“We’re in!” my significant other just emailed me about Santa Monica’s “One Car Challenge” — something that I had probably — while focused on editing articles — unthinkingly nodded my head to a few weeks ago when she asked whether we should partake. I glance down to the body of the email and immediately grab a paper bag to calm my breathing; what the hell have I just done?!
The One Car Challenge is a car-hoarder’s nightmare, really. Just look at this:
Check out the details. From the city of Santa Monica:
What is the “One Car Challenge?”
The “One Car Challenge” is a groundbreaking pilot program set to kick off in November, to incentivize 200 Santa Monica residents to rely on only one car per household. This initiative is a part of Santa Monica’s ongoing efforts to reduce traffic congestion, promote eco-friendly transportation alternatives, and contribute to a more sustainable future.
[…]
If you qualify for the “One Car Challenge,” you’ll receive a weekly stipend for your commitment to using just one car during the challenge period.
Oh my god this is my nightmare.
How the heck is this man going to drive a single car for five weeks?:
Admittedly, I sold quite a few of the machines you see in the video above, but I have bought three since moving to California in January, so now I have these:
- 1958 Nash Metropolitan (non-operable)
- 1966 Ford Mustang
- 1979 Jeep Cherokee Golden Eagle (also non-operable)
- 1985 Jeep J10
- 1991 Jeep Wrangler
- 1994 Jeep Grand Cherokee 5spd (other than acting as a cat nursery, non-functional)
- 2011 Nissan Leaf (operable for like 20 miles at a time)
- 2014 BMW i3
To be sure, three of those cars aren’t functional, but still! I have five awesome machines that I love to drive, and now I’m being limited to just one!?
Wait, not only am I being limited to just one, but BOTH my SO and I have to share a single car…Wait, which car? Did she already choose one?! Is it… oh god she didn’t…
Please car-gods, spare me from the pain of having to drive a Lexus RX350 for five weeks. It’s a fine car that she loves, sure, but as an enthusiast, it makes me die a little inside, and by week five, it’s possible that my wrenching superpowers will have withered away just like Hercules’ almost did when Hades gave him that potion as a baby. (Wait, didn’t he end up losing his superpowers over a girl?).
[Editor’s Note: David is specifically refering to Disney’s Hercules, the animated one, not necessarily any of the actual ancient Greek and Roman myths about Heracles/Hercules – JT]
Man I wish I hadn’t signed up fo — wait, a second. Hold on a minute! I just read this:
The program offers payments of up to $119.80 per week, totaling $599 per household over the course of five weeks. Imagine what you could do with that extra cash in your pocket!
Six Hundred SMACKEROONIES! I can buy another car with this! Bring on the boring luxury crossover. Let’s goooooo!
Yeah, nope. Not working for me where I drive 25 miles one way and my partner drives 25 miles the opposite way. We need both cars to make a living. Buses? Hah! They don’t go anywhere near where we need to go. WFH isn’t an option. Unless there’s another pandemic.
So the government would pay me money to cause more congestion and emissions? Right now my wife has a 16 mile round trip for work while I have a 50 mile round trip for a total of 66 miles. To use one car my wife would have to take me to work, back past our house on her way to her work, home after work, then to my work and back when I’m done for a total of about 116 miles… The only thing that would be saved is a parking space at my work. Is this entire thing based on the assumption that every member of a household works in or very nearly in the same place and with the same hours?
Santa Monica is based on a lot of assumptions. And when I say based, it’s not the way the kids use it these days.
They did mention 200 applicants maximum and supposedly there are requirements that must be met for eligibility, but I don’t know if that’s one of them.
My first choice on your list would be the, unfortunately non-operational, Nash Metro. I’m still waiting to hear more about that… Time to get a bike rack for the Lexus? Become a bike hoarder! Ask me how!
“Become a bike hoarder! Ask me how!”
For me it was a $50 Craigslist special. Next thing I know I’m picking up unwanted bikes from front yards with “FREE!!” signs on them.
Ah, the problems of being a “cheap bastard…”
Its a curse. And a blessing.
And before you know it, your friends know your tendencies, and you don’t even have to go out to get them. The bikes start finding you.
My problem started with a $20 Nishiki from a resale shop, when I was living in Old Town in Chicago and had nowhere good to tinker with motor vehicles. You can do an amazing amount of bicycle wrenching in your kitchen and/or bathroom.
“And before you know it, your friends know your tendencies, and you don’t even have to go out to get them.”
Funny you say that. My second to last acquisition was a gift from a friend. Damn nice bike too.
I try to mitigate my hoarding by sticking to 1970s-80s fully lugged and butted mid/high end steel touring or mountain bikes that make good loaded tourers.
The longer the chainstay the better. 83-85 Trek 620/720/830/850 are Grails. I won’t pass up a great deal of something else though and of course “FREE!!” is my kryptonite. Generally I try to stick to $100 per bike, more if its really special. Even so I usually manage to pick one up every couple of months.
“You can do an amazing amount of bicycle wrenching in your kitchen and/or bathroom.”
I also find bike maintainence mostly satisfying to do. Its a lot easier than wrenching cars, parts are WAAAY lighter, and if you’ve been wrenching a long time its fairly intuitive. There’s less rust too…usually. Unfortunately you’re spot on about doing it indoors, it’s the camel’s nose under the tent all over again.
From everything I’ve read and seen about LA traffic and some of the schemes proposed to deal with it, I’m surprised no one has come up with a series of trebuchets and elastic landing nets as s solution.
If the city’s goal is to reduce driver emissions, wouldn’t it be more in the spirit of the competition to drive your i3?
Are there any dispensations for having to be in two places at once (kids)? Because that’s usually why two cars are necessary.
Also, any penalties for driving the single claimed car 10s of 1000s of miles over the study period (sounds like a great opportunity for a 5-week Route 66 road trip 😉
We currently only have a motorcycle and minivan in Southern California, and it works for 90% of our needs.
