Southerly: The Astonishing New Car from Bavaria that Won't Cost the Earth.
35 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 2 Newer→ Last
-
plum,
Stories like this engender mixed emotions in me. On the one hand, I grew up a geek and mostly am. And the otaku in me is waiting with bated breath for the breakthrough that will make worrying about global warming a thing of the past.
On the other hand, I know that the hype about new technologies is almost always overblown. I remember in the 70s they were saying that hot fusion was only 50 years away. Today they're saying it's -- yes -- 50 years away. Cities on the sea floor? A jet pack for everybody? An elevator to the moon? That was all predicted in the 60s and filled the SF novels I used to devour.
But where is any of that stuff now?
I realise that these stories are interesting for the readership PA has, but what are the chances a car like the Laramo will be sold widely in New Zealand? Zero, unless pressure is put on the government to move towards stricter emission standards. Which it won't until the US or Europe does so.
Sorry, but this story just was a bit detached from political reality for me.
-
While I can see some grounds for Plum's cynicism, I don't see that this car is anymore ridiculous than the Smart ForTwo. And although the smart is small and cute, it uses a lot more fuel, and presumably doesn't go as fast. AA won't tell me how much a smart costs, but it seems pretty good on price as well.
I'd willingly admit that most Smart's are owned as a bit of a gimmick, but there would still be some market for such a car here.
-
Eek. Uh, I suspect the Smart might be a bit peppier. A 0-100 time of 20seconds, is well, pretty weak. I've driven slower (I once clocked an old 4WD at about 26 seconds, and decided that trying to make it accelerate faster than normal was essentially a waste of time).
-
And as a Dunedin resident, I'd be interested to know how it is with hills(!)
-
More eco-friendly vehicles from yesteryear than you've ever seen without going blind:
http://www.microcarmuseum.com/
If all of these failed to revolutionise transport, someone's got to get it right eventually, no? Good luck to Loremo.
Meanwhile, a microcar to tickle your reptilian brain: -
"Konsequent" is usually translated as "consistent".or "rigorous". It's a classic false friend.
-
Plum wrote:
[The Loremo is comparable to] cities on the sea floor... a jet pack for everybody... an elevator to the moon...
Sorry, but this story just was a bit detached from political reality for me.
Wow, is a more fuel efficient car really in the same category as the examples you cite?
At any rate, the article was more about the fact that such efficiency could be achieved on a production vehicle, which -- as I said in the conclusion -- might hopefully encourage other automakers to lift their game. And, of course, the fact that there is considerable scope for energy savings in New Zealand even with slightly more fuel efficient cars.
I'm sorry that you didn't like it, dude. But as you might appreciate, a science news programme is necessarily reporting on topics that may or may not eventually pan out. It would be a little difficult for me to cover only the technology that will definitely become a huge success.
That said, I have been amazed at the number of micro-cars I've seen in European cities over the last eighteen months -- and so, in my (admittedly, fairly worthless) opinion, the Loremo has a decent chance of success.
But you may well have greater insight into such things than me... in which case, perhaps you can give me some good sci-tech investment tips!
Steven Judd schrieb:
"Konsequent" is usually translated as "consistent" or "rigorous".
Ich bin mir nicht sicher, ob ich Ihren Einwand richtig verstehe. Das englische 'consequent' ist eine wörtliche Übersetzung des deutschen 'konsequent' im ursprünglichen Sinn des Wortes (und heute etwas archaisch), was in meinem Oxford English Dictonary als "logically consistent" definiert ist.
Aber um es vollständig klarzustellen übersetzte ich es auch als "consistent" und "stringent", was, so glaube ich, genau das ist, was Sie gemeint haben.
Ich bin nun ein wenig verwirrt, was ich verkehrt gemacht haben soll!
-
Oh dear, I read the transcript too fast, and didn't notice that David had already clarified Uli's meaning.
I don't know whether I'm adressing David or Uli here, but:
Das englische 'consequent' ist eine wörtliche Übersetzung [...] ich bin nun ein wenig verwirrt, was ich verkehrt gemacht haben soll.
Normalerweise uebersetzt man d. "konsequent" mit e."consistent" und e."consequent" mit d. "darauffolgend".
