Student-Built Prototype Vehicle Breaks Mileage Record - 2834MPG!

Want 2,843.4 miles per gallon?

Check this out.

I like how it is Shell sponsoring it, I guess the best way to buy up the patents is hold a contest like this. lol

Do you have a link to the article?

Cool stuff.

Another thing that could potentially benefit the world, which will be quietly tucked away to collect dust so that the big oil folks can continue to pad their wallets.

Thanks for the link...it would be cool to ride in some of the vehicles entered into contests like that.

reply to post by John_Q_Llama


I like how you made all that up and attributed it to some hitherto-unknown conspiracy. I love how this board works.

Person A makes a claim
Person B says it's some other guys in a massive conspiracy

Brilliant

Actually Dave420 Shell oil company ran the event, its not THAT far fetched, they have been know to buy out tech like this. And wait isn't this a conspiracy board. Hmmm What did you post lend to this discussion?

A man named Stan Ovshinsky, the inventor of the nickel metal hydride battery, intended for the technology to be used in electric vehicles so that the world could extricate itself from its addiction to oil.

The battery could allow electric vehicles a potential of 150 miles range, and was briefly used in the GM-built EV1 electric car.

As part of the process which got GM EV1 car to market in the mid 90's, the ownership of the patent changed hands several times.

Who owns it now? Chevron-Texaco. And there is no indication that they plan on licensing the technology for the production of batteries on a large enough scale to be used in electric vehicles again.

What does it matter, 150 mi isn't that far, it's pretty weak, in fact. Lithium Ion batteries in production cars which are coming out will be capable of 250+ miles. See the Dodge Zeo for an example. And that's a 'muscle car.'

I'd bet that the nickel metal hydride battery just isn't that good and that's why it's sitting collecting dust.

As far as the OP, that's great and all, but it doesn't look practical by any means. I'll stick to my gas guzzling v8, until there's a 6-7 second 0-60 car that costs 30k using alternative energy.

Good grief! 1208 km/L? That's insane! Unfortunately, I'll bet it doesn't go very fast or very far. The article doesn't say, but to get that kind of efficiency, I'm sure they had to sacrifice something.

I wonder what the previous record was...

Originally posted by ianr5741

A man named Stan Ovshinsky, the inventor of the nickel metal hydride battery, intended for the technology to be used in electric vehicles so that the world could extricate itself from its addiction to oil.

The battery could allow electric vehicles a potential of 150 miles range, and was briefly used in the GM-built EV1 electric car.

As part of the process which got GM EV1 car to market in the mid 90's, the ownership of the patent changed hands several times.

Who owns it now? Chevron-Texaco. And there is no indication that they plan on licensing the technology for the production of batteries on a large enough scale to be used in electric vehicles again.

Luckily, there's now the Lithium battery technology available for electric vehicles as well. At least I hope it will be commercailly available soon. However, I'm not directly involved in this (I couldn't choose my last name you know)...

The new technology is promising. They claim to have achieved a battery that will last as long as the car itself, being lightweight and also safe with all the needed safety electronics in each battery cell. I once read about an electric Peugeot Partner that had been converted from lead-acid batteries to Lithium technology by the FEVT guys. The range was extended to hundreds of kilometers, and also the top speed was quite adequate being more than 120 km/h. And this was with the prototype.

However, I'm not sure how this company is doing now. Did their funding stop, did their development partner in China go down or are they just waiting in all silence to bring their new EV batteries to mass market? I wish I knew more.

Perhaps I can find a person to ask.

reply to post by dave420


dave420, thanks for replying to my post. While you may be somewhat correct in claiming that what I said belongs in some unknown conspiracy, there is some truth to it. There are a lot of innovations and inventions which, after making the news, are quietly removed from the public eye. These are things which have the potential to significantly change how we consume energy. Why would these things be swept away? It's quite simple. Big oil and other corporations, and even the government, need to protect their interests and wallets. Why would a major energy provider (oil, gas, electricity, etc.) want to promote an invention that could seriously diminish their profits?

Here are some examples:

Turning salt water into fire: www.wpbf.com...

Using water as a supplement to gas in cars: www.waterforfuel.com... www.watercarsolution.com...

Creating fuel with algae: www.popularmechanics.com...

In reading most articles and websites related to this topic, it is not uncommon to learn that some big oil company or the department of energy is somehow involved with the research or the funding.

So why are these things not getting more attention from the media? Why do we not see a stronger push to move to some of these technologies at some point, when they reach a point of being cost effective?

One might point to ethanol as the answer to those question. However ethanol production using corn is much more costly and detrimental than simply using oil! www.rollingstone.com...

While it may not be possible to prove outright, some folks point to increased ethanol production as a factor for rising food costs (www.nytimes.com...) (www.csmonitor.com...) and water shortages (online.wsj.com...). That aside, it is still not worthwhile to use corn to make ethanol. I can't say why politicians are so high on it, but I am willing to speculate that it is to make it appear as though they are doing their part to support the so-called fight on global warming. The reality is, ethanol is expensive and inefficient to produce (www.albionmonitor.com...). Interestingly, I've also read that hybrid engines are also very inefficient to make, and a lot of toxic byproducts are left over...I'll try to find that article.

So why do things like ethanol and hybrid cars get all the attention, while these other things hardly warrant any coverage?

Oil consuming combustion engines have been used in cars for over a century. According to wikipedia, 3,667,928 cars were made by the major automotive companies in the year 2000 (en.wikipedia.org...). If we assume that the average price for a car that year was a very conservative $15,000, that means those cars cost, in total, $55,018,920,000. Fifty five billion dollars. As a person working for an automotive supplier, I can tell you that a lot of that money is not profits. However it does give an idea as to just how much money is being thrown around.

Getting back to my point here... there is a lot at stake when it comes to continued use of oil. People make a LOT of money off of oil. They're not going to be enthusiastic about jumping on the bandwagon for some brilliant invention that could take a big chunk out of their income, even it is in the best interests of humans in general. Let's say that, for some unforeseeable reason, one of these inventions manages to revolutionize the way we produce and/or consume energy in automobiles. The costs involved in creating new automobiles to cater to this new energy could be enormous. The impact would not only be on companies like Ford, GM, Honda, etc. It goes much further than that. Those companies have suppliers who have suppliers who have suppliers. The engineers from, say, Ford, would have to work with their suppliers to make the new parts, and those suppliers have to go through their suppliers to make their stuff, and so on.

It is not surprising that huge companies don't want to change. The expenses would be huge. And, since money is what the corporations are all about, there is no reason for them to embrace something that has the potential to sink the ship. And what better way to appear as though you care about the environment and innovation while maintaining your control on the technology than to fund the research, pick up the patents, and then let them collect dust?