ImaginativePRO Blog

LED LIGHTING REVS HIT $15.4 BIL IN 2014, GROWING TO $22.1 BIL BY 2019, PENETRATION SLOW BUT HIT 5% IN 2014 AND 52% BY 2022

 

Analysts led off the Plenary Session on each day of Strategies in Light, reports MAURY WRIGHT, with growth projections for both packaged LEDs and lighting products slightly lowered relative to the 2014 presentations.

 

FIG. 1. Senior Strategies Unlimited analyst Stephanie Pruitt presented the research firm’s latest data on the packaged LED market.

The Strategies in Light (SIL) 2015 conference, held Feb. 24–26 in Las Vegas, NV, featured Plenary Sessions anchored by Strategies Unlimited market-research presentations on each of the two main-conference days. Strategies Unlimited Senior analyst Stephanie Pruitt reported that packaged LED revenue hit $15.4B (billion) in 2014 and projected growth to $22.1B in 2019. Philip Smallwood, co-chair of SIL and director of research at Strategies Unlimited, reported that LEDs penetrated 5% of the lamps market in 2014 and projected 52% penetration by 2022 based on units shipped. Smallwood reported LED penetration in luminaires at 33% in 2014 and projected 69% penetration by 2022.

Generally, the market projections were positive, but growth rates in terms of revenue were slightly down from the 2014 data (http://bit.ly/10zl855). We will discuss the new data in detail including reasons for changes that range from packaged LED prices dropping faster than expected to new methods of modeling the lighting market that have been instigated by Smallwood in the research program.

Packaged LEDs

The packaged LED presentation is directly comparable to the data presented last year as the methodology remained consistent in the component area. Still, there is one caveat. Pruitt presented preliminary data. The actual data will not be finalized until April when the report is due for sale (after this article was written). So beware of some changes, although we’d expect them to be minor.

Pruitt took the stage on day two of SIL (Fig. 1) and compared data in the most recent years. In 2014, Strategies Unlimited projected a 13% compound annual growth rate (CAGR) for LED revenue through 2018. Pruitt said the new data suggests an 8% CAGR through 2019. The lower growth, however, is not in any way indicative of the research team expecting fewer LEDs to be sold. But LED component prices are eroding faster than expected. Moreover, parts of the LED forecast are driven by research on the lighting market, and Pruitt said the new forecast is "more conservative than last year due to lighting research" — in part the new models mentioned earlier.

Indeed, we can already see slower growth in revenue numbers reported for 2014. Pruitt said LED revenue grew from $14.5B in 2013 to $15.4B in 2014. That’s far lower than the 13% projection from last year. In fact, the 6% growth from 2013 even lags behind the new projection going out to 2019.

But before we delve into more details, let’s discuss the methodology of the packaged LED research. As with previous years, the scope includes all packaged LEDs but not bare LED die or chips. It certainly does include package-light LEDs such as products based on chip-scale packages (CSPs). We covered the CSP trend in our report from the LightBuilding event in Frankfurt last year (http://bit.ly/1mTY7Br), and there is much more in our conference keynote coverage in this issue (see p. 43).

The research is focused on revenue and not number of LEDs shipped or sold. The report covers products ranging from very-low-cost, low- and mid-power LEDs to the high-power LEDs that have been most prominently used in lighting until recently when mid-power LEDs entered that space. The scope also includes super-high-power LEDs, primarily chip-on-board (COB) products. Strategies Unlimited now also publishes dedicated COB LED research (http://bit.ly/1IgdBre).

The segmentation of the packaged LED market also remains largely consistent with prior years. The 0.5W dividing line between the mid- and high-power segments remains. But that line may create ambiguity in some of the data where applications are dissected relative to the types of LEDs used. Many LEDs that look like traditional mid-power devices in plastic packages with no secondary optics can be driven at levels of 1W and higher today.

FIG. 2. The packaged LED market grew by $800M from 2013 to 2014 with lighting applications leading the charge.

