vehicle he has built. He holds the British record for fuel-efficiency, with 6,603 miles to the gallon in a previous car.

According to the report, the new vehicle is powered by a single cylinder four-stroke engine with a capacity of just 35cc and runs with a special management system incorporating fuel injection.

A spokesman for Bath University says, "Andy Green is keeping the spirit of the lone British inventor who takes on the world very much alive."WOW!! :worship:
Color me [impressed![/I]

I would love to see a single cylinder four-stroke engine. :cool:
That thing must be weird looking. :lol: And I wonder how much torque it can produce? :scratch:

Pengwin
May 13th, 2006, 10:34 PM
I swear I read this article 3 weeks ago

TF Chipmunk
May 13th, 2006, 10:37 PM
How fast does it go, slower than Lindsay Davenport? :tape:

*JR*
May 13th, 2006, 10:39 PM
If he wants to make some $, he should make a version ppl will actually drive that "only" gets maybe 800 mpg, not 8,000! (Like starting with a 4th wheel, so it won't tip ova in a minor crash).

Pengwin
May 13th, 2006, 10:39 PM
How fast does it go, slower than Lindsay Davenport? :tape:
It goes 60mph but is designed for city centres where you'd never get those speeds.

TF Chipmunk
May 13th, 2006, 10:41 PM
']It goes 60mph but is designed for city centres where you'd never get those speeds.Oh :o Well that's too slow :( People won't ever buy it :sad:

Pengwin
May 13th, 2006, 10:43 PM
Oh :o Well that's too slow :( People won't ever buy it :sad:

:eek: :speakles:. Life isn't as fast over here :p

The speed limit for the vast majority of people's journeys is 40-50 anyway. I'd say it's a good thing cars (albeit not on purpose) are getting slower for safety and to reduce pollution.

TF Chipmunk
May 13th, 2006, 10:47 PM
']:eek: :speakles:. Life isn't as fast over here :p

The speed limit for the vast majority of people's journeys is 40-50 anyway. I'd say it's a good thing cars (albeit not on purpose) are getting slower for safety and to reduce pollution.
Cars are getting slower, but time doesn't get any slower, and we all know time = $ :fiery:

I think it's great that they're developing very fuel-efficient vehicles, but they need to make them faster jeez!

RVD
May 13th, 2006, 11:27 PM
If he wants to make some $, he should make a version ppl will actually drive that "only" gets maybe 800 mpg, not 8,000! (Like starting with a 4th wheel, so it won't tip ova in a minor crash).:haha:
Or that has a commercially acceptable payload rating. :cool:
Like maybe carrying more than one anorexic driver. :)

RVD
May 13th, 2006, 11:33 PM
By fuel, I'm guessing it's 'petrol'?

Why not completely eliminate petrol and use vegetable oil, fuel cells (hydrogen), or high-efficiency batteries, instead?
Now that would be truly impressive. :worship:

!<blocparty>!
May 13th, 2006, 11:44 PM
Cars are getting slower, but time doesn't get any slower, and we all know time = $ :fiery:


Shutup.

I wonder how long it's going to be before we actually stop using petrol.

Sighs.

TF Chipmunk
May 13th, 2006, 11:46 PM
Shutup.

I wonder how long it's going to be before we actually stop using petrol.

Sighs.
That was uncalled for :awww:

*JR*
May 14th, 2006, 02:55 AM
By fuel, I'm guessing it's 'petrol'?

Why not completely eliminate petrol and use vegetable oil, fuel cells (hydrogen), or high-efficiency batteries, instead?
Now that would be truly impressive. :worship:
There are some advantages to these, but they're not the panacea many ppl think. A lot of energy is consumed producing bio-diesel, for example. And however efficient batteries are, they consume energy being charged. (Do you want to approve of nuclear power re. that?) Even "distilling" enough hydrogen out of the air consumes significant energy, and its so explosive that the weight of the vehicles would be fairly high to prevent a minor crash from creating an instant fireball. Liquified natural gas consumes a lot bring kept cold, etc. etc.

