"When I was a child I spoke as a child, I thought as a child, I reasoned as a child. But when I became a man I put away childish things."
So saith the Good Book. Doesn't say anything about putting away the sort of cars you though were cool when you were 12 years old, though, and with that in mind lets have a shoofty at what what …
Damn... so many nice designs... I should design one as well...
Here would be my specs:
500km/charge
It would be all-terrain with easily deployable various wheels... i.e. tracks, wheels, hovercraft(combo with an inflatable rubber boat ring), wheel tracks or wheels should be deployable by stopping, hitting a button which would automatically jack the car up, remove existing wheels, and put on the new ones,
all automatically with automated arms that would be also part of the frame(but not the rollcage).
various ground clearance, hydraulics with a lock after lift, configurable body with a core rollcage, i.e. body panels would be small-ish affairs that would be able to be shifted all around as one sees fits with a few pre-configurations... i.e. rain, winds, open roof, sun roof, etc...
...I'm pretty heavily involved in vehicle simulation, and while I haven't done any testing, I'm not entirely sure you can do a drift with a treaded vehicle. You could make the argument that it's just a big contact patch, but the slip curve is going to be really bizarre for a tread (non symmetrical in the extreme) so I'm not sure it would work.
Please tell me these designers are in first year? Of Primary School?
That buggy is just stupidly simple, as a consequence it is going to weigh a couple of tons, as all those beams are going to have to be solid, and I'm not talking Aluminium either...
>"Stupid, frigging design expo's a few CGI models devoid of even a basic hint of any engineering."
-The second pic in the story looks like a decent effort at some rudimentary engineering in terms of chassis/rollcage. Chillax, daddyo. It's just a bit of fun.
That said, what makes these intrinsically electric cars? They could just as easily house combustion engines, non?
Ah, "Idiots who Design Trains", as one of my more buxom Fine Arts house mates used to put it.
The cozy "whip out the engine, put a battery pack in" approach might be less threatening but is unlikely to realise the full potential. With wheel mounted motors you get all wheel drive for free (if you want it) and slip diff becomes a power controller programming problem. Battery block positions become something you can manipulate for best road holding or cooling.
But why does no one tap the suspension for regenerative charging? Or battery heat as part of the A/C system?
There is no point in trying to generate power from the motion of the suspension because while there is some potential when the wheel is rising one then has to spend that same amount of energy putting the wheel back to its original place.
The failure of active suspension was the amount of power required. Good old simple springs are very efficient and quick repositories of mechanical energy. Fast to make a deposit, fast to make a withdrawal, and almost no service fee.
Shock absorbers get hot limiting the rate of energy going to/from the springs. They don't get hot enough relative to the amount of energy used elsewhere to be worth the while.
Any chance you can explain why the "beams" need to be solid. My engineering taught me that tubular space frames tend to be incredibly strong.
In fact the buggy look pretty damn strong to me: All the load bearing members are in a nice triangular configuration, while the roof members are a basic roll cage (not that it'd be too easy to roll that thing).
Front suspension is the only thing that I'd be remotely concerned about. Rear suspension looks pretty capable though.
The first design looks pretty much a Baja-class buggy (or a Nike sneaker, pick one).
Building it on composites, and making it light will make it a gas-saver design, even if it was gasoline-powered. You would still need motorcycle clothing to drive it, since I see no hint of a windshield (or doors, or an enclosed shell) anywhere.
If you saw the size of the potholes around here, your eyes would water looking at that high-travel suspension arms, just like mine did. You could literally jump all the speed bumps (er, bumpy terrain), just like all the crazed motorcycle-couriers we have here. For them, irregular pavement is a chance to display their Evel Knievel skills.
"The failure of active suspension was the amount of power required"
Given that it takes that much power to *simulate* a spring-mass-damper suspension system with no passive storage (springs, oil filled accumulators) it seemed that tapping some of that energy would be quite a good idea.
Electromagnetic dampers do exist. They typically have a spring in series to get the return stroke but discharge into a resistance and the power is lost as heat. My basic physics estimate @ 100% efficiency for a 1000Kg vehicle would be 98J per cm of travel. At a bump every roughly 13m (1 sec @ 30mph) that's @ least 50W (at about 50% efficiency). While not a massive generator it would be a better use of the potential energy involved. And (with an EM damper) the sharper the step the better the damping. And with a lower bump spacing or higher speed the rate rises.
Its all part of a clean sheet EV design. Swapping an engine for a electric large motor driving the wheels through the same gears, brakes etc. to move the same chassis design would waste the opportunity for a much more creative result.
I actually like the KTM it looks a way better than most of the current concept cars the big motor companies are showing. Hell it looks like it could drive through Chicago without getting damaged from all the potholes and speed bumps that make my current car bottom out. Adding a gullwing door to hold glass looks like it would be ultra easy on the design. Front suspension looks lacking but could be fixed pretty easily, hell its a good design from a student. But the only thing I think Tyco might get a little pissed off stole their RC car design.
