An X-Prize for automobiles may be on the horizon
.JPG)
For those of
you who were enthralled with the X-Prize for personal space travel (I honestly feel that Burt Rutan's victory in
that contest was one of the biggest engineering accomplishments that my generation has witnessed), you'll be happy to
learn that Peter Diamandis intends to expand on the concept. While the founder of the X Prize Foundation will
next bring the efforts of private parties -motivated by a nice chunk of cash and wide recognition - to
the task of human genome sequencing, the intention is to bring some wide-open competition to transportation challenges
as well.
Under consideration are contests for improvement in mileage and manufacturing processes. Diamandis states, "Why do we still drive cars that use an internal combustion engine and only get 30 miles per gallon? I think that we'll see some amazing achievements in this area." We can only hope so, because I sense a certain lack of urgency from within the industry.
Diamandis feels that such contests are an excellent way to break through bureaucratic strangleholds (aw, no, that'd never be the way anyone would describe the auto industry...) and "allowing brilliant innovators and geniuses to shine." Need we point out that the biggest innovations in the auto world came not from cross-functional product teams or focus groups but rather from a few dedicated individuals? To say that I'm excited about this news would be a dramatic understatement.
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
Dennis C 5:16PM (2/17/2006)
The last draft I saw from the WTN was the prize was for a:
Demonstration of a 4-seat vehicle able to achieve 200 mpg in a cross-country race.
I sure hope that they dont focus only on fossil fuels or even carbon-based fuels. Instead it should be something like 2000 miles without refueling and no more than x pounds of carbon (say 50 pounds) in form consumed.
Just like the X prize, my guess is that it will be won by an individual with stars in their eyes and not big companies like Lockheed, GM, ..
Reply
Matt 10:32PM (1/31/2006)
This is simply an alternative to the patent system. If you were to invent a magical car, and obtain an enforceable patent on it, you would be able to make far more money than what is available as a purse for the X-Prize.
I wonder if technology fields which are dominated by 2 or 3 conglomerates, such as aerospace and automotive, are more responsive to these contests than other fields, which are more competive. For example, the human genome X-prize purse will probably be an afterthought to whichever entity wins. That entity will not be doing it for prize money. They'll be doing it for patent rights.
I think the patent system does not serve aerospace or automotive well.
I think the Chinese will make this painfully clear in the not so distant future.
To survive, people in Detroit should start to think about the patent system differently.
Reply
Ville 8:07AM (2/01/2006)
Isn't it kind of pointless to send a car into space?
Reply
Johnny B 8:46AM (2/01/2006)
I think this is a grand idea...So long as it is in the scope of practical use and price!
Let people get out there with new ideas and work around the bureaucratic bullshit...
Reply
Michael 9:51AM (2/01/2006)
It always amazes me that people think the auto companies could produce these super-high milage cars but choose not to.
The auto industry isn't competitive? The auto industry is not like space exploration which was only done by the government with no true fiscal oversight. Even if you harbor negative thoughts about the US industry, do you really think that Toyota or BMW or even Hyundai would really be sitting on a new technology that could produce these amazing efficiency gains?
At the end of the day, you have physical limitations that can't be wished away. You need to be able to propel vehicles weighing over a ton quickly and safely up to highway speeds and be able to keep them going for long distances with a reliable and easy to re-fuel system. This system also has to be able to be mass-produced for a price that allows you to sell it for a profit.
Reply
Benson Leung 9:55AM (2/01/2006)
The whole idea of the X-Prize program was to encourage the private sector and independent inventors to innovate where a government institution (NASA) has been too bogged down to do so... Not really for the money, but for the bragging rights.
In the area of alternative technologies, the government is doing very little by itself, but the private sector is already very active with technologies like hybrid and hydrogen. What is the purpose of this then?
Reply
JS 10:31AM (2/01/2006)
Sounds great! I know that I have read news clips and even tech white papers about automotive technology that some guy invented in his garage and has even tested it but the big co. wont buy it. Why? because they like reproducible sales. Do I think that auto co.'s are sitting on secret technology to make a car go forever....no, but I do think that, as the author pointed out, there is no real sense of urgency among these people to think creatively. This is a great way for Joe Schmoe to tinker in his garage and really get something going without having to worry about budgets, layoffs, managers, focus groups, marketing reps, etc...
Long Live the Spirit of the Inventor!
GO X-Prize!
Besides, where would we be if Da Vinci was told what to do by Rick Wagoner!
Reply
raygundan 10:33AM (2/01/2006)
It always amazes me that people think the auto companies could produce these super-high milage cars but choose not to.
Although I don't believe anybody's hiding a "super-car" that gets 200mpg, it's quite clear that the manufactures can do better (and have) but for whatever reason have chosen not to market those cars.
Take the 1992 Honda Civic HB VX, a car that got 48/55mpg. The only civic you can buy now that touches that mark is the hybrid. Making basic, efficient cars isn't rocket science-- it's just not apparently profitable.
Reply
Lowspeed 11:05AM (2/01/2006)
I like Michael's explanation ... but i think you're missing the point.
The point is that no car manufacture will introduce a vehicle that runs on alternative fuel unless they refueling infrastructure is in place... its like the 8088/86 in computers... We're still using that technology, or still using the 1.44 floppies...
Its very hard to phase out something that everybody is using.
A single motor company just can't do that ... and why should they take the risk ?
I really believe that the U.S should do a Manhattan project for alternative fuel... we're basically sponsoring those terrorist countries.
Reply
Matt 5:01PM (2/01/2006)
The auto industry is complacent and lumbering. Upstarts have a hard time competing, because the infrastructure is too gigantic to crack into. And, if you do, the profit is marginal. You have to make money on volume. To do that, you have to have a giant infrastructure. In this respect, the automotive industry is more like a commodity manufacturer.
Biotech, on the other hand, is replete with independent participants who can pay the cost of market entry in order to try out their idea.
Auto companies need to quick hand-shaking and start suing each other silly over patent infringement. Then automotive patents will seem valuable again, then you'll see inventors working harder to get new patents.
Reply
Dan 5:11PM (2/01/2006)
Automakers don't need incentives to produce higher-MPG cars -- they need incentives to research them. As with that 1992 Civic, consumers have shown time and time again that they don't *care* about fuel economy nearly as much as other aspects.
Cars *are* much more advanced today than they were twenty years ago. Unfortunately, they don't use any less gas, because automakers have poured the new technology into power, not economy. An '86 Cadillac Deville had an EPA rating of 17/26. Today's DTS gets 17/25. But the '86 Deville could produce only 130hp, versus 275hp this year.
It's always more profitable for automakers to pour advancement into a 10% increase in power than a 10% decrease in fuel burn. Some sort of incentive is needed to reverse that equation -- be it an oil crisis, an X-prize, or good old fashioned taxes and legislation.
Reply