So basically, as others have mentioned, get a motorcycle.
$599 over 5 weeks, I think I could find a way to make that work. Free money!
How in the world would this be enforceable? What would stop you from signing up for the program, not changing your driving habits whatsoever, and then pocketing the $600?
From the flyer: “Not driving your additional car is verified by odometer readings in the weekly survey.” Because nobody would lie on that. Time stamped photos? Same answer.
He doesn’t even need to cheat, just need to get enough press cars to last 5 weeks.
If you’re submitting odo readings, why couldn’t they carve out a quota that you also qualify if your vehicles don’t drive more than a collective 100 miles a week or something?
I applaud your SO for signing you up. This’ll be a great learning experience, and for content! Try to survive. 😉
Will that Motocompacto that you are about to order arrive in time? It’s only $400 out of pocket after your government money. Don’t forget a helmet.
Hey Loretta. Get back to where you once belonged. Seriously.
And how do they know if you are cheating on this deal?
Wait, you successfully made it from the valley to the westside in under a year? You just won LA.
For some reason I thought he was in Highland Park – some picture of his then-smaller collection parked on the street – but yeah. Either he’s dating really upmarket or The Autopian doesn’t really need me to buy a membership.
The first is more likely. Who could resist such an earnest guy with the crustiest cars in LA?
Usually everyone.
Touche!
Thank you! For lobbing that one over the plate. I know a straight line when I hear one.
99.9% of the women in LA.
DT, bonus points if you make it down here to the beach cities by your 1 year mark 😉
It’s the former. We need membership more than ever! (And appreciate it deeply!).
Ask Mercedes to help you buy a motorcycle.
Or just grab one of hers. She won’t notice
Even if you don’t count my work truck that my employer owns, but I take home, or my roommate and his commuter, but instead focus on myself and my SAHW, who doesn’t drive at all. And forget about the fact I live in a very walkable city, live 1.75 miles from my workplace, and can easily survive without driving my personal cars if I really had to, even with all those factors, THERE IS NO WAY IN HELL I COULD GO FIVE WEEKS WITHOUT DRIVING BOTH OF MY PERSONAL CARS. It can’t be done. Unless I was in a medical induced coma or a cryogenic freezer. No way. Good luck, and Godspeed
Surely there’s an exception in there for Holy Grail 5speed XJs or something. Did you read the fine print?
You should’ve made their whole challenge worthless by driving just the J10 for these 5 weeks, worsening your carbon footprint.
You need a bus pass.
I essentially operate as a one-car household already, I can guarantee you that I never drive more than one car at a time, whatever you see me in on a given day, rest assured the others are sitting at home not being driven.
It will be interesting to see if/how your opinion changes of the Lexus. It’s an appliance, but it should be a pretty nice appliance – heat *and* AC, no range anxiety, no weird noises or smells, etc.
It could have been a Nissan Rogue or other penalty box, so maybe this won’t be so bad. And it will be a shared experience for the two of you as a couple, which is nice.
It’s much larger, piggish, and resource-intensive to use than an appliance should ever be. It’s a status symbol, far more than it is an appliance.
A car truly built as an appliance would be the bare minimum of everything for the job: minimum mass, minimum aero drag, minimum materials, minimum features.
Something built to carry one person would only need to weigh around 100 lbs, and with 3 wheels, could be sold as a motorcycle to get around regulatory hurdles. It could get four-digit fuel economy expressed as miles per gallon.
An appliance built to comfortably seat 4 adults and pass FMVSS could approach 100 mpg if it was built with the same philosophy in mind. It wouldn’t cost hardly anything to build in mass production, either.
That Lexus is a pig.
Well, that was… unexpected.
“Appliance” in this context means an uninspiring, uninteresting, character-free vehicle getting from A to B – no more, no less. It does not mean a literal appliance.
And all I said about the Lexus is that it will probably be better than what David normally drives; the references to “heat *and* AC” and “no weird noises” should have made that obvious.
I get that you’re into your hobby but it is not relevant here.
Interesting perspective. What would be a good example of your appliance? Does one exist?
Depends upon the task set out for the appliance. The fact is, operating cost is being unnecessarily increased in the name of styling cues that are going to quickly become dated, the corporate “design language” of the time. planned obsolescence, and adding in bullshit features to pad profit margins.
Most people who buy a chainsaw or a refrigerator or a television set generally don’t care what it looks like or what kind of image it conveys. They just want it to work, avoid needlessly costing them additional money to operate, have low maintenance, and to be inexpensively/easily repaired.
Production cars, even the best ones, have been a far cry from this ethos. Vanity and ego have always won out over being an actual appliance.
Consider history for a bit.
The Vehicle Research Institute of Western Washington University made some interesting concepts in the 1970s. The 1978 Viking IV was powered by a 1.5L 4-cylinder diesel from a Volkswagen Rabbit, producing 48 peak horsepower. The car weighed a mere 1,250 lbs. In 1981, the Viking IV was able to average 87.5 mpg during a rally that spanned the continental United States. According to the car’s builder, Professor Michael R. Seal, it was safe enough for the occupants to survive a 50 mph head on collision. In 1982, the car was tested at the GM proving grounds and the Transportation Research Center of Ohio, yielding 73 miles per gallon at a steady 70 mph. It was later upgraded to make use of low rolling resistance tires, a 5 speed transmission with overdrive, and a 1L, 3-cylinder turbo diesel. This allowed it to achieve 100 mpg at a steady 50 mph.
The Viking VI was built to achieve high fuel economy while exceeding the crash safety standards that were in place; it achieved 118 mpg at a steady 50 mph.
