Worlds Fastest Hydrogen Car!
11-27-2007, 08:28 PM
#1
Team Owner
Thread Starter
Worlds Fastest Hydrogen Car!
Last fall, the top speed record for a car with a diesel engine was broken by the JCB Dieselmax racer (see related article below) at the Bonneville Salt Flats in Utah. This year, the top speed record was broken by another alternative fuel vehicle, the Ford Fusion Hydrogen 999.
Not only did the Fusion Hydrogen break the speed record by achieving an averaged speed of 207.279 mph, it's actually the first production-based hydrogen fuel car of its kind. The car is the result of collaboration between Ford engineers, students at Ohio State University, Roush Racing, and Ballard Power Systems. The car, designed by the Ford engineers, uses the electric motor from a 2004 electric race car, the Buckeye Bullet. That car set the record for fastest electric car, going 314 mph.
Besides working on the Ford Fusion Hydrogen car, the Ohio State University students have been working on a successor to the 2004 Buckeye Bullet. Dubbed the Buckeye Bullet 2, the new car is expected to be even faster: the students are expecting a top speed in the neighborhood of 350 mph.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
JCB Dieselmax Claims Title of World's Fastest Diesel
THE YEAR 2006 will be remembered as the one in which diesels became a force in motorsports. On the heels of Audi's R10 Le Mans champion comes the JCB Dieselmax, a twin-engine, all-wheel-drive streamliner that set a new world land-speed record for diesel-powere
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Discuss in Our Forums
Not only did the Fusion Hydrogen break the speed record by achieving an averaged speed of 207.279 mph, it's actually the first production-based hydrogen fuel car of its kind. The car is the result of collaboration between Ford engineers, students at Ohio State University, Roush Racing, and Ballard Power Systems. The car, designed by the Ford engineers, uses the electric motor from a 2004 electric race car, the Buckeye Bullet. That car set the record for fastest electric car, going 314 mph.
Besides working on the Ford Fusion Hydrogen car, the Ohio State University students have been working on a successor to the 2004 Buckeye Bullet. Dubbed the Buckeye Bullet 2, the new car is expected to be even faster: the students are expecting a top speed in the neighborhood of 350 mph.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
JCB Dieselmax Claims Title of World's Fastest Diesel
THE YEAR 2006 will be remembered as the one in which diesels became a force in motorsports. On the heels of Audi's R10 Le Mans champion comes the JCB Dieselmax, a twin-engine, all-wheel-drive streamliner that set a new world land-speed record for diesel-powere
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Discuss in Our Forums
11-27-2007, 08:55 PM
#3
Le Mans Master
Member Since: Feb 2000
Location: Bedford NH
Posts: 5,708
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Cruise-In II Veteran
This is the kind of innovation that racing is supposed to, or rather used to, cultivate in Indy cars, F1 etc. I would like to see a revised version of "The Blue Flame" http://www.bluebird-electric.net/blue_flame.htm using hydrogen and go reset the LSR. It certainly has the potential, the Space Shuttle Main Engines are liquid hydrogen-liquid oxygen, and it propels that huge brick 17,500 MPH (aprox). Hoiw cool is it to have water vapor as it's exaust? That would mean no more stupid "smog" tests! On the other hand, as the Shuttle and Hindenburg tragically demonstrated, safety is an issue that needs more development as well.
11-27-2007, 09:24 PM
#4
Team Owner
Thread Starter
if it is +10 I'll be dirt napping even +0 is a good chance so I'll be looking down at it or send me some email down below.
Al the racing series want to slow down so they should do it on fuel restrictions and engine size
Al the racing series want to slow down so they should do it on fuel restrictions and engine size
11-29-2007, 06:04 PM
#5
Racer
Member Since: Feb 2003
Location: McHenry IL
Posts: 332
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This is the kind of innovation that racing is supposed to, or rather used to, cultivate in Indy cars, F1 etc. I would like to see a revised version of "The Blue Flame" http://www.bluebird-electric.net/blue_flame.htm using hydrogen and go reset the LSR. It certainly has the potential, the Space Shuttle Main Engines are liquid hydrogen-liquid oxygen, and it propels that huge brick 17,500 MPH (aprox). Hoiw cool is it to have water vapor as it's exaust? That would mean no more stupid "smog" tests! On the other hand, as the Shuttle and Hindenburg tragically demonstrated, safety is an issue that needs more development as well.