Now the 2nd one I think looks a little weird I'd just pop the threads off it and slap it on the KTM for extra snow performance. ;)
Register
Designers mock up bonkers 'leccy car concepts
"When I was a child I spoke as a child, I thought as a child, I reasoned as a child. But when I became a man I put away childish things." So saith the Good Book. Doesn't say anything about putting away the sort of cars you though were cool when you were 12 years old, though, and with that in mind lets have a shoofty at what what …
This topic is closed for new posts.
Posted Thursday 12th March 2009 11:55 GMT
Edward Miles
One word. #
Want.
Posted Thursday 12th March 2009 11:55 GMT
Anonymous Coward
Top one #
looks fucking awesome. There is absolutely no other way of phrasing it.
I want one. come on, someone make one! Even as a kit it'd be great!
Posted Thursday 12th March 2009 11:55 GMT
Geoff Mackenzie
I want the KTM! #
Awesome, a 10/1th scale model of my old RC car! :)
Posted Thursday 12th March 2009 11:55 GMT
Andraž Levstik
I want... #
Damn... so many nice designs... I should design one as well...
Here would be my specs:
500km/charge
It would be all-terrain with easily deployable various wheels... i.e. tracks, wheels, hovercraft(combo with an inflatable rubber boat ring), wheel tracks or wheels should be deployable by stopping, hitting a button which would automatically jack the car up, remove existing wheels, and put on the new ones,
all automatically with automated arms that would be also part of the frame(but not the rollcage).
various ground clearance, hydraulics with a lock after lift, configurable body with a core rollcage, i.e. body panels would be small-ish affairs that would be able to be shifted all around as one sees fits with a few pre-configurations... i.e. rain, winds, open roof, sun roof, etc...
And all that in a car a bit bigger than a Clio.
hey I can dream can't I...
Posted Thursday 12th March 2009 11:55 GMT
Anonymous Coward
Someone has been ... #
... playing with Lego Racers too much
Posted Thursday 12th March 2009 12:08 GMT
Stef
Yeah. Right. #
I'm sure we'll all be driving them to work when out JetPacks and HoverCars are in the repair shop.
Posted Thursday 12th March 2009 12:08 GMT
David Wiernicki
Y'know... #
...I'm pretty heavily involved in vehicle simulation, and while I haven't done any testing, I'm not entirely sure you can do a drift with a treaded vehicle. You could make the argument that it's just a big contact patch, but the slip curve is going to be really bizarre for a tread (non symmetrical in the extreme) so I'm not sure it would work.
Posted Thursday 12th March 2009 13:20 GMT
Anonymous Coward
Here's mine... #
\O--o_
Sporty eh? It's twice as fast as all of those and will run forever if you just show it some mango juice.
Stupid, frigging design expo's a few CGI models devoid of even a basic hint of any engineering.
Posted Thursday 12th March 2009 13:20 GMT
Egons Proton Pack
Excellent #
Those look fantastic!
Where do i sign to get me one?
Posted Thursday 12th March 2009 13:20 GMT
Anonymous Coward
KTM #
One teeny thing. Where does the bloody great battery pack go?
Posted Thursday 12th March 2009 13:20 GMT
Dave
Age? #
Please tell me these designers are in first year? Of Primary School?
That buggy is just stupidly simple, as a consequence it is going to weigh a couple of tons, as all those beams are going to have to be solid, and I'm not talking Aluminium either...
Posted Thursday 12th March 2009 13:20 GMT
Luis Ogando
COOL! #
That AX would be effing brilliant with a 2-litre, twin turbo shoe-horned into it!! Even easier, drop in a nice 900cc Speed Triple!
Defeats the purpose of leccy power, I know, but, come on!
Paris, 'cos she goes like a Speed Triple (apparently).
Posted Thursday 12th March 2009 13:51 GMT
W
@ JonB #
>"Stupid, frigging design expo's a few CGI models devoid of even a basic hint of any engineering."
-The second pic in the story looks like a decent effort at some rudimentary engineering in terms of chassis/rollcage. Chillax, daddyo. It's just a bit of fun.
That said, what makes these intrinsically electric cars? They could just as easily house combustion engines, non?
But, yes, I do want one, thanks for asking.
Posted Thursday 12th March 2009 15:02 GMT
Toastan Buttar
Wot, no Playmobil drivers/passengers/roadkill ? #
Reg, your mission for Friday afternoon has just come through from HQ.
Posted Thursday 12th March 2009 15:02 GMT
John Smith
Bonkers but quite appealing #
Ah, "Idiots who Design Trains", as one of my more buxom Fine Arts house mates used to put it.