Application segments

The projected 8% CAGR through 2019 will lead to a packaged LED segment that totals $22.1B. Let’s look at the applications that will drive such growth and the nearand long-term prospects and trends for each. The primary application segments include:

• Displays/backlights
• Mobile
• Signs
• Automotive
• Lighting

Fig. 2 depicts the segments and the recent growth or decline in each segment from 2013 to 2014. As you might expect, lighting will remain the largest growth segment for the foreseeable future. Two years ago, Strategies Unlimited reported that general lighting had become the largest consumer of LEDs by revenue (http://bit.ly/1jD9DNa). Previously, the display-backlight sector had consumed more LEDs by revenue. Still, all of the applications listed above consume copious amounts of packaged LEDs.

FIG. 3. The display-backlight market for LEDs is in decline but is still significant.

Display backlights

Indeed, the display-backlight market for TVs and computer monitors remains robust and likely consumes more individual LED components that any other application. But the LEDs utilized are generally low- or mid-power LEDs and are among the most-commoditized products in the packaged LED space.

FIG. 4. LED revenue related to mobile devices is declining with falling LED prices.

In terms of revenue, the display sector is already in decline from $2.6B in 2014, as detailed in Fig. 3, with a -5% CAGR projected through 2019. The display sector will not suffer from the same type of saturation as the lighting sector that we will discuss later. Now the backlight segment is fully saturated, but consumers continue to buy new and better TVs or monitors. Still, LEDs used in displays will continue to fall in price. At the same time LEDs get brighter, resulting in fewer LEDs being required per display in some cases.

Pruitt noted, however, that technology innovation in the TV space could significantly impact the projection. Specifically, a larger-than-expected transition to 4k-pixel TVs, sometimes called ultrahigh-definition TVs (UHDTV), could result in more LEDs being sold into the application. Such higher-end TVs would almost assuredly rely on localdimming implementations where individual LEDs light a smaller area of the overall screen to provide optimum contrast ratio. Conversely, were an OLED manufacturer to solve the manufacturing issues with large screens, allowing that technology to drop in price, fewer LEDs might be sold into backlighting.

FIG. 5. The interior sub-segment of LED usage in automotive is saturated, but great growth potential awaits on the exterior.

Mobile devices

Moving to LED revenue in mobile devices, we find yet another application in decline. Fig. 4 depicts the details of the -5% CAGR projected by Pruitt through 2019. Still, the raw numbers are impressive. Mobile devices consumed $2.8B worth of LEDs in 2014 and the projection calls for around $2.1B in 2019.

The reasons for the decline in mobile are in part similar to the decline in displays, but OLED technology plays a larger role. The mobile market is nearly saturated, but the upgrade cycle continues to drive the sale of new devices. However, price erosion is heavy in the LEDs used in mobile devices for backlighting or lighting the keypad.

Moreover, OLED technology is already being used broadly by vendors such as Samsung in smartphones. LED revenue specifically for the phone market will go from $1.3B in 2014 to less than $1B in 2019. Declines in tablets and other mobile computing devices will be shallower.

Last year, we reported that expanded camera functionality in mobile devices was driving the need for more and higher-quality LEDs for both forward- and rear-facing camera-f lash functionality. Indeed, we covered that technology trend in our report on the conference sessions at SIL 2014 (http://bit.ly/1kXzh1e). Pruitt did not address the flash sub-segment in her SIL presentation, but that data will likely be included in the final LED market report due in April.

Pruitt also suggested that as with the display market, a transition to higher-resolution screens in mobile devices could positively impact the revenue for LEDs in the mobile segment. There will be some level of penetration of UHDTV technology even in the smaller devices as screen technology continues to improve.

FIG. 6. Exterior applications, especially in headlamps, will drive the growth of LED revenue in automotive.

Automotive and signage

Moving to areas of growth, automotive is probably the packaged-LED application with the greatest growth potential outside of general lighting. As Fig. 2 indicates, the sector experienced 10% growth between 2013 and 2014. Moreover, Pruitt projects 10% CAGR through 2019 as depicted in Fig. 5, with revenue going from $1.8B in 2014 to $2.9B in 2019.

FIG. 7. Lighting, and specifically general illumination, holds the greatest revenue potential for packaged LEDs. In 2014, general illumination accounted for 75% of the lighting market.

