Letting innovation loose
“Our partnership with EPA will help us to develop and nurture science and engineering talent with real-world training and experience, allowing these engineering graduates to transition more rapidly into careers in the green vehicle industry.” –Patrick Davis, the U.S. Department of Energy’s vehicle technologies program manager, on the addition of the Environmental Protection Agency to the EcoCAR consortium
One of the important things going on largely behind the scenes in the realm of vehicle research is an effort by various government agencies – notably the Department of Energy (DOE) and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) – and manufacturers, like General Motors, to spur innovation.
And what better way to do than hold a nationwide contest pitting research teams made of university students and professors from the U.S. and Canada against one another? It’s a classic form of “friendly competition” that fires up imaginations, unleashes the drive to win, yet in the end benefits everyone involved – especially the environment, where new designs and technological paths can help further lessen the impact of motorized vehicles.
The EcoCAR Challenge is one such event, sponsored by DOE (and the EPA as well now) along with GM that challenges 17 universities across the U.S. and Canada to redesign and reengineer a 2009 Saturn VUE (a small SUV now sadly on its way to extinction) to minimize fuel consumption and reduce emissions. It’s a competition that – in the words of Margo Oge, EPA’s director of the office of transportation and air quality – is designed to “inspire” the next generation of automotive scientists and engineers.
[Here’s a look at the teams on “Day One” of this year’s EcoCAR event.]
Oge’s office provided technical advice and mentoring in the areas of greenhouse gas and tailpipe emissions for this year’s “EcoCAR event” and also conducted dynamometer emissions testing on the competition vehicles at the EPA’s National Vehicle and Fuel Emissions Laboratory in Ann Arbor, Michigan. GM provides vehicles, vehicle components, seed money, technical mentoring and operational support, while the DOE and its research and development facility, Argonne National Laboratory, provides competition management, team evaluation and technical and logistical support.
The Ohio State University (at left) earned top honors at the 2009 finals held in Toronto, Canada, this year – beating out 17 EcoCAR university teams with an Extended Range Electric Vehicle (EREV) powered by a 1.8 liter engine and fueled by E85 ethanol – a blended fuel comprised of 85% ethanol and 15% gasoline.
The second place vehicle design, engineered by students at Canada’s University of Victoria in Toronto, also was an EREV operating on E85 ethanol, while Mississippi State University snagged third place for its EREV model, powered by B20 – a blend of 20% biodiesel fuel, made from soybeans, and 80% regular petroleum diesel.
[Here’s a look at “Day Four” of the EcoCAR challenge.]
One of the reasons government agencies like the DOE are getting involved in such efforts like EcoCAR is that they know innovation can’t be manufactured on an assembly line. Patrick Davis, DOE’s vehicle technologies program manager, noted that innovation gets back to the concept of the “backyard garage,” where human minds tinker and toy with all sorts of possibilities.
Apple, for example, got its start in a Los Altos garage where the now-famous Steven Jobs and lesser known Steve Wozniak tinkered with their new computer prototype. Stanford University classmates Bill Hewlett and Dave Packard built HP’s first product in a Palo Alto garage in 1939. And, more recently, Google founders Larry Page and Sergey Brin forever changed the Internet in a Menlo Park garage.
The garage, in Davis’ view, is an icon of innovation, emblematic of a spirit of invention that gives us hope that together any challenge can be overcome.
[Davis shares more of his insight on the DOE’s work with the EcoCAR challenge in the clip below.]
Hopefully, despite the troubled economic times we’re living through, competitions like the “EcoCAR challenge” can keep going, for at some point, hopefully, they just might produce a silver bullet of sorts to solve the fuel consumption and emission hurdles all motor vehicles face today.





October 8th, 2009 at 4:14 am
Do you think that the future of propulsion lies in the modification of the internal combustion engine? It seems to me that every time the engineers make it more efficient, they hang more “stuff” on it to make it as inefficient as it was. Take the 425 Cat of the 70s and compare it to the maintenance challenged engines of today. The Cat was a very tough engine that worked well for whoever used it that took care of it. It got between 5-8 mpg depending on the driver. Maintenance on it was minimal and the cost was high for the day but very low by todays standards. It was very mechanic friendly. That made it much in demand for owner drivers.
Today we have an MP10, let’s say, kinda comparable to the Cat, gets 5 to 8 mpg, costs about four times as much as the old Cat, is impossible to work on, and everything on it costs an arm & a leg. Yesterday I changed a coolant hose on one that took me five hours! I had to strip most of the left side down to get to it. Granted, I don’t work on trucks much any more, a tech that works on the engine every day would probably do a little better, but not a lot.
I guess the point I’m trying to make is that I think, at least for the long term they are spitting into the wind. We already have an efficient IC engine. The gains we make in “belching black smoke” are not as obvious to me as they seem to be to others. We just can’t see the emmisions that are coming out any more. Are they more harmful? There are those who say they are. I think we should be looking at other means of propulsion. Battery? I don’t think so. Turbine? It’s a step. Where is the Rudolph Diesel of today?
October 8th, 2009 at 7:57 am
O.K., innovation is good and competition is good, no question about it. Where is the carrot? The message is: “Get rid of the profit motive”. Don’t be innovative for money! That’s so . . . capitalist. Do it because your government WANTS you to do it.
Do you really believe that Jobs, Wozniak, Page, Brin et al DIDN’T want to profit from their labor? Come on! One of the main driving forces in the American economy has always been competition. Why do they compete? Because there’s money to be made by building a better mousetrap.
It would benefit Americans to take another look at Wealth of Nations by Adam Smith. Check out the part about the invisible hand. The left has made it a goal to disparage the profit motive (”obscene profits”), but capitalism and personal freedom have made America the richest country on the planet. Don’t fall for the “partnership” between the government and the innovator.
Leave a Comment
Advertisement
About
Trucks at Work: Sean Kilcarr comments on trends affecting the many different strata of the trucking industry -- light and medium duty fleets up through over-the-road truckload, less-than-truckload, and private fleet operationsAdvertisement
Categories
Calendar
Archives
Your Account
Subscribe