Let’s start with the start: from the OSE’s
Car/Research_Development wiki page:
>>>The basic requirements for the OS Car are: Two passenger
capacity, Ultra-high fuel economy (50+ MPG, city, 100+ MPG, highway),
Ultra-long range (1000+ miles), Low Cost (less than $12,000), Ease of
Construction (1000 hours of construction time. Can be constructed by one person
in 1000 hours with a vertical mill, band saw, disc sander, grinding wheel, air
compressor, welder)<<<
If the specs were simply as defined by the “The basic
requirements for the OS Car are..." paragraph, this would be a walk in the
park, but there’s more to it than that. Other OS Car specifications are
scattered about the wiki, and Mark Norton (who is expediting these negotiations
between Marcin and myself) tells me that Power Cube (and Steam Power Cube when
available) compatibility is essential. Since Marcin will be making the
decisions, I think his requirements should be the core of the specifications
(and only calling for discussion if they conflict with themselves) and we can
build on them by adding features that don’t conflict with the essentials.
It seems we have all the specifications we need and the
challenge will be deleting specifications, not adding to them. In choosing
which features we’ll have to choose between those that are incompatible with
each other. I’m picking through the wiki and blog and hope to list all the
requirements therein, in a day or so. Once they’re all posted in one place, we
can blue-pencil out the unnecessary/impossible requirements and present Marcin
with a compilation of what remains.
Here’s my interpretation of the requirements currently
established, toned down a tad by Yours Truly:
-> Investor- and contributor-acceptable progress in
2012 (Marcin requirement, toned
down by JMcC)
Marcin has often stated and written that the GVCS 50 will be
completed in 2012. Despite his many enthusiastic supporters, the funding and
staffing are not yet in place to achieve this, so in practice, I think
“completed” is the hope and “investor- and contributor-acceptable progress” is
the requirement. Pardon the tautology, but the funding sources that don’t find
the progress acceptable won’t fund future efforts at progress. For the car project,
I think the “acceptable progress” minimum is a functional first prototype.
-> Compatible with Power Cube and upcoming Steam Power
Cube (Marcin requirement, toned down by JMcC)
Acceptable progress doesn’t necessarily mean the first
prototype has to have Power Cube power (or steam power) but it does have to
lead in that direction. The first prototype may not be powered by “…the 75+
miles per gallon, modern-steam, biomass pellet-fueled Power Cube…” but it needs
to have the space to put one when it becomes available.
I toned down Marcin’s requirements (above) because, though I
believe [completed in 2012 AND steam power AND power cube] is possible, it
would suck up so much of available resources that the OS Car project would
scuttle most of the other GVCS 49 projects, thus disappointing contributors and
investors and putting the GVCS at risk.
The rest of the Car/Research_Development “basic
requirements” aren’t really requirements, but they’re worth considering.
->Two passenger capacity.
Sounds good to me. A two seater covers 95% of US culture’s
personal transportation needs; so does a single seater but if it’s going to
have a Power Cube then a second seat won’t add significant frontal area.
->Ultra-high fuel economy.
Good idea in my opinion. Without ultra high fuel economy
there’s not much point in doing the OS Car at all. I do think the “ultra-high”
needs to be redefined; I’ve built a “50+ MPG, city, 100+ MPG, highway” car and
it isn’t as easy as it looks, and it may not be practical with a Power Cube.
And 75+ mpg steam? Per gallon of what? Biomass pellets? Steam?
->Ultra long range (1000+ miles)
Seems excessive to me. I have a car with a 1000+ mile range,
because it’s multifuel and I use different tanks in testing, but in practice
it’s totally unnecessary. I don’t mind fueling up every two weeks instead of
every month around town, or topping up every day when driving long distances.
->Low Cost (less than $12,000)
Essential for my participation under current terms, but
that’s just me. I’ve bid $15000, paid in stages after completion of benchmarks,
that’s material plus $3000 in outside services to substitute for GVCS tools not
yet developed, and that’s all the money I have to risk.
->Ease of Construction (1000 hours of construction time…
The tool list doesn’t need to be in the specs, in my
opinion. Also, I’m shooting for 500 hours for the prototype, and subsequent
cars should come easier.
I'm all for creative solutions and I do think that our society does stifle innovation on behalf of those that lobby the most, but it's just not practical to have a car that we are not allowed to drive. If we are going to produce a car that can be used in public based on regulations that will exist for the foreseeable future, we"ll need to add design criteria for:I also need to emphasize that our approach is non-religious and
non-political. As such, I do not endorse any politicized or religious
regulations that are contrary to sound ecological and technological,
safe design. This means that we build the car on technical merit and
safety and ecological performance - not existing regulations. This is
consistent with the base OSE principle of an absolutely creative approach
for delivering fundamental and lasting solutions - as opposed to
reducing ourselves to mediocrity and dependence as enforced by current
commercial law.
"No alternative technology I know of would allow a 1000 mile range."
>> Maybe aluminum air batteries.
I totally agree with the "it must be street legal" requirement. Otherwise what's the point? It will be modular anyway, so if a person wants to build it NON-street-legal they can do that by simply not purchasing or installing certain components.
So, we can probably get started on the BOM by sourcing the required system. Things like air bags, restraints, ABS brakes, sound systems, parking brakes, etc are reasonably standardized. The prices and specs should be researchable. Taht will give us teh "mandatory spending" portion of the budget and whatever is left over we can use for the interesting things like frame and engine.
Where does the absurdly high mileage requirement keep coming from?
I predict that we are going to have to design a new power cube for this application. A guy at hydraulic innovations who converted his car ran into a big problem of not enough flow to reach highway speeds. Wikispeed says their vehicle requires 50hp. I just don't think the 30gpm, 25hp unit we have now is going to cut it. Additionally, we're going to have to design an entire hybrid hydraulic transmission anyway. We'll need a big accumulator, and complex manifolds, and it all has to be light and modular. Given the challenges, I think the difficulty of specing out a new engine/pump combo and sticking it inside a frame is acceptable.
Additionally, I think we need to decide up-front who the target fabricator is going to be. I suggest we completely abandon any fantasy about this being a person's first project, or it being done by an experienced amature. I think the only practical fabricator is going to be someone who builds things (hopefully cars) for a living. Additionally, we should seriously consider designing the car to be manufactured in pieces by specialized shops and then assembled later. It will be modular anyway.
OS car sketch.jpg | 482K |
Like, a 350lb car? Man, that would be a breakthrough.
Thanks for posting that. So Marcin's "reply all" button doesn't work, huh? So much for radical transparency.
Since when was "high performance" one of OSE's specs? Does he really think dropping power cubes into the Wikispeed car is going to be a "turnkey" solution? Oh well...I do want to support Wikispeed...I guess we'll see what happens.
modular cab concept.jpg | 403K |
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!