"Our design is consequent" klingt also unidiomatisch irgendwie "unsere Konstruction ist darauffolgend" - ein etwas seltsame Ausdruck.
Ich wollte nur klarmachen, dass Sie "konsequent" gemeint haben, und hatte gar nicht die Absicht zu kritisieren, besonders da ich nur so mieses Deutsch schreiben kann.
-
Most gullwing/roof door designs have run into safety approval problems - you can't get out when the car rolls. Getting round this requires complex (and heavy) escape mechanisms.
Personally, I'd be happy to trade the deaths of those dumb enough to roll the car for the survival of Bangladeshi peasants not drowned by global warming. But the LTSA don't think like that.
-
Another great article david, cheers!
us humans only seem to move when we're pushed. if you look at the little motorbikes and cars that came out after WW2, they were quite a lot more frugal than today's cars (i think i read somewhere, that a 600cc morris minor was more efficient than a corolla or prius or something). its our wealth that makes us so wasteful of energy these days
plum - that's a bit cynical. the loremo is obviously at the far end of the efficiency spectrum, but it does show what can be achieved with relatively simple, existing technologies.
if they added an electric motor/battery system (ie. make it a hybrid) it could produce a lot more torque, making it useful for hills and towing. probably a pretty expensive/heavy option though.
-
i think i read somewhere, that a 600cc morris minor was more efficient than a corolla or prius or something
I guess it's all down to how you define efficiency, but the smallest-ever Minor engine (shared with the Austin A30)was rated at 803 cc.
-
Heh. I remember we had an A30 when we were kids. I remember having to hop out & push it over those railway bridges South of Levin.
We had to be towed over the Mangawekas... (my dad was optimistic about what the car could do.)
-
but the smallest-ever Minor engine (shared with the Austin A30)was rated at 803 cc
yeah... whoops. i wish i could remember where i heard that quote - maybe it was a different car. but my general drift is that cars today are so much heavier, so they need bigger engines, and so on. its a lot easier to make a car fuel efficient if it's light. that 803cc must be pretty frugal!
-
You could row the A30 (and its underapowered ilk) up some surprisingly steep hills with heavy use of the gear lever. It just took a while. Brand-new A30 drivers had a tendency to shout "get a horse!" at the pre-war Fords and Chevys that they passed while rolling downhill. When these hunks of Detroit iron would later comfortably cruise past them in top gear on uphill stretches, the made-under-license British motoring types would stare grimly ahead.
Whatever the Loremo's shortcomings, it has to be cruisier than an A30.
-
Small cars can be fun too- I had more fun in a mini 800 than any other car I've owned. Quite fuel efficient, and surprisingly nippy- and so low to the ground you felt you were almost driving a go-cart.
The vastly over-weight passenger vehicle thing seems very US somehow. I remember reading somewhere about the amount of fuel used to power just the air-conditioning in an (eighties?) ford SUV. You could (almost!) run a Laramo on it. -
Very nice [looking] car compared with some of the fuel [efficient] models around Europe. The [contrast] between the USA and Europe is stunning. I have just [returned] from both and dodging the SUVs was a [nightmare]. Unfortunately New Zealand seems to be [closer] to the US than Europe in [choice] of vehicle.
Fuel [efficiency] as a goal is not new. The oil [shocks] of the late 1970s made a huge [difference], everywhere other than the USA. Changes in habits [probably] need some government encouragement as fuel for cars seems to be an incredibly elastic consumer good.
-
The Mini is perhaps the greatest example of a well-designed fuel-efficient high-performance car that enjoyed wide popular success.
From the Microcar Museum website:Sir Leonard Lord, head of Austin, had a pet peeve:
"Damn these bloody awful bubble cars. We must drive them out of the streets by designing a proper miniature car!"He selected Alec Issigonis, a gifted and individualistic designer, previously responsible for the successful Morris Minor of the early fifties, to do the job.
Back in the 70s major non-Japanese manufacturers saw a vast untapped market in Asia. Designs such as Ford's Escort-based Fiera, Volkswagen's Bull, and GM's Opel-derived Plai Noi were deliberately basic. Japanese manufacturers undercut them price-wise with tiny utes which featured such refinements as wind-up windows. The boxy fibreglass-bodied "Model Ts for the third world" ended up being driven by foreign aid personnel, while the wee Jappers, fitted with canopies, bench seats and cassette players, became the real workhorses.
