HPV Suspension Design
Re: Part 7 of your HPV articles.
It's
probably too late to make the comment now but give that caster rise in bump
leads to camber rise (negative) in cornering, wouldn't you assume that you
could get away with less than 55 degrees for the arm angle and still get the
desired camber in cornering without quite so extreme camber change in plain
bump? It would also enable you to use longer arms and hence less change in
angles.
You know, it's getting harder to find a link to
send you guys feedback!
Peter Bodon
Australia
Longer arms are heavier arms, and the angle of
the semi-leading arms used as the starting point the angle of the Greenspeed
steering tie-rods. Re feedback – there hasn’t been any change in the system but
it will be completely overhauled in the near future.
Suggestion
I have a suggestion for
future topics in the Zine. There are many members who drive older cars with
basic injection systems. I suggest a series on the gains to be made
from and the feasibility of fitting latest generation injection to
older cars, and the gains from it, particularly in fuel economy. I have a
personal interest in that I have a 92 Range Rover 3.9 with Lucas FI (14CUX)
which does not have even a narrow band O2 sensor. I have updated the engine with
a Thor BMW designed manifold and fitted a Unichip, along with modern 4 hole
Bosch injectors. But economy is still terrible. Even on Commodores, Falcons
etc, what is to be gained from fitting a factory or aftermarket system with WBO
sensors, lean cruise, EDIS etc. Issues such as how to overcome
problems like VSS compatability, BECM disabling, alarm disabling etc, setup of
EDIS with parts suppliers could be discussed. I would be happy to volunteer my
car as a test bed!
Phillip Armbruster
Australia
Engines
I like the articles on the Power Vs Torque
thing and the realities of how actually develop more of both.
In the article on getting 180kW out of a NA Sube
you give an example of the Honda S2000 and how it develops it's power/
torque through more revs. Honda I think are one of the big pioneers in 4
stroke power development through Mr Honda's efforts to beat the 2 strokes
over the years. His belief was that 4 strokes were superior
technology and he spent a lot of time, money and engineering development
on making 4 strokes fast. You only need to look at the 5 cyl 125cc TT bikes
that revved to 22,000rpm (with 7 speed gearboxes) from the late 60's. Or
when the FIM limited the GP class to 500cc & 4 cylinders Honda
responded with the V4, oval piston, 32 valve, 8 conrod and 8 sparkplug
NR500 effectively making it a V8. Although it was never competitive I
bet that the technology developed flows over into the current crop of Honda
engine technology. It just further highlights that in order to make NA engines
more powerful the technology needed is very complex and expensive. I also
remember when 4 strokes were first developed for motocross bikes, I never
thought that they would ever be powerful enough to beat a 2 stroke. But now
they are the pick of the bunch albeit with a cubic advantage to offset the
weight penalty.
Darren Roles
Australia
Power and Torque 1
Just read your
article on torque and power. By far the best article on this subject that I have
read, great job. I've read at least five different articles on this subject
and had finally pieced together an understanding; if I had just read this one, I
think it would have all been clear immediately. Thanks!
Glenn Ruhl
United States
Power and Torque 2
Thanks for you
article on power and torque. Taking the same train of though would it be
possible for you to do one on working out the best gearing for a car. I am
talking about optimising tyre size, gearbox ratio's and final drive ration to
keep the car on the optimum part of the power / torque curve. A spreadsheet
would really help here as well.
David Kagi
China
Event
I am the Event Co-Ordinator for the GV Car
Club in Shepparton . I am setting up a MAJOR DRIVING EVENT DAY at D.E.C.A
Shepparton to try and endorse the youths of today to take it to the track
and not the street, i have been fighting this battle for the past five
years with great success as we now have several members in the club that were
out right hoons on the street and with time and holding these events they
are also behind me in getting it onto the track and not on the
street. If i can change one persons views on street drags and burnouts for
the better its worth every minute spent.
The problem i run into is the cost in the hire
and/or insurance. Just for an example one young guy i have in the
club was probably the biggest hoon in the area, but with time and
effort he now cant stand the thought of street drags and burnouts and at
the age of 21 he has over 40 1st place trophies for burnouts in some
well regarded events (see pic attached)Some thing that is always on
my mind is if some one dosen't do these sort of things for the youth it
will get out of hand and there will be no use for company's in this field
and that covers a huge amount of companies as the youth wont bother
doing cars up because the police will have to come down on us all
like a tone of bricks.