The automotive application includes both exterior and interior lighting. The dashboard sub-segment of interior automotive lighting is fully saturated. We will see more in-cabin use of LEDs for ambience including color-tunable lighting products. We covered an Osram Opto Semiconductors product designed for just such applications more than a year ago (http://bit.ly/1BJr2w0). But the LEDs used in automotive interiors will mostly be commodity products and falling component prices will keep interior revenue relatively flat.

The exterior automotive application, however, still has a lot of room to grow with penetration remaining relatively low in head-lamps. Moreover, the value proposition is twofold. Automakers will adopt LEDs for headlamps in mainstream cars to leverage the low power and long life inherent in LEDs. High-end vehicles will carry LED headlamps with functionality such as steered beams that can’t be realized with legacy sources.

Fig. 6 shows that LED revenue is projected to grow by 15% through 2019 in the exterior sub-segment with LED revenue in just that sub-segment exceeding $2B by 2019. The biggest growth will come in headlamps with that specific application consuming nearly $1B by 2019. Stop-and tail-light revenue will be the other high-growth area as automobile manufacturers add functionality in that application.

Signage is yet another LED application that is projected to grow. Pruitt reported that LED revenue in the application totaled $1.7B in 2014. Projection of an 11% CAGR will take the market to $2.9B in 2019.

 

FIG. 8. The Strategies Unlimited forecast states that 86% of the lighting market will be general illumination in 2019, and replacement lamps are expected to be the top consumer of LEDs by a wide margin.

General illumination

Lighting — specifically general illumination — however, will provide the real lift in LED revenue for the next five years. LED revenue in the lighting application totaled $5.3B in 2014 with 75% of that total dedicated to general illumination (Fig. 7). Retrofit lamps account for nearly half of the 2014 LED revenue in lighting. Pruitt projects a 14% CAGR through 2019, consuming more than $10B in LEDs for lighting.

Fig. 8 provides more details on the projection with general illumination accounting for 86% of the LED revenue by 2019. At the end of the projection, LED revenue for replacement lamps will grow to $6.6B with that application remaining well over half of the lighting consumption base. The other or non-general-illumination segment is the next largest in aggregate at $1.5B in 2019. That category, however, comprises a wide variety of small subsegments including entertainment, architectural, retail display, consumer portable, safety and security, off-grid, and strip and string lighting. Outdoor is the second largest general-illumination sub-segment today and in 2019 growing to consume $815M (million) in LEDs.

FIG. 9. The high-power LED segment will decline as a percentage of the total revenues of all LED classes.

LED types in lighting

Pruitt dug deeper into the LED market data relative to lighting applications. For example, Fig. 9 breaks down the total lighting application by types of LEDs used through the five-year forecast. The details rely on the aforementioned categorization of LEDs by power rating.

At first glance, the data is surprising. We’ve been hearing for several years about the rise of mid-power LEDs in a greater number of lighting applications. But the forecast projects that the mid-power share remains near-constant as a percentage of the total market. Still, the escalating overall market will take mid-power revenue from $1B in 2014 to $1.8B in 2019. But why doesn’t mid-power represent a bigger share percentage-wise? The answer is that many LEDs that are based on typical mid-power technology platforms operate well in excess of 0.5W today and are actually captured in the high-power segment.

FIG. 10. All classes of power LEDs will see growth in replacement lamps.

Despite the inclusion of some super-charged mid-power LEDs in the high-power category, that high-power segment will decline as a percentage of the total, as you can see in the chart. The super-high-power category composed primarily of COB LEDs will enjoy the biggest gains percentage-wise. That gain is due to a couple of primary factors. Price erosion is much lower in both high- and super-high-power LEDs relative to low- and mid-power LEDs. And COBs are much simpler for many lighting manufacturers to work with given that the LEDs have a single electrical interface and can be more simply mounted in a design. Moreover, optics manufacturers have made great progress in lenses for the relatively-larger COB LEDs, as was evident in a recent feature article on optics (http://bit.ly/1CDtat3).

FIG. 11. Mid-power LEDs will do especially well in commercial luminaires and specifically the troffer application.