The Viking VII took this concept even further, proving that high fuel efficiency, safety, and high performance could exist within the same vehicle. It was able to accelerate from 0-60 mph in 5.3 seconds, achieve over 1G on a skid pad, and still manage 50 mpg highway. It was driven to a top speed of 186 mph on the Bonneville Salt Flats. It made use of a 4 cylinder DOHC Boxer engine which produced 133 horsepower. These features of high performance, adequate safety, and high fuel economy could coexist within the same vehicle due to a low drag coefficient of only 0.26, a small frontal area, a lightweight composite body, and an aluminum chassis. The performance of this car rivaled some the fastest production cars of the era; for comparison, the legendary Ferrari Daytona did 0-60 mph in 5.3 seconds and had a top speed of 175 mph.
None of the Viking Research Cars have ever reached production. The Avion, modeled off a previous Viking Research car and designed by former VRI student Craig Henderson, was perhaps the closest any of the cars came to being produced. While the car only achieved 40 mpg combined, it could reach a top speed of 135 mph and accelerate from 0-60 mph in under 6 seconds using a 4-cylinder engine from a 1980s model fuel-injected Audi. This combined performance and fuel economy was possible thanks to a 0.27 drag coefficient and a curb weight of only 1,500 lbs.
The major automakers also demonstrated concepts that were at least equally as impressive.
Renault unveiled their EVE concept car in 1980. The EVE was built on a Renault R18 chassis, used a supercharged 1.1 L inline 4-cylinder supercharged diesel engine, and had a 0.239 drag coefficient. This engine output a maximum of 50 horsepower. The curb weight of the vehicle was 1,900 lbs. The combination of these traits allowed it to achieve 70 mpg combined fuel economy.
Expanding upon the previous concept, the Renault EVE+ concept car was revealed to the public in 1983. It used the same 50 horsepower diesel engine as the EVE, but had reduced the curb weight to 1,880 lbs, had reduced the drag coefficient to 0.225, and achieved 63 mpg city, 81 mpg highway.
While the diesel Renault EVE concept cars were being developed and tested, Renault was also working on their gasoline powered Vesta concept cars. The Renault Vesta was revealed to the motoring public in 1981. It had a weight of 1130 lbs, a 0.25 drag coefficient, and a top speed of 75 mph. The Vesta’s fuel economy is 78 mpg.
Renault’s next generation of their Vesta concept car had reduced weight and reduced aerodynamic drag, which improved fuel economy and top speed. The 1987 Renault Vesta II weighed only 1,047 lbs, had a 0.186 drag coefficient, a 27 horsepower engine, and was able to return 78 mpg city, 107 mpg highway. Its top speed was over 80 mph.
Not wanting to be outdone by Renault, Peugeot and Citroen began the ECO 2000 program. The 1981 Citroen SA103 was able to obtain 65 mpg, thanks to a 0.27 drag coefficient, 948 lb curb weight, and a rear-mounted 700cc 2-cylinder gasoline engine.
The 1983 Citroen SA117 showed a remarkable improvement over its predecessor due to a drag coefficient of 0.21, front mounted engine with a front wheel drive configuration, and a curb weight of only 932 lbs; these improvements resulted in a fuel economy of 79 mpg. The SL117 used the same engine as the SA103.
The 1982 Citroen SA109 used an upgraded engine to 750cc 3-cylinder gasoline engine. The car weighed in at 1,058 lbs and had a drag coefficient of 0.321, giving a fuel economy of 67 mpg.
The 1984 Citroen SL110 was the first of the ECO 2000 vehicles revealed to the public. It made use of the SA109’s 35 horsepower engine, which allowed a top speed of 88 mph. The fuel economy was 76 mpg combined, and 112 mpg at a steady 55 mph. This was achievable due to a low drag coefficient of 0.22 and 992 lb curb weight.
Peugeot also revealed its ECO 2000 concept car. With a drag coefficient of 0.21, 990 lb curb weight, and a 28 horsepower 2-cylinder gasoline engine, the Peugeot ECO 2000 returned 70 mpg city and 77 mpg highway.
An effort by Peugeot from 1982 were its VERA and VERA+ concept cars. Unlike the ECO 2000, these cars used 50 horsepower turbo diesel engines. The VERA+ had a 0.22 drag coefficient, 1,740 lbs curb weight, and achieved 55 mpg city, 87 mpg highway. The VERA+ also had performance comparable to the commercially available cars of its time, with 0-60 mph acceleration in 13.2 seconds and a top speed of 100 mph.
The 1981 Volkswagen Auto 2000 obtained 63 mpg city, 71 mpg highway, boasting a 0.25 drag coefficient, 53 horsepower diesel engine, and 1,716 lb curb weight.
Volkswagen’s E80 diesel concept obtained even better fuel economy. Using a 51 horsepower supercharged 3-cylinder turbo diesel, the 1,540 lb Volkswagen E80 managed to obtain 74 mpg city and 99 mpg highway. It had a 0.35 drag coefficient.
In 1983, Volvo was able to demonstrate that fuel efficiency, safety, practicality, and performance were possible in a production-ready car with its LCP 2000. First and foremost, the car was designed for maximum safety; not only were the rear seats facing backward so that the center of the car could be designed for added structural rigidity and increased resistance against side impacts, but the car passed a head-on passenger-crash survival test at 35 mph, which exceeded the 30 mph requirement of the time. Performance was excellent for the time period and is still comparable to the entry level compact cars sold today, with 0-60 mph acceleration in 11 seconds and a top speed of 110 mph. Fuel economy was rated at 56 mpg city, 81 mpg highway, and 65 mpg combined. The car weighed a mere 1,555 lbs, had a 0.25 drag coefficient, and was powered by an 88 horsepower diesel engine. In volume of 20,000 cars per year, the cost penalty would have been effectively zero over comparable production cars for the period.
The 1982 GM TPC managed an astounding 61 mpg city, 74 mpg highway, using a lightweight aluminum body and engine; the curb weight was light at only 1,040 lbs, but the drag coefficient was an unremarkable 0.31. It used a 3-cylinder gasoline engine which only produced 38 horsepower.