Perhaps the Loremo, with its unusual front flip-up lid instead of conventional doors, is just too functionally radical. Or maybe, like the Mini, it will have the appeal to sell itself and spawn a host of derivatives. Having a Malaysian company as a major backer might give the technology the sort of global reach it needs.
-
Very, very cool, David. As for radical vehicles not being a reality in New Zealand, that a political/marketing problem that doesn't seem particularly insurmountable. The "Smart" cars are everywhere in Europe, afterall, and even straight men are allowed to drive them.
The idea of radical fuel efficiency is pretty cool, too. Prompted by your piece, I was gutted to discovered that my last (first and only) vehicle, a very humble 1984 Honda City, only rates at around 4-5L/100km. I use to be so impressed by its fuel efficiency.
Still, how does the Loremo compare with, say, a scooter or a tuk tuk? It strikes me that those are radically fuel efficient vehicles that already exist. And they would be far safer if only there were fewer SUVs on the road!
Ultimately, isn't it a marketing/design/purchase problem? That people drive a 5-person long-distance road vehicle for 1-person short-distance travel, and drive a 8-person off-road vehicle for 2-person on-road driving? I conclude that a technological solution to this problem would have to involve an energy efficient death ray. Where are they at with that?
-
The problem with scooters and tuktuks is that they generally have two-stroke engines with a very dirty exhaust as far as particulates go - as bad as a car, even though their engines are so much smaller.
No doubt some engineering love could go a long way there too.
-
The real problem with scooters and tuktuks is the weather. Especially in Auckland.......And even if you get rid of the urban terror vehicles from the roads you still don't have the protection on a scooter for when you do make an error and hit a fence/wall/pig/power pole.
Which raises a question I have about the loremo. Just how much of the modern safety engineering is retained in a superlight car like the loremo?
I'm still hoping our old Corona will last long enough for us to get a really good electric/hybrid car that will do what we need both in the city and on holiday.
Oh and David and Stephen, you do realise that changing languages mid conversation is very very geeky:)
cheers
Bart -
I actually thought David was quoting Uli, otherwise I would have stuck to English. But anyway, in subsequent correspondence David has kindly invited my to use the informal mode of address :)
-
Sighs
I've been driving efficient European turbo-diesels for about 6 years now, mainly because I actually prefer diesel engines to petrol (they just "feel" better to me).
But for the average punter the gloss is wholly rubbed off by the Road User Charge thing that almost doubles the fuel cost. As one of the review articles linked to, it actually costs more to run the Loremo in RUC costs than fuel.
Given that small efficient turbo diesels have the lowest carbon footprint of any available and practical "car class" vehicle available....a govt intent on improving our CO2 balance could do a lot worse than removing this very specific disincentive.
-
I see the petrol heads are coming out of the woodwork...
Keith Ng wrote:
I was gutted to discovered that my last (first and only) vehicle, a very humble 1984 Honda City, only rates at around 4-5L/100km. I use to be so impressed by its fuel efficiency...
... ultimately, isn't it a marketing/design/purchase problem?
Don't be gutted, dude -- 4-5 litres/100 km is stunningly good! My headache-in-a-can Citroën -- which I suffer to own on account of its fuel efficiency -- only does 6.5 litres/100 km.
You're probably right about fuel efficient cars basically being a marketing/design problem now. But it seems to me that if fuel prices continue their expected rise, and if straight men are driving them elsewhere, then it can only be a matter of time before they become more acceptable in New Zealand. Look how far soccer has come in this country.
Stephen Judd wrote:
The problem with scooters and tuktuks is that they generally have two-stroke engines with a very dirty exhaust as far as particulates go...
Exactly... not to mention all the unburnt oil/hydrocarbons, carbon monoxide, and nitric oxide you could wish for (and before anyone gets excited: nitric oxide is the uncool one, which makes you dead rather than high).
Bart Janssen wrote:
Which raises a question I have about the loremo. Just how much of the modern safety engineering is retained in a superlight car like the loremo?