In her SIL presentation, Pruitt also characterized types of LEDs used in specific applications, and a couple are of particular interest. Fig. 10 depicts the LED segments relative to replacement lamps, including A-lamps, directional lamps, and tubes. Arguably, replacement lamps are the most cost-sensitive portion of the general illumination market. Yet in terms of percentage of the LED market, high-power LEDs will remain predominant in the application. Moreover, COB revenue will grow at a higher rate than either the commodity mid- or low-power LEDs.

FIG. 12. LED revenue will continue to ramp in outdoor applications with the most growth coming in chip-on-board (COB) LEDs.

Mid-power LEDs will make the greatest gains in the commercial sector, as documented by Fig. 11. Ceiling troffers are widely used in the commercial sector. And LED-based luminaires that are focused on the traditional rectilinear troffer form factors are a good match to mid-power LEDs. The LEDs are applied in a linear fashion with the components closely spaced for even illumination.

The outdoor segment is one where COBs will really shine, according to Pruitt’s forecast. Fig. 12 shows highpower LED usage remaining relatively flat in outdoor applications while COBs ramp considerably. We’d speculate that the improved COB optics mentioned earlier will be a driver for the success of COBs in outdoor applications. In the past, luminaires that used COB LEDs relied on reflector-based designs for beam control. The new lenses can enable far superior beam control that had been only achievable with smaller sources.

Lighting market data

Now let’s transition to an examination of market data centered on lighting products presented in the Plenary by Smallwood on day one of SIL (Fig. 13). The presentation was entitled "How big can the LED lighting market get?" Smallwood addressed both the lamps and luminaires markets.

Smallwood moved into a leadership position in the Strategies Unlimited lighting practice in late 2013. He has since revamped the approach that the firm takes to characterize the lighting market. The research has been expanded to cover lighting products based on all types of light sources — not just LED-based products. The data is segmented for form factors and applications. And Smallwood has led development of a market model that can yield regional geographical segmentation of the market. Smallwood also said the new approach will enable more accurate prediction of saturation by long-life, LED-based products and the coincident shrinking of market potential.

FIG. 13. Philip Smallwood of Strategies Unlimited presented lamp and luminaire market research at Strategies in Light.

Starting with the lamps market, Smallwood said there are around 45B installed lamp sockets in the world with that number only growing incrementally in the coming years (Fig. 14). Today, 9B incandescent products are installed in those sockets with that number projected to fall to less than 2B by 2022. Smallwood’s projection shows that linear fluorescent and compact fluorescent (CFL) technologies will remain prevalent through 2022. Primarily, LED-based replacement lamps will replace the incandescent incumbent with some displacement of fluorescent and halogen technologies.

FIG. 14. The global installed base of lamps will remain a mix in terms of light-source technology through 2022.

Recognize, however, that there is a vast difference between the installed base and shipments of lamps throughout the forecast period; Strategies Unlimited’s new model allows the analysts to report both, and by region or globally. For example, Fig. 15 depicts the difference in the North America region specific to A-lamps. The installed base chart on the left of Fig. 15 shows a strong presence of incandescent products, whereas shipments of such products will drop precipitously as LED lamp shipments continue to rise.

FIG. 15. The installed base of incandescent A-lamps in North America will decline slowly, whereas new shipments of such products have already plummeted as LEDlamp shipments rise.

Smallwood reported that LED lamps represented 5% of the overall 2014 market globally. He projects that penetration to rise to 28% in 2018 and to 52% in 2022. Those numbers may sound low, but remember the total lamp market includes tubes, and fluorescent technology will remain a major player. Indeed, Smallwood projects that fluorescent tubes will still account for more than 20% of lamp shipments in 2022.

Ironically, Smallwood also reported a very bullish outlook for LED-based replacement tubes as he broke the data down by type of lamp. Smallwood admitted that he never believed the concept of an LED-based replacement tube to be a very good idea relative to products such as integral, LED-based luminaires. But the research indicates that the market will heavily rely on such tube products primarily because of the ease of retrofit. Smallwood projects a 29% CAGR for tube shipments through 2022, although the growth will flatten at the end of that period as sockets are saturated.

Overall saturation will be felt far more acutely. Total lamp shipments will decline by 44% through 2022. Other than the tube market, all of the other lamp types will be in decline in terms of units shipped by the end of this decade.

FIG. 16. Global lamp revenue will peak in about four years as socket saturation with long-life LED-based products takes place.