In 1983, GM had upgraded its Lean Machine concept to obtain up to 200 mpg. To obtain such stunning efficiency, the vehicle needed to be as light and as aerodynamic as possible, weighing in at only 400 lbs and having a 0.15 drag coefficient. A 38 horsepower, 2-cylinder Otto cycle engine was able to rocket this machine from 0-60 mph in 6.8 seconds. Top speed was 80 mph.
Not wishing to be surpassed by the American and European automakers, Toyota began experimenting with its AXV series of concept cars in the late 1980s. The first Toyota AXV was powered by a 56 horsepower direct-injection diesel engine; this combined with a low curb weighed of under 1,500 lbs, a 0.26 drag coefficient, and a continuously variable transmission allowed the AXV to achieve 89 mpg city, 110 mpg highway, and 98 mpg combined. Later incarnations of the AVX were not as fuel-efficient.
In 1991, Honda developed the EPX, a tandem two-seater concept car that used a 1 liter lean-burn engine, weighed under 1,400 lbs, and supposedly returned a fuel economy of 100 mpg. Currently, the car isn’t in running condition.
Continuing a trend of fuel efficient concepts, the Honda JVX was unveiled in 1997; using a 1.0 liter, 3-cylinder gasoline engine and an electric motor with a capacitor bank, it was able to manage 67 mpg. Designed for safety, the passenger and driver seat belts are configured to inflate during a crash to help protect the occupants from injuries normally caused by seat belts.
The Big 3 U.S. automakers also demonstrated some interesting prototypes in the 1990s and early 2000s.
In 1992, the GM Ultralite demonstrated that it was possible for a four-seater sedan to get an EPA-rated 88 mpg, and obtain 100 mpg at a steady 50 mph. It could also do 0-60 mph in under 8 seconds and top out at 135 mph using a 111 horsepower 1.5L 3-cylinder engine. It had a drag coefficient of 0.19 and weighed in at 1,400 lbs.
GM, Ford, and Dodge were each given taxpayer funds as part of the Project for a New Generation of vehicles to develop midsized sedans capable of triple the fuel economy of the existing offerings.
In 1999 GM developed the Precept, a midsized sedan capable of seating 5. It weighed 2600 lbs and had a 0.16 drag coefficient. It was capable of 82 mpg city, 103 mpg highway. Using a diesel-electric hybrid drivetrain composed of a 1.3L 54 horsepower Isuzu turbodiesel and a 10 kW 3-phase AC motor, it could accelerate from 0-60 mph in 12.2 seconds and was governed at 85 mph.
The 1999 Ford Prodigy had a drag coefficient of 0.2, weighed 2,400 lbs, and got 72 mpg. It also had a diesel-electric hybrid powertrain with a 1.2L 74 horsepower turbodiesel and a 46 horsepower electric drive system, and was capable of accelerating from 0-60 mph in 11 seconds.
Dodge built the ESX concepts, lightweight, all three of them streamlined midsized sedans. In the year 2000, this effort culminated in the ESX3 prototype. Using a 1.5L 74 horsepower direct injection diesel engine and a 20 horsepower electric drive system, it could accelerate from 0-60 mph in 9.5 seconds. Drag coefficient was 0.22, weight was 2,250 lbs, and combined fuel economy was 72 mpg.
Frustrated that the automakers seemed to be dragging their feet on improving fuel economy, Greenpeace re-designed the 1996 Renault Twingo. Their version was called the Renault Twingo SMILE. They were able to double the fuel economy over the stock Twingo by downsizing the engine to a 3-cylinder 360cc design running a 10:1 compression ratio making 55 horsepower, cutting the drag coefficient of the car to 0.25, reducing mass to 650 kg, and some gearing changes. The result was 69 mpg US, a reduction of fuel consumption by 50% versus the stock Twingo. Performance also improved, with a 0-62 mph time of 10 seconds and a top speed of 107 mph.
In the early 2000s, Audi and Volkswagen sold two subcompact cars outside of the U.S. that were never available here. They both got excellent fuel economy.
The VW Lupo 3L used a 1.2L 3-cylinder TDI engine making 60 horsepower. Weighing in at 1,770 lbs, it was capable of 65 mpg city, 87 mpg highway, and 78 mpg combined. 0-60 mph was 14.5 seconds and top speed was 103 mph.
The Audi A2 1.2 TDI used the same engine as the VW Lup 3L, but weighed 1,880 lbs and had a more slippery 0.25 drag coefficient. Fuel economy was 65 mpg city, 87 mpg highway, and 81 mpg combined. 0-60 mph was 14.9 seconds with a top speed of 104 mph.
In 2001, Honda made a concept of a supercar called the Dualnote. It was capable of 42 mpg. It used a hybrid drive system capable of 400 combined horsepower with a 3.5L V6. 0-60 mph was 4 seconds.
The 2001 Opel Astra ECO4 got 53 mpg, using a 1.7L 4-cylinder DTI engine making 74 horsepower. 0-60 mph was 14.5 seconds with a top speed of 110 mph. Curb weight was 2,600 lbs and drag coefficient 0.3.
The 2001 Toyota ES3 got a combined fuel economy of 87 mpg. Its turbocharged 1.4L 4-cylinder direct-injection diesel engine made 74 horsepower. The car weighed 1,543 lbs and its drag coefficient was 0.23.
The 2002 Opel Eco Speedster was a reinterpretation of a record-setting Opel GT streamliner from the 1970s. The Eco Speedster used a 4-cylinder 1.3L CDTI diesel engine making 112 horsepower, which was capable of accelerating it from 0-62 mph in 8.9 seconds, allowing it to top out at 160 mph. Its top speed was high thanks to its 0.20 drag coefficient. It also only weighed 1,500 lbs. This combination of factors allowed it to get 93 mpg combined.
In 2003, Volkswagen showed its Wundercar II concept. It got 117 mpg US, was capable of 0-62 mph in 12 seconds, and had a top speed of 113 mph. Weight was 1,500 lbs. It was powered by a 1.2L TDI engine.