This event is looking to be held on the 30th
June 2007and what i am putting together is hitting around the $8000 mark
to hold the event and im asking if in any way (cash or Event prizes
and advertizerment) your business might be able to help by chipping
in either big or small, anything is a help to change the mind
of the youth of today and future of car nuts
please contact me and we can talk about how i can return the favor in
promoting you to the best of my ability. I have held a number
of events at Heathcote and D.E.C.A in Shepparton with great
success and have the local police behind us . The last event had about 195
entries and the police did not have to stop one car. The car club will also
promote and support your company in the future. Our club has worked hard over
the last 5 years to get where we are and have won Spring Nats and Show Us
Ya Wheels the last two years running plus have had several club cars
featuring in car mags. I have over 80 entries and its not even advertised
as yet. It will be advertised on radio, 5,000 flyers.
and the internet so it will be in every ones face. I have just come
away from setting a major event at DECA in Shepparton in April 2007 which
attracted 195 entrants and about 800 spectators. Thank you for taking the
time read this proposal, and feel free to talk to me about this event as we
can make help and make it better for the younger generation. I
have already attracted some big name cars for demos.
Steve Miller
GV CAR
CLUB
0409869972
bringit@gvcarclub.com
www.gvcarclub.com
Weight and Per Person Fuel Consumption
1
I have to agree with the
editorial “Driving Emotion, 2nd June 2007. Why can’t we buy a single or
tandem seat light weight commuter vehicles? Every day I commute in my
1350kg vehicle, one up, with less than 15kg luggage, while sitting in traffic
surrounded by similar vehicles, mostly also with only one occupant. What a
waste.
It seems to me that cars are often sold on the basis of how people
think they use them rather than how they actually do. The vast
majority of my journeys are one up and, less often , two up. I
don’t think that I am unique in that; many people own two seat
sports cars, for example. On the occasions when I have had to carry
more, such as moving house, it has been very easy to hire vehicles for the
purpose.
Surely there is a market for vehicles that have greater weather
and crash protection (i.e. some) than motorbikes/scooters, and don’t
require the inconvenience of carting around a helmet or wearing
leathers. A reasonable amount of luggage space, enough to carry a weeks
worth of shopping for two people or perhaps a young family, would be desirable
too.
The Smart ForTwo probably currently comes closest in concept to what
is being discussed but is too wide, too tall and, most critically , too
heavy and too expensive (in comparison to what else can be
purchased for the same money). A VW One-litre Car, built using
real world materials, perhaps in a low labour rate country,
would be perfect, certainly in concept. The Mitsubishi
Minicar i probably fills the four seater role, where it is
sold.
Apart from the Smart ForTwo, VW One-litre Car and
Minicar i, perhaps Autospeed readers may be interested in:
Corbin Sparrow/Myers NMG: www.myersmotors.com
Clever: www.greencarcongress.com
Andrew
McKellar
Australia
Weight and Per Person Fuel Consumption
2
In regards to your latest 'Driving Emotion' -
Weight and per person fuel consumption - Driving Emotion
I
think the ONLY reasonable/practical conclusion is that anyone driving solo
should ride a motorcycle, which sounds just dandy to me! (2-wheeled commuter
constantly fighting against the SUV'd masses)
PS - how good are the
figures for say a lower performing Suzuki GS500 with 2 people
onboard?
Conrad F Smith
Australia
Weight and Per Person Fuel Consumption
3
Energy Consumption Per Person Per Kilometre
Based on section 1.5.2.5 of the Victorian Bicycle Strategy 1991 (project
managed by John McK Lambert)
Community concerns about the environment will
result in initiatives that are likely to increase the numbers of potential
bicyclists significantly.
Specifically this will relate to the effects on
the environment of high rates of energy use, including increased levels of
carbon dioxide and other global warming gases.
Bikes are the most energy efficient form of
transport, and hence deserve to be encouraged as part of an overall program to
ensure that Victorians use the most appropriate mode for any trip.
The original VBS paperwork will be somewhere in
VicRoads archives.