Still, the lamp market will remain sizeable in terms of revenue. Fig. 16 shows the lamp market charted by revenue and segmented by light-source technology. Revenue will peak at $21B in 2018 but still reach a hefty $16B value in 2022.

Smallwood also covered the luminaires space. And the Strategies Unlimited team has developed a far more granular model for the broad luminaires segment. The team is now segmenting the market by different types of fixtures including:

• Downlights
• Troffers
• High bays
• Suspended pendants
• Tracklights
• Street lights

Moreover, the new model includes the ability to sort the data by application including retail, office, hospitality, and more. The two types of segmentation can be applied individually or together. And in terms of LED-based fixtures, Strategies Unlimited is separately tracking fixtures that use LED-based replacement lamps and fixtures based on integral, LED-based designs.

In 2014, the combination of both types of LED fixtures represented less than 4% of the total luminaire market in terms of the installed base. But again installed base and shipments differ. Fig. 17 provides an excellent picture of both market size and the light-source technologies that will ship in luminaires. Luminaire revenue will only ramp from $59B in 2014 to $66B in 2022. But as mentioned at the beginning of the article, 69% of the luminaires will be LED-based in 2022

FIG. 17. The global luminaire market will grow slowly through 2022, but LED-based products will represent an increasingly large share of that revenue.

Smallwood closed his presentation with some interesting thoughts. He said,

"The lighting world has accepted that LEDs are the future,"

Still, he characterized the transition as an evolution from the filament to LED sources. He added, however, that there is a revolution afoot in addition to the changing light sources.

Smallwood said.

"The revolution is the ancillary products and technologies such as networks and controls that are coming along with LED lighting."

Smart lighting based on sensor-driven autonomous or programmatic controls is a good example. Smallwood also suggested that the revolution will deliver "lighting with a purpose." He said lighting will specifically target needs such as human well-being, productivity, security, and safety.

Smallwood asked the audience,

"Would you ever have thought Cisco would present a keynote at Strategies in Light?"

Indeed, that company did. For coverage of that keynote and other high-impact keynote speakers, see our feature article on p. 43

COMMENTARY:    Convincing consumers to switch to LED lighting is an interesting proposition. On paper, it seems a no-brainer: LED lighting uses 80 percent less energy than traditional lighting, and when used with energy management tools such as automatic on/off switches and dimmers, energy consumption can be reduced about 40 percent further.

Moreover, an average LED light can last up to 22 years – as opposed to an incandescent bulb that lasts for only six months. Unlike compact fluorescent lightbulbs (CFL), the corkscrew bulbs, LEDs do not contain toxic mercury. The EPA website outlines the steps necessary to clean up a broken CFL bulb safely. After reading this, consumers might want to buy a hazmat suit in preparation. All these factors add up to one great product for the environment – energy savings, landfill reduction and the elimination of toxic materials.

When summarizing all of economical and environmental advantages related to LED lighting, it seems like a rational choice to switch over immediately to LED lights. So why aren’t people rushing to retrofit their homes? What can the lighting industry do to incentivize the average person to “do the right thing” and install LED lights in their home and offices?

The introduction of traditional CFLs left a very negative impression with consumers, who did not like their odd corkscrew shape, delayed warm up time, light quality or the occasional buzzing sound they emitted. To balance against this negative image of alternative or green lighting, LED lighting manufacturers have to reassure the public that their products are easy to use, are affordable and, furthermore, delight the public with new must-have features. Here are some steps manufacturers can take to make the public embrace the evolution to LED lighting.

The transition to LEDs is, literally, as easy as changing a light bulb, provided the LED lighting is compatible with the existing lighting infrastructure in homes and buildings. First of all, the bulbs have to have a similar form factor to traditional bulbs and fit into existing light sockets. Additionally, in the United States, there are more than 150,000,000 dimmers installed – a type of switch with which LED lights traditionally have not worked well. Some early users experienced poor performance using LEDs with dimmers including reduced dimming range, flickering, turning off unexpectedly and not responding properly to on/off commands when dimmer is set at lower dimming level.