The 2003 Daihatsu UFE got 129 mpg. It weighed 1,388 lbs, had a drag coefficient of 0.25, and was a parallel hybrid powered by a 660cc 3-cylinder direct-injection gasoline engine assisted with an synchronous AC drive system.
The UFE-II was shown that same year. Weight was reduced to 1,256 lbs, drag coefficient was reduced to 0.19, and fuel economy increased to 141 mpg.
The 2005 Daihatsu UFE-III saw further economy gains by reducing its weight to 970 lbs and drag coefficient to 0.17. Fuel economy jumped to 170 mpg.
The 2003 Honda IMAS got get 100 mpg, weighing in at 1,550 lbs and with a drag coefficient of 0.20.
The 2003 Jetcar 2.5 prototype is said to be capable of 100 mpg, using a 11 horsepower 800cc 3-cylinder diesel engine making 41 horsepower. Weight is 1609 lbs. Top speed is 99 mph.
In 2004, Toyota showed off its hybrid-electric supercar, the Volta. Getting 40 mpg of gasoline with its 3.3L V6 and electric drive, this AWD 2,756 lb beauty making 402 horsepower could accelerate from 0-60 mph in 4 seconds and was electronically limited to 155 mph.
The 2005 Mercedes Bionic was capable of seating 5 people and got 54.7 mpg, and 84 mpg driven at a constant 55 mph. Drag coefficient was 0.19 and weight was 2,425 lbs. Powered by a 2L 138 horsepower 4-cylinder turbodiesel, it was capable of 0-62 mph acceleration in 8.2 seconds with an electronically limited top speed of 118 mph.
In 2006, Loremo unveiled two very interesting concept cars, the LS, and the GT. The LS got 157 mpg, weighing in at 992 lbs and having a 0.2 drag coefficient. Using a 20 horsepower 2-cylinder diesel engine, it can accelerate from 0-60 mph in 20 seconds and reach 100 mph. The GT version uses a more powerful 50 horsepower 3-cylinder diesel engine, allowing a 0-60 mph time of 9 seconds and a top speed of 137 mph, while still able to get 87 mpg when driven sanely.
There’s the 2006 VW Ecoracer, which was powered by a 136 horsepower 1.5L turbodiesel, capable of getting 70 mpg. 0-60 mpg was 6.3 seconds with a top speed of 140 mph. The car weighed 1,875 lbs.
We all know about the Aptera by now.
The same applies to modern EVs. They’re using twice as much battery for a given range as is necessary, because they’re overweight, oversized luxobarges with aerodynamics that have just barely caught up with the 1921 Rumpler Tropfenwagon, after a century of “progress”. The current Hyundai Ioniq 6 and Mercedes CLA EV are steps in the right direction, at least. Better is possible.
If there’s a prize for “Comment that could be an article” you’ll win it!
You clearly care about this, which is great! It’s possible you used an AI for this but maybe not. Some things to ponder: all of this design work was being done by folks that want to make money. Assuming that there’s no grand conspiracy here, those vehicles never made production because they wouldn’t make money. If they *could* make money, I’d encourage someone to start a company and get it out there because free money! Given this, what are they reasons they never got to market from anyone?
Another item to ponder: in your listing of “appliances”, you assert that “style doesn’t matter.” It most certainly does, and those types of devices have carefully chosen colors, graphics and functions attached to them. I personally shopped for a year before we decided on a refrigerator because we’re going to have it for a while. I apply the same philosophy to other appliances as well, because buying a good one is cheaper in the long run than buying 5 cheap ones.
Last: You make some interesting cases about past research, but you miss a critical point — my time has value and I might want to spent it in a nice place. Some level of safety is nice, but is it “driven off of a cliff” safe? I’m interested in the Aptera if they’d ever ship it. It’s been out there for a long time. But right now (today!) you can buy a Tesla that is safe as hell, handles well, I find it a nice place to be because I like minimalism, and it’s very efficient. And they’re selling insanely fast. There’s a small platform version in the works that may make your definition.
Not AI. It’s just my writing is littered with errors, and is that bad.
I’m certain cars like these could make money. The problem is, the people that would buy them would do so at the consequence of not buying a higher-margined vehicle.
But who knows? The industry generally has never given us something so disruptive as to double or triple the fuel economy vs. the best offerings regarding this metric. Everything has been deliberately overly-conservative in this regard.
Disruptors like Tesla have done very well, when the rest of the industry kept arguing for decades prior that no one would want EVs. Now that Tesla came and got the genie out of the bottle, other manufacturers were forced to start producing electric cars, which they could have been doing all along 15 years before Tesla existed if they really wanted to.
If someone actually offered up a practical car whose platform efficiency was double or triple that of the nearest competition, not only would the benefits make themselves known to the operators of said vehicles, but the cars would certainly gain a cult following. Efficiency plays into performance very well, as you need less horsepower to go fast, or go faster on the same horsepower.
It is not without valid reason that there is so much hype and excitement surrounding the Aptera. There is a massive unmet demand for an inexpensive vehicle built with efficiency and low operating cost at the forefront of the design considerations. People want such a thing, and it is not being made available. Because of the costs to meet regulatory burdens, the Aptera is a 3-wheeler in order to bypass this, otherwise the money would never exist to mass produce it, and even now, it’s a struggle.
The closest we got to something this disruptive regarding platform efficiency in a production car within the last 30 years was the 1st gen Honda Insight. It was only able to seat two, and was a slow, underpowered front-wheel-drive vehicle in a market where the demand for two-seaters was limited and focused on performance-oriented rear-wheel-drive cars. I personally think that the Insight would have sold a LOT better as a two-seater if it came with a K20 engine and was RWD. Had it been such, the fuel efficiency wouldn’t have suffered much. K-swapped Insights with the electric motor and battery removed are seeing 45-50 mpg, so a hybrid would do even better than that and still come close to the one we got, but it would instead do 0-60 mph in around 5 seconds and run 13s in the 1/4 mile. Honda could have undercut all of its competition on price, out-performed its competition, AND still had a halo car for fuel economy all at the same time. Its platform efficiency was such that each horsepower did a lot more than its competition.