Hydrogen is looking to be safer (less volitale?) than gas, no explosion when tank is punctured and fuel dissapates into air rather than pooling on the ground waiting to be ignited like gas.
I don't know if an exploding Hydrogen tank would be any more destructive than a gas tank?
The Hindenburg acually went up so fast because the fabric and coating used for the skin were very flammable.
No smog is great but freeing us from Middle-East ties is even better!
11-29-2007, 06:12 PM
#6
Le Mans Master
Member Since: Feb 2000
Location: Bedford NH
Posts: 5,708
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Cruise-In II Veteran
Not really, it is such a small molecule that it leaks so easily. I worked on hydrogen fueled rocket motors and leakage is an issue in even first class equipment. Notice the sparks under the shuttle before they light the main engines, that is to light the leaks off constantly so when the engines light off, it doesn't cause an explosion of the collected gases. It is certainly do-able, but the standards must be upgraded as compared to "normal" automotive practice. I am all for it!
11-29-2007, 06:29 PM
#7
This is the kind of innovation that racing is supposed to, or rather used to, cultivate in Indy cars, F1 etc. I would like to see a revised version of "The Blue Flame" http://www.bluebird-electric.net/blue_flame.htm using hydrogen and go reset the LSR. It certainly has the potential, the Space Shuttle Main Engines are liquid hydrogen-liquid oxygen, and it propels that huge brick 17,500 MPH (aprox). Hoiw cool is it to have water vapor as it's exaust? That would mean no more stupid "smog" tests! On the other hand, as the Shuttle and Hindenburg tragically demonstrated, safety is an issue that needs more development as well.
Did you hear about the proposed Hydrogen 500? I can't wait to see it. It should be like moving racing back at least 50 years. Nowadays, a 24 hour race is basically a sprint race. Some of these hydrogen cars might not even make it 500 miles.
http://www.autoblog.com/2007/01/12/h...oming-in-2009/
11-30-2007, 07:16 PM
#8
I just saw an article in the USA Today today that claims research shows that E85 (85% ethanol/15% gasoline) did "poorly in cost-benefit analysis". It claims that "advanced diesel" provided the best performance/fuel economy?!? I guess the main reason is because "ethanol has less then 70% of the energy of gasoline" causing a drop in mpg. However it looks like if gas prices rise/corn prices drop, the E85 will look better costwise.
Does this seem accurate? Can someone explain what "advanced diesel" is? Pros/cons to running an E20 blend it says could safely be used in current engines?
Thanks!
Does this seem accurate? Can someone explain what "advanced diesel" is? Pros/cons to running an E20 blend it says could safely be used in current engines?
Thanks!
11-30-2007, 07:22 PM
#9
Don't worry, we'll all send you emails via "hotmail" down there LOLAnyway I personally don't plan on being a dirt clod sucker like you! I want one of those little concrete houses like they have in New Orleans. (and yeah I'm thankful to this day that I ended up getting a seat on what turned out to be the last American Airlines flight out of there before the airport closed as Katrina arrived--don't ask
)
11-30-2007, 08:34 PM
#10
Team Owner
Member Since: Mar 2001
Location: Boston, Dallas, Detroit, SoCal, back to Boston MA
Posts: 30,596
Received 238 Likes
on
166 Posts
The 1st fuel cell cars are out.
A fuel cell powering an electric car is way more efficient.
Even though they lack an exhaust note!
The electric car I help build in college went 85mph on 5hp, five!
A fuel cell powering an electric car is way more efficient.
Even though they lack an exhaust note!