The initial purchase price of LED lights is expensive when compared to other types of bulbs. An incandescent bulb costs less than a $1, while a CFL bulb costs around $1 to $2 depending upon whether or not it can be dimmed.  An average LED light to replace a 60W incandescent bulb, however, will set consumers back approximately $23. Even though it can be easily demonstrated that the $23 LED light bulb is the cheapest alternative in the long run, based on its life span and operational costs, the average person will balk at making this investment. A key factor that drives consumer acceptance of new technologies is to bring down costs to the threshold, say $10, that spurs mass adoption. LED manufacturers need to find ways to lower the price of their products.

 

The LED industry has to educate the public about benefits of LED lighting and especially the language or lingo of LED's.  

Contrary to common belief, wattage isn't an indication of brightness, but a measurement of how much energy the bulb draws. For incandescents, there is an accepted correlation between the watts drawn and the brightness, but for LEDs, watts aren't a great predictor of how bright the bulb will be. (The point, after all, is that they draw less energy.)  

For example, an LED bulb with comparable brightness to a 60W incandescent is only 8 to 12 watts.  Instead of using wattage a different form of brightness measurement should be used: lumens. The lumen (lm) is the real measurement of brightness provided by a light bulb, and is the number you should look for when shopping for LEDs. For reference, here's a chart that shows the watt-lumen conversion for incandescents and LEDs.

 

 

Courtesy of an article appearing in the May 2015 issue of LED Magazine, an article dated May 8, 2012 appearing in Forbes and an article dated March 26, 2013 appearing in CNET

NASA AND CHINESE RESEARCHERS VALIDATE "IMPOSSIBLE" PROPELLANTLESS MICROWAVE 'EMDRIVE' ROCKET THRUSTER

 

NASA is a major player in space science, so when a team from the agency this week presents evidence that "impossible" microwave thrusters seem to work, something strange is definitely going on. Either the results are completely wrong, or NASA has confirmed a major breakthrough in space propulsion.

Roger Shawyer (left), receiving a DTI SMART Award for his EmDrive concept in August 2001. (Click Image To Enlarge)

British scientist Roger Shawyer has been trying to interest people in his EmDrive for some years through his company Satellite Propulsion Research Ltd (SPR Ltd). Shawyer claims the EmDrive converts electric power into thrust, without the need for any propellant by bouncing microwaves around in a closed container. He has built a number of demonstration systems, but critics reject his relativity-based theory and insist that, according to the law of conservation of momentum, it cannot work.

The EmDrive itself is simply a microwave resonating cavity in the form of a closed, truncated cone (See below).  You fire up a big electrically-powered microwave generator and start beaming microwaves inside this thing, and the microwaves bounce around all over the place, exerting radiation pressure on the inside of the cavity.

According to Shawyer, the EmDrive is able to extert a small amount of thrust that propels it towards the large side of the cone.  Shawyer says this happens because inside the resonating cavity, the velocity of the microwaves changes significantly as the cavity diameter varies. The velocity changes enough, in fact, to exert a larger force on the larger end of the cavity, and a smaller force on the smaller end of the cavity, resulting in net thrust.

Prototype of the EmDrive microwave thruster engine developed by scientists at NASA. (Click Image To Enlarge)

SPR's EmDrive Demonstrator Engine (Side View)

SPR's EmDrive Demonstrator Engine (Front View) mounted on a test rig

A video clip of the initial part of an acceleration test run by SPR can be seen on YouTube:  

  

You can also download the folowing .AVI files from the SPR website:

DMtest188.avi (13.7MB)

DMtest188.wmv (5.33MB) 

Notes on Test video:

1. The field strengths within the thruster equate to a power level of 17MW. Signal leakage causes EMC effects within the fixed video camera. This leads to the apparent vertical movements.
2. The engine only starts to accelerate when the magnetron frequency locks to the resonant frequency of the thruster, following an initial warm up period. This test operation eliminates possible spurious forces.
3. The rotary air bearing supports a total load of 100kg, with a friction torque resulting in a calibrated resistance force of 8.2 gm at the engine centre of thrust.
4. For this test a thrust of 96 mN was recorded for an input power of 334 W.