It is not coincidental that the second gen Insight became an over-stylized 5-seater sedan with more conservative aerodynamics and more weight. Honda sold much more of them. I suspect if they focused less on style and more on efficiency, to the point where it was comparable to the 1st gen in mass and CdA, sales would NOT have been harmed in the least. Just having the extra 3 seats and more storage space by itself made a big difference iun the car’s potential marketshare. The 1st gen Insight sold poorly not because of its low drag or low mass, but because it was a slow, FWD two seater.
The VW XL1 comes to mind as well — 2 seats, insane efficiency, but only 250 made. Take Tesla’s tech (which I like fine) and mate it to BMW’s CF used in the i3 and i8 and it’s close to done, but materials cost kills you if you don’t find a work around for the BMW process. It would be interesting to build a car that if damaged you just swap the parts from the wrecked car into a new shell and repair/re-use the other at your leisure.
The XL1 is as expensive as it is because only 250 were made. In mass production, I’d hazard an educated guess that the cost would come down to something similar to the BMW i3 given the choice of materials used. With a TDI engine, I would think supercar performance could be wrung from that sort of layout, in order to justify the price. Casey Putsch’s Omega sports car getting close to 100 mpg highway and being able to out-accelerate his Dodge Viper comes to mind, and it is so slippery it would come close to matching the Viper’s top speed on that TDI engine.
The Miata ND is made of conventional materials, and still weighs in around 2,300 lbs. The inexpensive Mitsubishi Mirage is even lighter by about 300 lbs, and also made of conventional materials. MOST of the fuel economy that can be gained is going to come from drag reduction(at least on the highway and overall, mass is still the biggest determinant of city fuel economy), and the wind doesn’t care what material the car is made out of.
As it is used more and more ways are found to recycle it, carbon fiber is going to come down in price. It may become a “conventional” material within the next 10-20 years.
Bruh
A $15,000 Sub Zero refrigerator is every bit as much an appliance as the white energy star GE top freezer model that would meet your preferred definition.
It’s nice that you have a passion, but every unprompted post like this just screams of you only having a hammer, so you’re treating everything as a nail.
It’s okay to admit wrenches are necessary tools too.
Sure, but how often does a typical household ever need a $15,000 refrigerator? Not all of us have the sort of capital that Nancy Pelosi does.
We should have inexpensive 70+ mpg family sedans and 120 Wh/mile electric variants thereof, available 30 years ago.
If you spend your entire life choosing only to have the minimum of your needs, you’ll have a sad life.
Not all of us can even afford the minimum that actually exists on the market. If the minimum that were possible actually existed on the market, more within the working class would be able to afford new cars. I was once there. A new car was a distant dream. Now that I have money to afford a new car, nothing on the market in the USA appeals to me. The Mazda MX5 and Tesla Model 3 Performance are perhaps the closest matches, and they each barely get halfway there.
Having the bare minimum as an option would be nice, but we live in a country where excess consumption has become compulsory. The bare minimum as an alternative to needless waste frees up money for other things that bring joy, but that comes at the expense of manufacturers not extracting as much money from the buyer that chooses the bare minimum over wasting money.
I personally don’t get much joy out of having needlessly expensive appliances. I do, OTOH, derive joy building and operating hoonable vehicles with the savings from not having to pay to operate needlessly expensive appliances, vehicles which also happen to be surprisingly inexpensive to operate even while hooned.
If I’m going to splurge and spend money, something must REALLY appeal to me. An inexpensive mass-produced Lotus Elise-like or Alfa Romeo 4C-like sports car with attention to aero streamlining over aesthetics would do the trick. As an engineer, I know it’s possible. But until something like it is offered, I will not be parting with my hard-earned money, especially not on some bloated “sports car” that weighs as much as a modern crossover/SUV/pickup truck, that is much more car than I need and which I wouldn’t really derive much joy from.
Heavy, powerful crap is always breaking and costing money to keep operational. And that’s the point. Every dollar I don’t spend is a dollar some company isn’t getting. Things are currently the way they are to extract as much money from people as possible. And it is a total garbage philosophy.
I’m glad the ND Miata exists, at least. It’s a far cry from what I want, but it does have some of the spirit and ethos of what I’m after. Now if it were wind-tunnel sculpted to have half the CdA, many useless luxuries were removed to cut another 100 lbs or so from it, and it were slightly shrunk in size to cut a few hundred more pounds and shave off some frontal area, my attention would REALLY be grabbed. A modern Little British Car equivalent. Bonus points if it were instead made into a sub-2,500 lb EV with 200+ miles range, enough power to mess with a Hellcat, and that was given fully open source software/electronics and repairable with basic tools.
One issue that hurts for minimal is safety. No matter how well you crumple zone and brace, the majority of the deadly acceleration in a crash happens in the lighter vehicle, because the mass proportion of the passengers is higher. Even of all passenger vehicles were of this type, semi-trucks are still a thing. And in countries that get this kind of vehicle, they either never get much speed up (See: India) or they have really gory accidents (See: anywhere in the developing world.)
It’s not that lightweight cars are inherently unsafe, indeed they have less kinetic energy for the crumple zones to dissipate in a crash than heavier vehicles do, it’s that the heavier vehicles make the roads unsafe for everyone else, especially to pedestrians, cyclists, and vehicles of less mass. The auto industry has deliberately created a vehicular arms race under the guise of safety, in order to increase their profit margins. I predict it will eventually blow up in their faces and their oversized, overpriced, inefficient monstrosities will go unsold clogging up dealership lots, and then they’ll get a government bailout yet again to repeat the cycle.
You could be in a 9,000 lb Hummer EV, and a fully-loaded semi truck with close to 70,000 lbs is still going to fuck you up.
The funny thing is I have both the MX-5 and a Tesla Model 3 P. Both lovely vehicles.