The electric car I help build in college went 85mph on 5hp, five!
11-30-2007, 08:46 PM
#11
Tech Contributor
Member Since: Oct 1999
Location: Charlotte, NC (formerly Endicott, NY)
Posts: 40,078
Received 8,919 Likes
on
5,328 Posts
I just saw an article in the USA Today today that claims research shows that E85 (85% ethanol/15% gasoline) did "poorly in cost-benefit analysis". It claims that "advanced diesel" provided the best performance/fuel economy?!? I guess the main reason is because "ethanol has less then 70% of the energy of gasoline" causing a drop in mpg. However it looks like if gas prices rise/corn prices drop, the E85 will look better costwise.
Bill
12-01-2007, 04:54 PM
#12
Whenever you guys speak of biofuels you need to remember that we're more or less maxed out on arable land in the world. If you think about corn, sugar beets, vegetable oil, or anything else, you're just shifting cost to the food supply, AND most likely leading to more deforestation, since the land for the new crops has to come from somewhere.
Switch grass MIGHT work, if it really grows anywhere and people won't get greedy and start swapping it for other crops or start deforestation to make room for switchgrass.
But honestly biofuels seem like a dead end to me, a shortcut at best with ****ty technology.
What do plants do? Store up solar energy in chemical potential energy. I'm sure you guys all understand this, but they break down co2 using solar energy and turn it into hydrocarbons, so that we can burn them again and turn them back into co2.
So why not capture solar energy directly? Start thinking in those terms. We can do it more efficiently than plants can, and it doesn't require as much energy to harvest and convert. We just need to develop cheaper and more efficient solar capture devices (photovoltaic or solar thermal) and we're golden. Of course solar panels also take up realestate, but they can be placed in deserts and on rooftops where they don't interfere as much with nature.
This is where hydrogen comes in. You store solar energy as chemical potential energy in hydrogen, so that you can transport it, and use it in wireless applications like cars. This is only really necessary if batteries don't have as good of an energy density as hydrogen, or they can't be developed to "refill" cars in a usable manner.
Ie: are you gonna go on a 1000 mile road trip, and have to stop for half a day at the 500 mile mark to recharge your batteries? You can swap the batteries out with fully charged ones (seems like a bit of a logistical nightmare), or refill your hydrogen tank like a gas tank and be on your way in a few minutes. So that's hydrogen.
To recap where all these technologies fiit in:
Ethanol/E85 - not sustainable unless some crazy new plant like switchgrass comes along that will grow in deserts or something (if the plant existed, it would be there now, so at the very least we'd need irigation, which is a huge problem. You also need fertilizer, since you can't just keep harvesting and expect plants to grow from water). Can cause major political issues because poor countries will again take the largest burden of losing food, forests, land, etc. The advantage is that it's renewable - driven by solar energy - and is roughly carbon neutral, since you create the same amount of co2 when you burn it as the blant broke down in the first place. Still causes some air pollution.
Biodiesel - uses food crops, same as Ethanol in practically every respect. Carbon neutral.
Oil/Coal - comes out of the ground practically free, will run out, dirty, will change climate, screws up politics. Carbon positive.
Hydrogen - not a fuel in the traditional sense since it doesn't come out of the ground, it needs to be manufactured by breaking down water using electrical or thermal energy. Ie it takes an equal or greater amount of energy to create hydrogen than what you get out of it. Ie: slightly energy negative. So it's only a means for transporting energy, not a traditional fuel. Carbon negative assuming a full carbon neutral or better economy, and still some plants/plankton left in the world to break down CO2 (they are really the only carbon sink).
Solar/Geothermal - the only direct form of renewable energy we have. Since it's the most direct, it's the most efficient. We should use it. Carbon negative assuming blah blah. Hopefully it won't screw up politics since everyone can capture their own sun (of course some will try to take away that right or exploit the weak, but it makes less sense than with oil or biofuels).
Nuclear - non-renewable, has cleanliness issues. Carbon negative blah blah.
