wildchild
|
| posted on 11/4/06 at 11:39 AM |
|
|
The ultimate commuter
A bit of a challenge...
This is possibly off at a bit of a tangent for all the sports car fanatics on here, but I think it's in the spirit of 'locosting'
and hopefully it will spark off a bit of discussion.
If you were given the target of designing and building the ultimate commuter vehicle, how would you go about it and what would it be like? What would
your priorities be. What fuel would you use?
The ground rules:
- More than two wheels. Obviously the ultimate commuter vehicle is a Honda C90 or CG125, but there's always going to be some silly people who
aren't prepared to get their bike licence.
- I'm talking about ultimate in the sense of cheapness to run (and build), not performance, although it would be interesting to see what
minimum performance criteria people would put on it.
- I'm mainly thinking about commuting into and around a city, not super high mileage motorway commutes where the requirements are somewhat
different.
Get debating!
|
|
|
|
|
craig1410
|
| posted on 11/4/06 at 11:51 AM |
|
|
Interesting question...
I don't have time right now for a full answer but here are some thoughts in no particular order:
1. LPG fuel
2. Three wheels ideally for efficiency but may not be popular so perhaps four..
3. Efficient 4 stroke engine with enough power to reach, say, 50 MPH. Engine should switch off when no power is called for - perhaps using a
freewheeling flywheel to restart the engine. Engine should be thoroughly silenced.
4. Perhaps use a CVT type transmission to keep the engine in best efficiency RPM band.
5. Two seats (Controls can be moved to either side)
6. Range should be 100 miles or more between refuelling.
Cheers,
Craig.
|
|
|
greggors84
|
| posted on 11/4/06 at 11:54 AM |
|
|
Something with a bit more protection than a motorbike, i think thats what puts most people off them.
Also maybe hi lo gearboxes, just a lever to change the final drive ratio would be good, so that it would be nippy round town, but could be comfortably
used for motorsway stretches if need be.
Chris
The Magnificent 7!
|
|
|
Hammerhead
|
| posted on 11/4/06 at 11:58 AM |
|
|
already designed the ultimate commuter vehicle. Called the Com-V (Groan!)
See pics.
 
Rescued attachment com-v1.jpg
|
|
|
Hammerhead
|
| posted on 11/4/06 at 12:00 PM |
|
|
another
 
Rescued attachment com-v2.jpg
|
|
|
Hammerhead
|
| posted on 11/4/06 at 12:01 PM |
|
|
and more
 
Rescued attachment com-v3.jpg
|
|
|
Hammerhead
|
| posted on 11/4/06 at 12:02 PM |
|
|
nearly there
 
Rescued attachment com-v4.jpg
|
|
|
Hammerhead
|
| posted on 11/4/06 at 12:03 PM |
|
|
done.
 
Rescued attachment com-v5.jpg
|
|
|
Hammerhead
|
| posted on 11/4/06 at 12:07 PM |
|
|
the above model was made by me as part of my degree in product design. Carbon fibre monocoque with an electric motor inside the monocoque. Aluminium
folding mechanism.
Wait till you see the bodywork design for the Hammerhead!!
|
|
|
craig1410
|
| posted on 11/4/06 at 12:09 PM |
|
|
Yeah it would need to be fully enclosed for weather protection, personal protection and aerodynamics if it was to appeal to the general public.
|
|
|
mangogrooveworkshop
|
| posted on 11/4/06 at 12:11 PM |
|
|
they have a car just like that.............its called the SMART but people are to stupid to see beyond the
boastwhatsonmydrivewayinfrontofmybarrethouse.
to go with them.
I got a smart from work for a few days and I loved it....12 quid to fill it up and great for parking. Nipping thru the traffic in Edinburgh great fun.
I will be replaceing the present mondeo with a smart next year.
|
|
|
Hammerhead
|
| posted on 11/4/06 at 12:11 PM |
|
|
yes but if its the ultimate commuter, you need to be able to take it on trains etc.
|
|
|
pajsh
|
| posted on 11/4/06 at 12:19 PM |
|
|
Got to be something like the old bubble car (in line not side by side) but updated in terms of design, strength and economy with something like a 1.0l
turbo diesel engine you might be able to get a certain amount of performance when you want it with economy when you don't.
With cars half as wide you could fit twice as many in..
Much better than the governments plan of adding lanes and roads that don't even achieve status quo by the time they are finished.
[Edited on 11/4/06 by pajsh]
I used to be apathetic but now I just don't care.
|
|
|
wildchild
|
| posted on 11/4/06 at 12:20 PM |
|
|
I was thinking about the bodywork.
I don't think the aerodynamics factor is critical around town. Yeah it starts to kick in a bit more outside town but you'd have to be
quite clever and probably compromise on quite a lot of other things to get a good aero shape. The main thing is you'd end up dripping the
seating position down to the floor to reduce frontal area, which isn't ideal in a town car.
Full weather protection would probably be necessary for a mass market vehicle, as would heating, stereo, and all sorts of other nonsense that would
add weight and cost fuel.
At least partial protection (frontal and overhead) would be enough for me in a self built vehicle.
Perhaps some sort of modular bodywork that could be stripped down for the summer?
|
|
|
wildchild
|
| posted on 11/4/06 at 12:25 PM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by mangogrooveworkshop
they have a car just like that.............its called the SMART
What I had in my head was basically a 'locost' smart, but probably considerably more basic - i don't think you need 80 odd mph for a
start.
What sort of mpg were you getting from the smart? it's probably a good benchmark.
|
|
|
MikeRJ
|
| posted on 11/4/06 at 12:32 PM |
|
|
At least you could improve on the Smarts gearbox quite easily, with e.g. a couple of pulleys and rubber band.
|
|
|
craig1410
|
| posted on 11/4/06 at 12:36 PM |
|
|
I agree, when I mentioned aerodynamics I was thinking more in terms of stability and a smooth shape (ie. enclosed cockpit) not high speed
aerodynamics.
|
|
|
wildchild
|
| posted on 11/4/06 at 12:41 PM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by pajsh
Got to be something like the old bubble car (in line not side by side)
...
With cars half as wide you could fit twice as many in..
I like the idea of tandem seating. 90% of the time you'd probably be on your own anyway, and it does allow for a much narrower vehicle.
My concern however is that you couldn't actually make it that much narrower without compromising stability, especially if you were trying to
maintain a reasonably high driving position. So maybe there's a point in favour of the smart approach - a bit narrower but a LOT shorter.
|
|
|
eddymcclements
|
| posted on 11/4/06 at 12:57 PM |
|
|
What about some sort of egg-shaped passenger compartment made from GRP / CF / kevlar on a cheap, easy-to-make steel tube chassis. One of those 3-cyl
turbo engines from a Japanese microcar (Cappucino / S-Car Go or similar) could provide motive power, rear-mounted and with a CVT transmission, and
re-tuned to run on one of these part-alcohol, part-petrol mixes. The "egg" would be pointy-end first and the top half would be a
polycarbonate moulding giving good all-round visibility. I'd rob bits off tiny Daihatsus and Suzukis to get lightweight wheels, brakes and so
on.
Eddy
|
|
|
JonBowden
|
| posted on 11/4/06 at 01:12 PM |
|
|
I'm not sure that many people would want to drive a super economy car. I think it might be viewed as indicating lack of success.
If however it were given a more positive spin then it might work.
Thus I would suggest that it should be :
Cool
Sporty (as in good acceleration and fab, fun handling).
Adequately practical
Inexpensive to buy
Cheap to run.
Of all of these, I suspect that coolness would be the most important.
Jon
|
|
|
JonBowden
|
| posted on 11/4/06 at 01:17 PM |
|
|
How about something a bit like this?
 