Energy Use Per Person Per Kilometre In
Original Vbs Document
Mode |
Kilojoules/person/km |
|
Car—driver only |
4800-5800 |
|
Car and one passenger |
2500-3000 |
|
Car and two passengers |
1700-2100 |
|
Car and three passengers |
1300-1600 |
|
Transit bus |
2400-2600 |
|
Tram |
1500-2500 |
|
Transit rail |
1300-2300 |
|
Motorcycle |
1900-2300 |
|
Moped |
750-850 |
|
Pedestrian walker |
200-260 |
|
Bicycle |
90-210 |
Energy Use Per Person Per Kilometre From
Spreadsheet Below
Mode |
Kilojoules/ person/
km |
Approximate litres of fuel per
100 km |
|
Large Petrol Car—driver only |
5780 |
15.1 |
|
Medium Petrol Car —driver only |
5010 |
13.0 |
|
Travel by taxi |
3970 |
11.3 |
|
Small Petrol Car—driver only |
4280 |
11.1 |
|
Larger Diesel Car —driver only |
4180 |
9.8 |
|
Medium Diesel Car —driver only |
3640 |
8.5 |
|
1000 cc motorbike |
3100 |
8.1 |
|
Small Diesel Car—driver only |
3160 |
7.4 |
|
Travel by bus |
2510 |
5.9 |
|
Travel by tram |
2450 |
5.7 |
|
250 cc motorbike |
2150 |
5.0 |
|
Small Diesel Car - one passenger |
1580 |
4.1 |
|
Travel by train |
1240 |
2.9 |
|
Small Diesel Car - two passengers |
1060 |
2.8 |
|
50 cc Moped |
890 |
2.3 |
|
Small Diesel Car - three passengers |
800 |
2.1 |
|
Travel by bicycle |
210 |
0.5 |
|
Walking |
210 |
0.5 |
Note these are energy usage for "whole of life"
including the energy used in making steel, aluminium, tyres, manufacture, fuel,
oil, parts, losses in transmission for trams, et cetera. Actual likely life and
total passenger kilometres are used.
As you can see, a car with two occupants is
competitive with public transport. This is principally because at peak hour,
return trips are near empty for public transport, thereby reducing occupancy,
and public transport vehicles are generally very heavily built so that the
energy in manufacture is high and the energy required to accelerated them is
also high. In addition, peak travel requires a lot of public transport vehicles
many of which are then under-utilised for the rest of the day.
Spreadsheet Data
|
MANUFACTURING ENERGY PER KM: |
Note: One calorie = 4.186 kJ |
|
Mode of travel: |
Weight (kg) |
Energy to build (MJ/kg) |
Median life (years) |
Annual travel (km) |
Energy (Cal/km) |
|
Travel by small car: |
1000 |
101.8 |
10 |
15000 |
162 |
|
Travel by medium car: |
1200 |
101.8 |
10 |
17200 |
170 |
|
Travel by larger car: |
1400 |
101.8 |
10 |
19000 |
179 |
|
Travel by taxi: |
1200 |
101.8 |
8 |
87500 |
42 |
|
Travel by bus: |
13000 |
88.6 |
15 |
55000 |
334 |
|
Travel by tram: |
35000 |
75.0 |
25 |
47500 |
528 |
|
Travel by train: |
168000 |
75.0 |
15 |
140000 |
1433 |
|
Travel by 1000 cc motorbike: |
260 |
122.2 |
8 |
10000 |
95 |
|
Travel by 250 cc motorbike: |
125 |
122.2 |
8 |
8000 |
57 |
|
Travel by 50 cc moped: |
25 |
110.0 |
8 |
4000 |
21 |
|
Travel by bicycle: |
14 |
110.0 |
8 |
2500 |
18 |
|
FUEL AND OIL ENERGY PER KILOMETRE: |
|
Mode of travel: |
Kilometres per litre (km/l) |
Energy per litre (MJ/l) |
Fuel Energy per km (Cal/km) |
Oil Energy per km (Cal/km) |
Total Energy per km (Cal/km) |
|
Travel by large petrol car: |
8.5 |
38.4 |
1079 |
86 |
1165 |
|
Travel by large diesel car: |
14.2 |
42.7 |
720 |
58 |
778 |
|
Travel by medium petrol car: |
10.0 |
38.4 |
917 |
73 |
990 |
|
Travel by medium diesel car: |
16.7 |
42.7 |
612 |
49 |
661 |
|
Travel by small petrol car: |
12.0 |
38.4 |
764 |
61 |
825 |
|
Travel by small diesel car: |
20.0 |
42.7 |
510 |
41 |
551 |
|
Travel by taxi: |
5.0 |
35.0 |
1672 |
134 |
1806 |
|
Travel by bus: |
2.0 |
42.7 |
5100 |
408 |
5508 |
|
Travel by tram: |
2.1 |
42.7 |
4857 |