The MX5 is too big and overstylized for what it is. It’s made to look some combination of cute and aggressive, when I’d rather it were aerodynamically slippery and functional. It also needs a Skyactive inline-6 or an EV drive system in place of the 4-cylinder. At least the Miata Italia kit exists. THAT front end on a Miata is sexy as fuck, and would improve aero. Do a custom-made fastback top with drag reduction in mind, and CdA could be lowered significantly, increasing fuel economy, and possibly top speed.
The Model 3 P is way too tech-laden for my tastes, and is for all practical purposes not repairable outside of Tesla’s technicians. It can even snitch on you, and Tesla can record everything you do with it. That doesn’t sit well with me. In the future, as more people crack into its software and decrypt it, it will become less of a hassle to repair. The aero is good, but could be better, even if it’s among the best the market currently has to offer on this metric. Then there’s the issue of how heavy this thing is. Whereas the MX5 is light and tossable, this thing is a pig. The drive system and battery tech in it are nothing short of awesome though, and I have a lightweight classic little British sports car that is nearly a perfect match for these EV components, a car which I converted to electric with greatly inferior components and is begging for an upgrade. I just need the workspace so that I can order the parts and get to work…
It’s called minimalism and its a way of life for a lot of very happy people. Try it, you might like it!
I love not having bills take up all of my money. I find that a lot of stress has completely vanished when I can set aside more than the equivalent of one full paycheck a month for whatever I want and/or save/invest it as I see fit. It’s sad that most people are not in a position to have this lifestyle and instead must constantly struggle because their paycheck no longer covers the basic necessities. It’s sadder still that for many, not having spare resources due to bills eating up all of the money is self-imposed(mainly looking at the upper 20% who have to have the new SUVs and live in McMansions and go into debt to do so).
Although, I’d hardly describe the way I live as minimalism. For that, you’d have to look at the 3rd world, and not the 1st world. I live somewhere between the two.
I live the same way I did as a minimum wage dishwasher. Except now I’m an electrical engineer making an income that puts me in the upper 20%. I live in a basement rented on the cheap, and drive a custom-built microcar that has a cheaper overall per-mile cost than taking the bus. Maybe I’ll be rich when I’m old, although that isn’t a goal in and of itself. If the right Lotus Elise or Alfa Romeo 4C came along, I could buy it outright in full without a loan, but I’m going to wait until I have land in a rural area first before I start hoarding dream cars. Once I get access to a work space again, I also have a Triumph GT6 to finish working on, and it’s nice to actually have the money to put into it. It sat for many years from lack of funds.
No thanks, the wife and are pretty content as “having stuff” people.
I have a couple “minimalist” friends. As far as I can tell they only survive because they have people like me to borrow from.
I have neighbors that like stuff too. They like lots of stuff. So much stuff they fill their houses with it, their garages with it, their backyards with it, even storage units with it. They have more stuff that hogs their driveway: boats, trailers with dirt bikes, campers, project cars, all kinds of stuff. So they park their many, many vehicles running or not on the street. Its really fun when they fill up the street with so many of their oversized vehicles I can’t see dangers lurking around the corner. I’ve had a few near misses because of it. They also can’t be bothered to move their stuff off the street once a month so the city can sweep it. The gutters get clogged. I don’t ever ask to borrow or use their stuff, I have no need of it. All their stuff only makes my life worse.
Just don’t be those neighbors. Own your stuff, don’t let it own you…or anyone else.
Your neighbors sound kinda dope though. My neighbors just have multiple old minivans with peeling paint that they drive to pick up fast food for every meal.
If your neighbors can keep those minivans on their own driveway I’ll be happy to trade you.
If more of us at least moved closer to minimalism in our consumption (or had years ago), the current environmental issues would not be as severe. Also, corporations would not be as wealthy.
Hey now, lets not chide those over consumers TOO much. They’re the ones who keep my local thrift stores full of gently used super cheap stuff I like.
Plus, they are the ones we buy our cars from. 🙂
It’s a nice theory, but in practice there are vanishing few actual minimalists. The rest are binge and purgers that throw out crap they just end up rebuying over and over, making a worse impact than if they’d just maintained a reasonable amount of possessions.
“It’s a nice theory, but in practice there are vanishing few actual minimalists”
Ah contrare, there are plenty of them around. You may be thinking of them as “poors”, the extremist ones “homeless”. Say what you want about the homeless, their lifestyle is far and away more sustainable than yours. Almost all third world folks too. In fact most of the world is made up of minimalists.
“The rest are binge and purgers that throw out crap they just end up rebuying over and over, making a worse impact than if they’d just maintained a reasonable amount of possessions.”
Not necessarily, only some throw out, the rest donate or sell. I like folks who donate or sell. Its how I get super cheap stuff I want and when I’m done with it I donate or sell it to someone else.
That $15,000 subzero fridge is also most likely an unreliable POS compared to a cheap mass market Whirlpool. At least based on the feedback of everyone I’ve known who has owned an expensive built-in Subzero fridge. And CR.
I love, love, love my Whirlpool “resource saver” fridge – the yellow sticker with energy consumption had it way to the left of the supposed lowest energy usage. Alas, I must be the unusual consumer, because they no longer offer anything similar.! Which reminds we I need to order a new ice maker – the first cube on this one keeps getting stuck for some reason.
Mine is a Whirlpool rebadged as a Kenmore Elite. I bought it in 2006 and its still going strong like the proper appliance it is. I think mine had an excellent energy star rating as well.
Man, if you had a custom-built electric velomobile like mine, you’d have an enthusiasts’ vehicle that wasn’t legally a car. Albeit, in California I do believe it would have to be restricted to 1kW output and the assist cutting out at 30 mph.
With 13 horsepower, mine can out-gun a V6 Charger at a stop light to roughly 30 mph(was voltage-limited to 50 mph at the time) and corners better than any car I’ve driven. Working on upgrading it to 20+ horsepower, AWD, and potentially 100+ mph top end. And per mile, it’s cheaper than taking the bus.