Rescued attachment 500fun9.jpg
Jon
|
|
|
wildchild
|
| posted on 11/4/06 at 01:41 PM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by JonBowden
I'm not sure that many people would want to drive a super economy car. I think it might be viewed as indicating lack of success.
If however it were given a more positive spin then it might work.
Thus I would suggest that it should be :
Cool
Sporty (as in good acceleration and fab, fun handling).
Adequately practical
Inexpensive to buy
Cheap to run.
Of all of these, I suspect that coolness would be the most important.
There is a serious attitude problem in terms of the car as a status symbol, which goes some way to explaining why there are so many people sat in
urban traffic jams in 4x4s.
I think you might struggle to market a super-economic city car, especially if the economy came by eliminating some of the creature comforts we love in
our cars. Smart have done quite well in creating that 'cool' image.
I wasn't really thinking about a mainstream marketed car when I started this thread though, more about the engineering challenges of building
one (as a one off) and the choices that you'd face. But both sides are quite an interesting topic.
|
|
|
Hammerhead
|
| posted on 11/4/06 at 02:02 PM |
|
|
shame the G-Whiz looks like a mobility vehicle.
\/\/\/\/\/\/don't know how I got above you James\/\/\/\/\/\/
[Edited on 11/4/06 by Hammerhead]
[Edited on 11/4/06 by Hammerhead]
|
|
|
James
|
| posted on 11/4/06 at 02:32 PM |
|
|
The G-Wiz!
http://www.goingreen.co.uk/?PageID=AboutGWiz
Interesting article about it on the BBC from the program In Business:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/news/inbusiness/inbusiness_20051020.shtml
Emission free, costs 20p to fill up and sticks a couple of fingers up at the oil companies, the Middle East and the big motor companies. Yay! 
Cheers,
James
[Edited on 11/4/06 by James]
[Edited on 11/4/06 by James]
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"The fight is won or lost far away from witnesses, behind the lines, in the gym and out there on the road, long before I dance under those lights."
- Muhammad Ali
|
|
|
millenniumtree
|
| posted on 11/4/06 at 04:04 PM |
|
|
We're moving to a small town this spring, and I've been thinking of this very subject! The vehicle I envision is sort of like a 4 wheeled
gasoline assisted pedal car.
My requirements so far are:
dual-fuel (Gasoline and FOOT power)
4 bicycle tires - cheap to replace, brakes attached
2 seats, recumbant style
room for a week of groceries in the back
efficient 4-stroke engine with a good muffler
That's the basic design. Further improvements could include:
covered crew/cargo compartment for rainy travel,
electric motors instead of gas - allows for a flywheel and regenerative braking,
conventional shifter/clutch arrangement instead of the clunky derailler system used on bicycles.
I plan to find a cheap lawnmower engine (4 stroke preferred), weld up a chassis, and add the bike tires and pedals from a couple of used bicycles.
Estimated costs:
steel - 10 bucks
lawnmower - 20 bucks
2 bicycles - 20 bucks
other bits - 10 bucks
Even the steel from the bicycles could be recycled and used for chassis bits. I think the estimate of $60 is a bit high even.
If you wanted to get it road-legal, that's another story... May have to go as high as $200.
1/2 scale seven with a lawnmower engine and bike tires? 
|
|
|