As I understand it, the linear cell structure is safer in terms of crashes than the monocoque approach (for a given weight). The Loremo certainly meets all the European automotive safety standards.
The US State Department's electronic journal 'Economic Perspectives' reports that:
Lighter weight formerly meant costly metals such as aluminum and magnesium. Now, ultralight steels can double a car’s efficiency without extra cost or decreased safety. With clever design, even conventional steels can yield surprising results. A German startup (Loremo) diesel roadster combines 160- to 220-kilometer-per-hour top speeds with a fuel economy from 1.5 to 2.7 liters per 100 kilometers...
Bart Janssen wrote:
... you do realise that changing languages mid conversation is very very geeky
Alas, I am guilty of being both a geek and an idiot. It turns out that I actually got Stephen confused with a certain Stefan J-----, who really is German, and who sends me helpful emails whenever I make a mistake RE: Germany. I can only explain this by saying that my brain cells are dying due to lack of differential equations over the past few months. On the plus side, the other Stephen and I have now resolved to use the intimate form in our conversations -- which, by the way, sounds dodgier than it actually is.
Philip Wilkie wrote:
... a govt intent on improving our CO2 balance could do a lot worse than removing this very specific disincentive.
You're dead right about this. And I wish you could convince our politicians of it...
Of course, as Stephen McKernon from the Cycling Advocates' Network has pointed out to me:
... sustainability is not just about fuels. It's also about social and economic consequences. First, cars are implicated directly in congestion, accidents and urban sprawl (for example), each with its economic costs outside the transport system. Second, cars are implicated less directly in problems such as obesity/ low levels of physical activity, over-spending/ household debt, social isolation and so on. In other words, energy-sustainable cars merely continue to contribute to other sustainability issues. Driving down car use is an important part of sustainable transport. To put this another way, the real issue in transport is sustainable TRANSPORT, not sustainable energy.
-
Exactly... not to mention all the unburnt oil/hydrocarbons, carbon monoxide, and nitric oxide you could wish for (and before anyone gets excited: nitric oxide is the uncool one, which makes you dead rather than high).
Interesting. I totally get some geek cred deducted for not knowing this. Is the two-stroke engine used because of size? i.e. Is there a minimum viable size for a four-stroke engine that limits how small vehicles can get?
Also, does it mean I shouldn't buy a scooter?
(That's a curious trade-off, actually. Is reducing my carbon footprint desirable if its means polluting locally?)
-
Keith Ng wrote:
Is the two-stroke engine used because of size? i.e. Is there a minimum viable size for a four-stroke engine that limits how small vehicles can get?
Two-stroke engines are used mainly for their power-to-weight ratio and cheapness. They have good power-to-weight ratio because they produce one 'power stroke' in every two, rather than one in every four (as per the four-stroke engine). They also use simple reed valves & ports (hence no valve-train requirements) and are usually air-cooled -- all of which makes them very cheap.
But there are also drawbacks. The fact that they generally use crankcase compression (i.e. a dry sump) means you have to mix oil with the petrol, which is substantially unburnt and comes straight out the exhaust pipe. The fluid-dynamic and thermodynamic compromises involved in getting the exhaust gas out, and the air/fuel in (over a wide range of engine speeds), means that you are often operating with non-optimal combustion -- which produces all the nasties like CO, UHCs, and NOX, etc. Plus there's usually no catalytic converter, of course.
They can, however, be optimized to perform much better than the standard-issue model, by using fuel injection, seal lubrication metering, and cunning exhaust design, etc. But this all makes them more expensive -- although I seem to (vaguely) remember than someone had a plan to improve 3rd-world two-stroke engine design by doing just this.
Incidentally, the big constant-speed two-stroke diesel ship motors are very efficient, and are among the highest-efficiency heat engines ever built. Generally speaking, small engines are usually less mechanically efficient because friction becomes a large proportion of their output power.
Keith Ng wrote:
I totally get some geek cred deducted for not knowing this.
Not at all. I did my honours' dissertation on an improved two-stroke engine design. Otherwise I would never know this crap. God knows, I often wish that I didn't.
Oh, and probably the Japanese scooters have better emissions...
Post your response…
This topic is closed.