Scotso
May 14th, 2006, 04:40 AM
Nothing wrong with nuclear power, we just need to find a good way to dispose of the waste.

Bio-diesel really doesn't consume THAT much energy to make, certainly no more than it takes to pump out gas... and it can be made from like leftover cooking oil. Lots of potential there. But I think we all need solar powered cars. :p Of course, that wouldn't work in England where there's no sun.

Pengwin
May 14th, 2006, 03:03 PM
Nothing wrong with nuclear power, we just need to find a good way to dispose of the waste.

Cost of fuel? Safety? Background radiation? Potential of being hijacked by terrorists? Cost of being set up? The fact that it'll run out one day? Too dangerous to use in vehicles?

Scotso
May 14th, 2006, 10:43 PM
Around 77% of France's power comes from nuclear plants. I haven't heard about any incidents from there?

!<blocparty>!
May 14th, 2006, 10:48 PM
But all of their power stations are decades old now. I read an article not so long ago how they're in a lot of trouble with the safety side of a lot of their power plants, I can't remember exactly.

We don't need to be using nuclear, we need to be using energy from the wind and tide.

Scotso
May 14th, 2006, 10:52 PM
Wind energy isn't exactly great for the environment, at least not for birds. They put all of those wind turbines in their natural habitats, and the poor things smack into them constantly.

Scotso
May 14th, 2006, 10:53 PM
Hydro power is the cleanest and safest (well, opposed to solar), but really I don't see it providing all the energy we need. Nuclear power is almost limitless, and it will only get safer in the future.

gentenaire
May 14th, 2006, 10:55 PM
We don't need to be using nuclear, we need to be using energy from the wind and tide.

You still need nuclear energy for when there's no wind. Do you have any idea how many wind mills you need to replace a nuclear power plant?
It's not realistic.

We need to diversify, not focus on one energy source alone. Wind energy, yes, but there are serious limits. Until we find a better energy source, I feel nuclear is the best option. We shouldn't be using fossil fuels to produce electricity.

gentenaire
May 14th, 2006, 10:57 PM
Wind energy isn't exactly great for the environment, at least not for birds. They put all of those wind turbines in their natural habitats, and the poor things smack into them constantly.

+ you have to be careful not to put them too close to houses. The rotating shadows of those things is driving people mad.

!<blocparty>!
May 14th, 2006, 10:57 PM
But I don't see why we should be using nuclear power when there's more natural energy sources here for us.

We have loads of Wind farms here in the UK, OK, they don't supply a huge amount of power but still. In Scotland they're building a massive wind farm off the East coast that's going to supply 300,000 homes with electricity.

gentenaire
May 14th, 2006, 11:00 PM
But I don't see why we should be using nuclear power when there's more natural energy sources here for us.

We have loads of Wind farms here in the UK, OK, they don't supply a huge amount of power but still. In Scotland they're building a massive wind farm off the East coast that's going to supply 300,000 homes with electricity.

The number of wind farms also depends on how much hydro power a country has. E.g. Belgium has only one hydro power plant that can be used to take care of the peaks, so there's a limit on how much solar or wind power we can have.

gentenaire
May 14th, 2006, 11:01 PM
But I don't see why we should be using nuclear power when there's more natural energy sources here for us.

such as?

Kenny
May 14th, 2006, 11:01 PM
We use Nuclear Power here in the United States, don't we? I mean, I know I live within 30-40 miles from a nuclear plant. :-\ I think for homes cities we should use nuclear power, but for cars that we use everyday a hybrid technology with gasoline and hydrogen or the Sun being the other power source to help with the gas efficiency. I'm really glad that some car manufacturers are getting on the hybrid bandwagon, and I hope more do because I would love to see all the countries of the world not so reliant on gasoline from Middle Eastern countries (or any others as well.)

!<blocparty>!
May 14th, 2006, 11:06 PM
such as?

OK I see your point about Belgium not having wind farms, but what I'm trying to say is... the tide moving every day = MASSIVE amounts of energy, if we can find a way of utilising this, then there won't be any need for nuclear power.