The suggestion to get an ebike is not a bad one.
As far as motorized transportation goes, it’s hard to get any less expensive per mile than a well-built ebike.
That Lexus provides incentive to drive as little as possible. That thing sucks!
I think it’s 750w in CA for 2 wheels. I have an e-bke that is a little scary fast. On a YT Capra Pro Race Stupid name. This goes on and off in about 10 minutes. 2750 watts, 3750 peak. Power to weight of a 125cc dirt bike, a little scary fast.
https://krankedbikes.com/
Those are middrive bikes. Lots of failure points introduced with those, and premature wear-and-tear on the pedal drivetrain components. If I were to use a middrive, I think I’d prefer some Astroflight motors running a gokart chain that is kept separate from the pedal drivetrain, set up on the rear brake rotor side of the vehicle.
Here’s an example of just such a setup in a trike:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WKAMus3oSdw
The above is claimed to do 0-50 mph in 4 seconds. Mine isn’t nearly that fast, at least not yet.
My 91 lb trike is running 10 kW and ~250 Nm to the hubmotor at the rear wheel. I put it together it myself, including the body shell that I designed. It’s so aerodynamically slippery, that I can turn the motor off and PEDAL it to 35 mph on flat ground in a full-effort sprint, and holding 23 mph on flat ground with the motor disabled is about the same effort as a light jog.
Using the motor, it’s a microcar. It cruises 30-35 mph on 0.007-0.009 kWh/mile with light to moderate pedaling effort.
Once I upgrade to AWD, I might be able to troll Hellcats. We’ll see. I’m trying to secure an order on 3T-wind front hubmotors, and once they arrive, I need to fabricate new spindles and adaptors so that said spindles can fit the motors. This thing is already very dangerous, but will be made even moreso once it can run 12s or quicker in the 1/4 mile.
A one-seater actual CAR designed around the same set of principles would be amazing. Imagine a 200-ish lb vehicle that could seat 1, had 150+ peak horsepower, and a 5 kWh battery. It wouldn’t cost much to build, and its acceleration would be very hypercar-like. Its operating cost would be cheaper than public transit.
It might make an interesting engineering school team challenge to design (& make??!) the lightest, most efficient car that meets FMVSS regulations and cost it out – some of the complexities and costs of modern cars have been regulation driven…
I suspect a one-seater version of such a minimal FMVSS compliant vehicle with 4 wheels would be around 300 lbs as a “glider” with everything except drive system and transmission.
A 4-seater, somewhere around 800 lbs as a “glider” with everything except drive system and transmission.
Just educated guesses pulled out of my rear. Consider the Automotive X-Prize of nearly 15 years ago.
https://www.cnet.com/culture/automotive-x-prize-winner-hits-100-mpg/
The Edison VLC2 passed the FMVSS of the time weighing in at 800 lbs as a complete car(not a “glider”). Modern standards are more strict and necessitate more mass.
Put in whatever you like. Gasoline ICE, diesel, electric, fuel cell, whatever, and the weight will go up accordingly, and more weight may need to be added to reinforce the chassis from the additions depending upon what is used and where it is placed.
Overall platform efficiency is mostly a function of aerodynamics. I think a 4-wheeled car could approach a Cd value of 0.11(a common figure for solar powered race cars), with the frontal area dependent upon layout, application, desired storage space, and desired passenger comfort. The Aptera 2E, while not FMVSS compliant, since it’s a “motorcycle”, has a 0.13 Cd value, with outboard front wheels and faired control arms/axles exposed to the airflow. My 3-wheeled Milan SL velomobile has everything sealed, and has a Cd value of 0.08.
The automotive X-Prize competition found that it was possible to crack 100 mpg real-world for gasoline-powered ICE 4-seater weighing 800 lbs with a Cd value of 0.16. The Edison VLC2 did so, and only barely so. But many entrants came very close, and 80+ mpg is certainly doable without too much issue.
You are so right that much of the mass of modern cars is baked in by regulations, which are necessary in a world where we must all share roads with multi-ton deathmobiles. What I’m looking forward to is a world where safety systems (I’ll spare everyone the acronyms) have progressed to the point where collision risk is near zero. Then we can stop being forced into monstrosities 20 times our weight just to commute or run an errand in the rain.
I kind of wonder what the world would have been like if the car developed into a golf cart type vehicle or those post-WWII minicars instead of the 3 ton monsters we drive today. Could have been fun and safer.
Guys like you with your half measures really grind my …wtf? this sounds sick. Yes, the mid drive is a different deal. The nice part is I can pedal in with motor in backpack, find a nice spot, and put the motor on.
To be fair, a V6 Charger could be outgunned by a CVT Altima
Depends on which CVT Altima, but that is certainly possible. Considering that my vehicle is legally a “bicycle” where I reside, I think meeting this benchmark is hilarious. The amount of times I’ve been pulled over in this thing is ridiculous…
So you can drive the Lexus, but NOT either electric vehicle. Yeah, that’s better for the environment.
Nice twist ending.
Oh the things we do for love (and $600).
Get an ebike with rack, fenders and a saddlebag. Make sure it has a torque sensor.
We became a one-car, one-ebike household last year, and it’s worked well so far despite having to deal with Chicago winters. I’d imagine an ebike could be used year round in Santa Monica.
Weather-wise LA is perfect for year round riding. Westside has some decent infastructure. Issues I have found – LA roads are dangerous depending on the route (especially between westside/valley), drivers suck, no enforcement for red light runners and every grocery store/shopping center seems to always have sketchy all day loiterers who immediately start eyeing your bike seconds after you lock it.
I used to ride from West Hollywood to Santa Monica. Not bad safety wise except for a few parts. Ride to the Valley? I’ve seen people do it on Sepulveda. Didn’t look fun. I can’t of one route I would take. Coldwater? Super tight in some spots.