Take your pick. IMO the answer has to start with solar/geothermal. We're talking long-term physical sustainability, not even concerned with politics. Although it will be nice to finally give the Middle East and the rest of the Third World a break. Until we find new ways to exploit them.
Switch grass MIGHT work, if it really grows anywhere and people won't get greedy and start swapping it for other crops or start deforestation to make room for switchgrass.
But honestly biofuels seem like a dead end to me, a shortcut at best with ****ty technology.
What do plants do? Store up solar energy in chemical potential energy. I'm sure you guys all understand this, but they break down co2 using solar energy and turn it into hydrocarbons, so that we can burn them again and turn them back into co2.
So why not capture solar energy directly? Start thinking in those terms. We can do it more efficiently than plants can, and it doesn't require as much energy to harvest and convert. We just need to develop cheaper and more efficient solar capture devices (photovoltaic or solar thermal) and we're golden. Of course solar panels also take up realestate, but they can be placed in deserts and on rooftops where they don't interfere as much with nature.
This is where hydrogen comes in. You store solar energy as chemical potential energy in hydrogen, so that you can transport it, and use it in wireless applications like cars. This is only really necessary if batteries don't have as good of an energy density as hydrogen, or they can't be developed to "refill" cars in a usable manner.
Ie: are you gonna go on a 1000 mile road trip, and have to stop for half a day at the 500 mile mark to recharge your batteries? You can swap the batteries out with fully charged ones (seems like a bit of a logistical nightmare), or refill your hydrogen tank like a gas tank and be on your way in a few minutes. So that's hydrogen.
To recap where all these technologies fiit in:
Ethanol/E85 - not sustainable unless some crazy new plant like switchgrass comes along that will grow in deserts or something (if the plant existed, it would be there now, so at the very least we'd need irigation, which is a huge problem. You also need fertilizer, since you can't just keep harvesting and expect plants to grow from water). Can cause major political issues because poor countries will again take the largest burden of losing food, forests, land, etc. The advantage is that it's renewable - driven by solar energy - and is roughly carbon neutral, since you create the same amount of co2 when you burn it as the blant broke down in the first place. Still causes some air pollution.
Biodiesel - uses food crops, same as Ethanol in practically every respect. Carbon neutral.
Oil/Coal - comes out of the ground practically free, will run out, dirty, will change climate, screws up politics. Carbon positive.
Hydrogen - not a fuel in the traditional sense since it doesn't come out of the ground, it needs to be manufactured by breaking down water using electrical or thermal energy. Ie it takes an equal or greater amount of energy to create hydrogen than what you get out of it. Ie: slightly energy negative. So it's only a means for transporting energy, not a traditional fuel. Carbon negative assuming a full carbon neutral or better economy, and still some plants/plankton left in the world to break down CO2 (they are really the only carbon sink).
Solar/Geothermal - the only direct form of renewable energy we have. Since it's the most direct, it's the most efficient. We should use it. Carbon negative assuming blah blah. Hopefully it won't screw up politics since everyone can capture their own sun (of course some will try to take away that right or exploit the weak, but it makes less sense than with oil or biofuels).
Nuclear - non-renewable, has cleanliness issues. Carbon negative blah blah.
Take your pick. IMO the answer has to start with solar/geothermal. We're talking long-term physical sustainability, not even concerned with politics. Although it will be nice to finally give the Middle East and the rest of the Third World a break. Until we find new ways to exploit them.
Last edited by steel_3d; 12-01-2007 at 05:24 PM.
12-01-2007, 08:47 PM
#14
Safety Car
Not only did the Fusion Hydrogen break the speed record by achieving an averaged speed of 207.279 mph, it's actually the first production-based hydrogen fuel car of its kind. The car is the result of collaboration between Ford engineers, students at Ohio State University, Roush Racing, and Ballard Power Systems. The car, designed by the Ford engineers, uses the electric motor from a 2004 electric race car, the Buckeye Bullet. That car set the record for fastest electric car, going 314 mph.