The energy is there, it's just a matter of figuring out how and the best way to use it IMO.

gentenaire
May 14th, 2006, 11:18 PM
OK I see your point about Belgium not having wind farms, but what I'm trying to say is... the tide moving every day = MASSIVE amounts of energy, if we can find a way of utilising this, then there won't be any need for nuclear power.

The energy is there, it's just a matter of figuring out how and the best way to use it IMO.

We should definitely do research on all of that, but until it's actually feasable, I think we should stick with nuclear and not waste any more oil.

kosmikgroove
May 14th, 2006, 11:30 PM
OK I see your point about Belgium not having wind farms, but what I'm trying to say is... the tide moving every day = MASSIVE amounts of energy, if we can find a way of utilising this, then there won't be any need for nuclear power.

The energy is there, it's just a matter of figuring out how and the best way to use it IMO.

the problem with using natural resources to power the nation is that not all areas of the world have this option.

how would the inner nations of Africa, or the Desert southwest and mid-west states of the United States harness the power of waves? Secondly, the ecological damage to the natural habitat could destroy an entire species. wetlands are very delicate systems that could easily be destroyed.

while i agree that it is important to look to alternative sources, i believe that technology needs to improve in order to do so. we need to work smarter, not harder.

!<blocparty>!
May 14th, 2006, 11:44 PM
the problem with using natural resources to power the nation is that not all areas of the world have this option.

how would the inner nations of Africa, or the Desert southwest and mid-west states of the United States harness the power of waves? Secondly, the ecological damage to the natural habitat could destroy an entire species. wetlands are very delicate systems that could easily be destroyed.

while i agree that it is important to look to alternative sources, i believe that technology needs to improve in order to do so. we need to work smarter, not harder.

Yes I am aware of this. But there is definitely enough energy for everyone. Area's of the world have no water resources but manage to get by.

I'm not really worried about destroying a few species if it means we stop using fossil fuels. We kill species and damage ecosystems anyway.

TF Chipmunk
May 15th, 2006, 02:11 AM
Look at all these nerds talking :lol: :p I :bigclap: you guys for knowing so much. You all can be the future of our world! :D

Scotso
May 15th, 2006, 04:42 AM
We use Nuclear Power here in the United States, don't we? I mean, I know I live within 30-40 miles from a nuclear plant. :-\ I think for homes cities we should use nuclear power, but for cars that we use everyday a hybrid technology with gasoline and hydrogen or the Sun being the other power source to help with the gas efficiency. I'm really glad that some car manufacturers are getting on the hybrid bandwagon, and I hope more do because I would love to see all the countries of the world not so reliant on gasoline from Middle Eastern countries (or any others as well.)

Yes, the US gets more energy from nuclear power than any other nation... but also because we're bigger than most western nations and more advanced than places like China.

Hydrogen powered cars would be nice, but the hydrogen used isn't so simple to extract.

I do think we need to get a move on... we can't just start worrying about this stuff when we run out of gas. I mean, we'll need gas to get some of this up and running. :p

gentenaire
May 15th, 2006, 06:50 AM
the problem with using natural resources to power the nation is that not all areas of the world have this option.

how would the inner nations of Africa, or the Desert southwest and mid-west states of the United States harness the power of waves? Secondly, the ecological damage to the natural habitat could destroy an entire species. wetlands are very delicate systems that could easily be destroyed.

while i agree that it is important to look to alternative sources, i believe that technology needs to improve in order to do so. we need to work smarter, not harder.

The inner nations of Africa could use a lot of solar power though, but I doubt they have the funds ;)

Anyway, a lot of problems would be solved if we found a way to transport electricity without so many losses along the way or even better, if we found a way to store electricity.

smiler
May 15th, 2006, 07:03 AM
We don't need to be using nuclear, we need to be using energy from the wind and tide.

Actually although the odd wind farm is helpful, it could never be considered a major power supply in the uk, because we don't have enough space and it's not windy enough. If you turned the whole of the British Isles into one big wind farm, you'd still only have enough power to run London. :tape: