A buggy for the construction of an ecological vehicle.

[raymon]

After waiting in vain for the 1 liter wolkswagen:

http://www.netcarshow.com/volkswagen/20 ... r_concept/

having drooled over the Mathis 333:
http://auto-satisfaction.eu/2010/08/16/mathis-333-1946/

I was wondering if, starting from a 150 or 250 buggy, we could not without major modifications and keep the original homologation make a 2-seater vehicle consuming 2 liters per 100km and being able to drive at 90 km / h.

For that we could go on this basis:
http://www.quad-depot.com/fr/html/pgo_buggy_150.html

We can add some simple modifications:
Plexi polyester body
narrower and higher tire but the homologation problem ...
Does the automatic gearbox consume a lot?

What do you think?

[dirk pitt]

it is not an automatic transmission but a belt variator. the worst in terms of yield.
the rest of the vehicle may be a good base but the transmission needs to be reviewed. putting a motorcycle gearbox could be a solution (6 reports).
on the homologation side, you have to forget anyway as soon as you change something.

[raymon]

It would be uninteresting to know the loss of additional yield of a box of this kind compared to a conventional box. However I think that with this type of vehicle smaller tires and with a basic bodywork which will not modify the characteristics of the chassis we will be able to have very interesting consumption results. If the particularly oversized tires were replaced by AX AX Citroën tires for example. If we pulled the machine a little longer and we built a light body to improve the cx the results could be spectacular.
The passage to the mines would perhaps not be very complicated especially since it is not a car since the machine weighs only 250 kg.

[chatelot16]

for low consumption you need a real body! when everything is open it's like a motorbike: a lamentable aerodynamic loss and greater fuel consumption than a good small car

yes the design of a small light car is interesting, but no need to get confused with a badly screwed up base anyway impossible to modify legally

on the other hand the manufacture of any part of a machine and the reception at the mine for its own use is still possible ... but unfortunately no marketing is possible ... and to develop an engine without hope of selling it is a bit sad

we are no longer at the time when the one who built a tacot or the bottom of his garage then became marius berliet

to sell a vehicle there are endless costs ... but I see the hope of a solution to do a little more than a vehicle alone

create a company therefore one of the activities will be to develop vehicles, but not to sell anything, simply to allow the associates to manufacture each a personal vehicle, and to pass it to the mines to make test on road (and to use it freely in any legality)

vehicle construction is not at all my priority, but if some are interested in this kind of approach I am ready for the company that I am going to do also serve that

once a certain number of vehicle realize and experimented, it will become easier to be taken with the serious one to pass to a higher speed

[BobFuck]

I was wondering if, starting from a 150 or 250 buggy, we could not without major modifications and keep the original homologation make a 2-seater vehicle consuming 2 liters per 100km and being able to drive at 90 km / h.

A vehicle capable of traveling at 70 with an electric power of 500W already exists:

http://en.velomobiel.nl/quest/

They will tell me "yes, but it's not secure": ok, who volunteers for a crash test in the aforementioned buggy at 90 km / h? or at 70?

What is the concept of a car these days?

1- a wheeled box carrying at least 1 person and some luggage sheltered from the vagaries of the weather

The VW 1L, the velomobile, the twizy meet this criterion ... for the buggy, uh ...

2- max speed at least 130 km / h (we can accept 90 if necessary)

There, it is more delicate, since this speed imposes passive safety measures which will severely increase and weigh down the vehicle and therefore rot its performance in terms of energy consumption.

In the VW 1L there are: ABS, ESP, airbags, compression zones, etc. It is a car designed to drive fast with good passive safety. The velomobile and the buggy have zero passive safety (and personally I think that at 70 the velomobile would be even safer than the buggy, apart from a much better handling, not to mention the brakes ...) and when impact from the rear, I don't think the buggy is much safer ...

3- compatible with usual traffic conditions

This is where it shits:

- you need a power-to-weight ratio (1 driver and some luggage included) of at least 15 kg / hp (AX 1.0L from 1991) to have acceleration, let's say, tolerable, although 10 kg / hp is much better.

- and, let's say, a 0 to 90 in 15 seconds (again, I'm generous ...)

The original 1L has a power to weight ratio of 46 kg / hp, which is 3x worse than an AX 1.0i from 1991 !!!! So it accelerates like a fucking unsaleable iron, and in a 6% hill, it will not go faster than 90 km / h, full throttle, assuming the box offers a report giving the full power of the engine at this speed ...

Personally, it wouldn't bother me, I don't drive sports (when I want to drive, I go into the woods with my ATV). But it is unsaleable.

Reason why the 1L version 2 which will be produced (because salable) should be called the 2L, since it will consume 2L / 100, with a diesel engine of 47hp plus an electric of 20hp ... Another gas plant. ..

> for low fuel consumption you need a real body!
> when everything is open it's like a motorbike: a loss
> dismal aerodynamics and higher fuel consumption
> has a good little car

Oh yes !

A well-shaped small car has an SCx equivalent to a bicycle! ...

The buggy reminds me of the Ariel Atom, this car is a bomb that explodes everything on circuits with a lot of turns, but in circuits with a lot of straight lines (Nurburgring style), it is systematically very poorly classified because very few aerodynamic...

Velomobile: SCx = 0,06m²

The 1L is actually closer to a comfortable velomobile with airbags and a slightly powerful engine ... with the same disadvantages: slow uphill and miserable accelerations, and the same advantages: ridiculous consumption.

To be able to take advantage of this type of vehicle, you would need adapted roads, designed to limit consumption, that is to say limit the number of raises, that is to say roads designed like Dutch cycle paths! ...

If we keep our speed bumps, baffles, and other stupid arrangements intended to compensate for the stupid psychology of "I want to go full speed even if I only do an average 30 km / h door to door (even 12 km / h in the city)" , then the hybrid is the only solution.

Conclusion: buy a 250cc motorcycle. Or electric. It will rain as much on your face as in the buggy, but in addition you will have decent handling, brakes, and no parking problems or traffic jams.

[raymon]

I was talking about the buggy because it seems to me to be a way of showing that we do not care about our mouths with a smart that exceeds a ton and all these cars full of useless gadgets that make them very expensive for us and for the planet. I do not think that a bodied buggy is the best vehicle for this movement every day but rather demonstrate by this means that we could easily make a car of less than 500 kg cheap without precious materials like carbon like on the L1 at 35000 euros not for months. On the other hand Mathis in 1940 had manufactured a car with 3 wheels, 3 places, 3litres to the cent.

That today we cannot manufacture the same thing in a more modern way seems strange to me. Of course the safety pretext is for me a car does not need to run at 180 km / h and all the security that goes with 90 suffice.

[BobFuck]

> we could easily make a car weighing less than 500 kg
> inexpensive without precious materials

We can, and it's already available ...

For 350 kg, you have a car without a license. I have never been in one of these vehicles, but hey, it seems to work.

3L / 100 (the performance of small engines is not very good).

There are electric models, with a 4 kW motor (the legal limit) ...

Note that for a frontal crash to 90 in a wall, without modern passive safety equipment (and the ton that goes with it), you are dead.

[raymon]

3L / 100 (the performance of small engines is not very good).

Yes like on quads these engines are equipped with an automatic transmission.
Yes the engines which have a good performance are the large 2-stroke diesel engines of 50% container carrier it seems to me.

For safety we know how to make a 1kg F500 light and solid with a 2.5l 10 cylinder engine which is particularly safe and does not resist crash too badly. Do you all have to ride a Hummer to be safe? I find it particularly shocking to people who drive in a 4x4 and who say they have this type of vehicle to be safe, at least when they bump into a twingo. more bodily harm! Bikes and motorbikes that are particularly dangerous could be banned from circulation.

Note that for a frontal crash to 90 in a wall, without modern passive safety equipment (and the ton that goes with it), you are dead.

With a normal car too! The euroncap test is done at 64kmh.

[BobFuck]

I find particularly shocking the people who drive in 4x4 and who say they have this type of vehicle to be safe

Until the 4x4 turns around ...

Bikes and motorbikes that are particularly dangerous could be banned from circulation.

Speak no misfortune!
By the way the bike is not dangerous, it is the one who crushes you who is

[chatelot16]

of course it is not the bike that is dangerous! it's cars and trucks around!

fortunately we still have the right to use our bike

why wouldn't we have the right to use a light vehicle or we will still be a little bit better protected than by bike

the vehicle category already exists: it is cars without a license

alas car manufacturers without a license are doing more and more imitation of large cars, far too expensive! more expensive than real cars

there is something to invent something, simpler and completely oriented hunting for savings