3 ms·

The monkey gets 160+mpg, it would be difficult to improve much on that. Certainly not going to get a 2x multiple of it for cheaper than you can increase the fue

The monkey gets 160+mpg, it would be difficult to improve much on that. Certainly not going to get a 2x multiple of it for cheaper than you can increase the fuel tank by an order of magnitude.

gpm 3y ago
Good for a consumer vehicle. For a random stunt it would be pretty easy to improve on that. Start with things like "aerodynamic fairings" and "low rolling resistance tires". Someone above linked a solar car, which went roughly the same distance, significantly faster. Given that it apparently had 1.8kw nameplate capacity solar panels... and it covered 3000 km in 30 hours, we know it's (substantially better than) 1.8kwh/100km (at 100kph!). 0.03 gallons of gasoline release 1kwh of energy when burned, combined with the above the solar car was getting the equivalent of 1150 mpg. This trip would have taken 2.26 gallons (falsely assuming perfect efficiency, but then we get to ditch all the weight and aerodynamic losses from having solar panels on board... and I assumed the solar panels operated continuously at their nameplate capacity). That's still slightly larger than the Honda Monkey's 1.5 gallon tank, but it's not unreasonable to think that someone could have done this. It would have been a lot cooler than "strapping on more fuel tanks" IMO.
- ilyt 3y ago
  > and "low rolling resistance tires". also called "dying in motorcycle accident" > Someone above linked a solar car, which went roughly the same distance, significantly faster. On a significantly straighter road, in significantly sunnier place than "trip across the europe"
  - gpm 3y ago
    Yes, I said not for a consumer vehicle. If it was practical to get an order of magnitude improvement in fuel economy, someone would have done that. I was just defending that it was legitimate to feel let down by the title.

3 ms·

The monkey gets 160+mpg, it would be difficult to improve much on that. Certainly not going to get a 2x multiple of it for cheaper than you can increase the fue

by mtreis86 3y ago

The monkey gets 160+mpg, it would be difficult to improve much on that. Certainly not going to get a 2x multiple of it for cheaper than you can increase the fuel tank by an order of magnitude.

gpm 3y ago
Good for a consumer vehicle. For a random stunt it would be pretty easy to improve on that. Start with things like "aerodynamic fairings" and "low rolling resistance tires". Someone above linked a solar car, which went roughly the same distance, significantly faster. Given that it apparently had 1.8kw nameplate capacity solar panels... and it covered 3000 km in 30 hours, we know it's (substantially better than) 1.8kwh/100km (at 100kph!). 0.03 gallons of gasoline release 1kwh of energy when burned, combined with the above the solar car was getting the equivalent of 1150 mpg. This trip would have taken 2.26 gallons (falsely assuming perfect efficiency, but then we get to ditch all the weight and aerodynamic losses from having solar panels on board... and I assumed the solar panels operated continuously at their nameplate capacity). That's still slightly larger than the Honda Monkey's 1.5 gallon tank, but it's not unreasonable to think that someone could have done this. It would have been a lot cooler than "strapping on more fuel tanks" IMO.
- ilyt 3y ago
  > and "low rolling resistance tires". also called "dying in motorcycle accident" > Someone above linked a solar car, which went roughly the same distance, significantly faster. On a significantly straighter road, in significantly sunnier place than "trip across the europe"
  - gpm 3y ago
    Yes, I said not for a consumer vehicle. If it was practical to get an order of magnitude improvement in fuel economy, someone would have done that. I was just defending that it was legitimate to feel let down by the title.