The cozy "whip out the engine, put a battery pack in" approach might be less threatening but is unlikely to realise the full potential. With wheel mounted motors you get all wheel drive for free (if you want it) and slip diff becomes a power controller programming problem. Battery block positions become something you can manipulate for best road holding or cooling.
But why does no one tap the suspension for regenerative charging? Or battery heat as part of the A/C system?
Posted Thursday 12th March 2009 15:50 GMT
Anonymous Coward
Regenerative Suspension #
There is no point in trying to generate power from the motion of the suspension because while there is some potential when the wheel is rising one then has to spend that same amount of energy putting the wheel back to its original place.
The failure of active suspension was the amount of power required. Good old simple springs are very efficient and quick repositories of mechanical energy. Fast to make a deposit, fast to make a withdrawal, and almost no service fee.
Shock absorbers get hot limiting the rate of energy going to/from the springs. They don't get hot enough relative to the amount of energy used elsewhere to be worth the while.
Posted Thursday 12th March 2009 18:09 GMT
John Bayly
@Dave #
Any chance you can explain why the "beams" need to be solid. My engineering taught me that tubular space frames tend to be incredibly strong.
In fact the buggy look pretty damn strong to me: All the load bearing members are in a nice triangular configuration, while the roof members are a basic roll cage (not that it'd be too easy to roll that thing).
Front suspension is the only thing that I'd be remotely concerned about. Rear suspension looks pretty capable though.
Posted Thursday 12th March 2009 22:17 GMT
Anonymous Coward
What, no roof-mounted gatling gun? #
The first design looks pretty much a Baja-class buggy (or a Nike sneaker, pick one).
Building it on composites, and making it light will make it a gas-saver design, even if it was gasoline-powered. You would still need motorcycle clothing to drive it, since I see no hint of a windshield (or doors, or an enclosed shell) anywhere.
If you saw the size of the potholes around here, your eyes would water looking at that high-travel suspension arms, just like mine did. You could literally jump all the speed bumps (er, bumpy terrain), just like all the crazed motorcycle-couriers we have here. For them, irregular pavement is a chance to display their Evel Knievel skills.
Any chance they will name it "Warthog lite"?
Posted Thursday 12th March 2009 22:17 GMT
Anonymous Coward
Oh look the iBatmobile #
I will take 1, make it black with bigger tires and lots of carbon fibre panels at acute angles!
Posted Thursday 12th March 2009 22:17 GMT
michael
@ john bayly #
no what worries me is they have forgotten the chain gun on the back how can i take out the hunters brutes and eletes without it?
Posted Thursday 12th March 2009 23:24 GMT
John Smith
AC@15:33 #
"The failure of active suspension was the amount of power required"
Given that it takes that much power to *simulate* a spring-mass-damper suspension system with no passive storage (springs, oil filled accumulators) it seemed that tapping some of that energy would be quite a good idea.
Electromagnetic dampers do exist. They typically have a spring in series to get the return stroke but discharge into a resistance and the power is lost as heat. My basic physics estimate @ 100% efficiency for a 1000Kg vehicle would be 98J per cm of travel. At a bump every roughly 13m (1 sec @ 30mph) that's @ least 50W (at about 50% efficiency). While not a massive generator it would be a better use of the potential energy involved. And (with an EM damper) the sharper the step the better the damping. And with a lower bump spacing or higher speed the rate rises.
Its all part of a clean sheet EV design. Swapping an engine for a electric large motor driving the wheels through the same gears, brakes etc. to move the same chassis design would waste the opportunity for a much more creative result.
Posted Friday 13th March 2009 00:32 GMT
Pete James
Why are they bonkers? #
There's not a huge amount of innovation really in these two concepts. The first is just another take on a beach buggy, nicely done as it is.
As ever, the stylists have been playing with their marker pens and gouache. Fun things but no more really.
And no comments about unsprung weight yet. Give it time.....
Posted Friday 13th March 2009 20:43 GMT
Kevin
hmm #
I actually like the KTM it looks a way better than most of the current concept cars the big motor companies are showing. Hell it looks like it could drive through Chicago without getting damaged from all the potholes and speed bumps that make my current car bottom out. Adding a gullwing door to hold glass looks like it would be ultra easy on the design. Front suspension looks lacking but could be fixed pretty easily, hell its a good design from a student. But the only thing I think Tyco might get a little pissed off stole their RC car design.
Now the 2nd one I think looks a little weird I'd just pop the threads off it and slap it on the KTM for extra snow performance. ;)
Posted Saturday 14th March 2009 20:42 GMT
Mr ChriZ
Want that one #
Here's a bigger pic for the desktop :-)
http://www.motocrossactionmag.com/Media/News/KTM-AX.jpg
This topic is closed for new posts.