389 |
5246 |
|
Travel by train: |
1.5 |
42.7 |
6800 |
544 |
7344 |
|
Travel by 1000 cc motorbike: |
16.0 |
38.4 |
573 |
46 |
619 |
|
Travel by 250 cc motorbike: |
23.0 |
38.4 |
399 |
32 |
431 |
|
Travel by 50 cc moped: |
70.0 |
38.4 |
131 |
10 |
141 |
|
Travel by bicycle: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
PERSONAL ENERGY USED PER KILOMETRE: |
|
Mode of travel: |
Commuters |
Crew |
Energy use per person (Cal/hr) |
Mean speed (km/h) |
Energy use per
Kilometre (Cal/km) |
|
Travel by car: Driver only |
1 |
|
135 |
24.0 |
6 |
|
Travel by car: One passenger |
2 |
|
135 |
24.0 |
11 |
|
Travel by car: Two passengers |
3 |
|
135 |
24.0 |
17 |
|
Travel by car: Three passengers |
4 |
|
135 |
24.0 |
23 |
|
Travel by taxi: |
2 |
1.0 |
135 |
24.0 |
17 |
|
Travel by bus: |
10 |
1.2 |
135 |
20.0 |
68 |
|
Travel by tram: |
10 |
2.1 |
135 |
15.0 |
90 |
|
Travel by train: |
30 |
2.0 |
135 |
32.0 |
127 |
|
Travel by motorbike: |
1 |
|
190 |
30.0 |
6 |
|
Travel by moped: |
1 |
|
190 |
20.0 |
10 |
|
Travel by bicycle: |
1 |
|
280 |
12.0 |
23 |
|
Walking: |
1 |
|
270 |
5.5 |
49 |
|
ENERGY USED IN TYRE WEAR PER KILOMETRE: |
|
Mode of travel: |
Number of tyres |
Weight of tyres |
Energy to build (MJ/kg) |
Average tyre life (km) |
Energy use per km (Cal/km) |
|
Travel by car: |
4 |
9.5 |
140 |
40000 |
32 |
|
Travel by taxi: |
4 |
9.5 |
140 |
40000 |
32 |
|
Travel by bus: |
6 |
57.0 |
140 |
120000 |
95 |
|
Travel by tram: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Travel by train: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Travel by 1000 cc motorbike: |
2 |
6.0 |
140 |
20000 |
20 |
|
Travel by 250 cc motorbike: |
2 |
4.0 |
140 |
18000 |
15 |
|
Travel by 50 cc moped: |
2 |
3.0 |
140 |
5000 |
40 |
|
Travel by bicycle: |
2 |
0.7 |
140 |
5000 |
9 |
|
Walking: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
SUMMARY OF ENERGY USED PER COMMUTER PER KM |
|
Mode of travel: |
Manufact-uring energy |
Fuel & Oil energy |
Energy use per commuter |
Tyre energy use |
Total Energy per km |
USA Data |
Total Energy per km |
USA Data |
|
(Cal/ person.km) |
(KJ/ person.km) |
|
Travel by larger petrol car: Driver only |
179 |
1165 |
6 |
32 |
1382 |
1860 |
5780 |
7800 |
|
Travel by larger diesel car: Driver only |
179 |
778 |
6 |
32 |
999 |
1860 |
4180 |
7800 |
|
Travel by medium petrol car: Driver only |
170 |
990 |
6 |
32 |
1198 |
|
5010 |
|
|
Travel by medium diesel car: Driver only |
170 |
990 |
6 |
32 |
869 |
|
3640 |
|
|
Travel by small petrol car: Driver only |
162 |
825 |
6 |
32 |
1023 |
|
4280 |
|
|
Travel by small diesel car: Driver only |
162 |
551 |
6 |
32 |
755 |
|
3160 |
|
|
Travel by small diesel car: 1 passenger |
81 |
276 |
6 |
16 |
378 |
|
1580 |
|
|
Travel by small diesel car: 2 passengers |
54 |
184 |
6 |
11 |
254 |
|
1060 |
|
|
Travel by small diesel car: 3 passengers |
41 |
138 |
6 |
8 |
192 |
|
800 |
|
|
Travel by taxi: |
21 |
903 |
8.5 |
16 |
948 |
|
3970 |
|
|
Travel by bus: |
33 |
551 |
7 |
10 |
600 |
920 |
2510 |
3900 |
|
Travel by tram: |
53 |
525 |
9 |
|
586 |
|
2450 |
|
|
Travel by train: |
48 |
245 |
4 |
|
297 |
885 |
1240 |
3700 |
|
Travel by 1000 cc motorbike: |
95 |
619 |
6 |
20 |
740 |
|
3100 |
|
|
Travel by 250 cc motorbike: |
57 |
431 |
10 |
15 |
513 |
|
2150 |
|
|
Travel by 50 cc moped: |
21 |
141 |
10 |
40 |
212 |
|
890 |
|
|
Travel by bicycle: |
18 |
|
23 |
9 |
50 |
35 |
210 |
100 |
|
Walking: |
|
|
49 |
|
49 |
100 |
210 |
400 |
Did you enjoy this article?
Please consider supporting AutoSpeed with a small contribution. More Info...
|
More of our most popular articles.
|
|
|
|