Research to confirm the results of the EmDrive microwave thruster engine developed by Roger Shawyer came from a team of Chinese researchers headed by Yang Juan, Professor of Propulsion Theory and Engineering of Aeronautics and Astronautics at the Northwestern Polytechnic University in Xi'an and the findings published in a research paper titled "Net thrust measurement of propellantless microwave thruster."  The research paper was originally written on June 9, 2011 and finally published in 2012 in the academic journal Acta Physica Sinica, now  translated  into English.

Yang Juan, Professor of Propulsion Theory and Engineering of Aeronautics and Astronautics at the Northwestern Polytechnic University in Xi'an. (Click Image To Enlarge)

The Chinese team led by Professor Yang Juan built its own EmDrive and confirmed that it produced 720 mN (about 72 grams) of thrust, enough for a practical satellite thruster. Such a thruster could be powered by solar electricity, eliminating the need for the supply of propellant that occupies up to half the launch mass of many satellites. The Chinese work attracted little attention; it seems that nobody in the West believed in it.

 Chinese EmDrive Microwave Engine Thruster developed by Professor Yang Juan. (Click Image To Enlarge)

Schematic of the Chinese EmDrive Microwave Engine Thruster developed by Professor Yang Juan. (Click Image To Enlarge) 

However, a US scientist, Guido Fetta, has built his own propellant-less microwave thruster, and managed to persuade NASA to test it out. The test results were presented on July 30 at the 50th Joint Propulsion Conference in Cleveland, Ohio. Astonishingly enough, they are positive.

NASA tested a different version of the EmDrive called the Cannae Drive designed by Guido Fetta. (Click Image To Enlarge)

According to Guido Fetta, the "Cannae Drive," was named after the Battle of Cannae in which Hannibal decisively defeated a much stronger Roman army:  you're at your best when you are in a tight corner.  However, it's hard not to suspect that Star Trek's Engineer Scott -- "I cannae change the laws of physics" -- might also be an influence. (It was formerly known as the Q-Drive.)

The NASA team based at the Johnson Space Centre gave its paper the title "Anomalous Thrust Production from an RF [radio frequency] Test Device Measured on a Low-Thrust Torsion Pendulum".

The five NASA research team spent six days setting up test equipment followed by two days of experiments with various configurations. These tests included using a "null drive" similar to the live version but modified so it would not work, and using a device which would produce the same load on the apparatus to establish whether the effect might be produced by some effect unrelated to the actual drive. They also turned the drive around the other way to check whether that had any effect.

In January 2014, the NASA research team also tested Shawyer's EmDrive design.  The test results for this were also positive, and in fact their tapered-cavity drive, derived from the Chinese drive which is in turn based on Shawyer's EmDrive, produced 91 micronewtons of thrust for 17 watts of power, compared to the 40 micronewtons of thrust from 28 watts for the Cannae drive.

In her research paper, professor Yang Juan describes China's iteration of Shawyer's EmDrive that's able to generate 72 grams of thrust with 2,500 watts of electricity.  It doesn't sound like a huge amount, but if you compare it to the hands-down most efficient spacecraft engine we've got right now (where efficiency is at an absolute premium), an ion thruster, the Chinese EmDrive gets you four times as much thrust from half as much power without sucking down any fuel at all. Yeah, you need electricity, but electricity is cheap in space and cheaper on the ground. Anyway, you can read the paper here, and if you can make conclusive heads or tails of it, please do us all a favor and explain it in the comments.  Below is an infographic comparing the Chinese EmDrive with the European Space Agency's SMART-1 ion engine:

Click Image To Enlarge

Back in the 90s, NASA tested what was claimed to be an antigravity device based on spinning superconducting discs. That was reported to give good test results, until researchers realised that interference from the device was affecting their measuring instruments. They have probably learned a lot since then.

The torsion balance they used to test the thrust was sensitive enough to detect a thrust of less than ten micronewtons, but the drive actually produced 30 to 50 micronewtons -- less than a thousandth of the Chinese results, but emphatically a positive result, in spite of the law of conservation of momentum:

"Test results indicate that the RF resonant cavity thruster design, which is unique as an electric propulsion device, is producing a force that is not attributable to any classical electromagnetic phenomenon and therefore is potentially demonstrating an interaction with the quantum vacuum virtual plasma."

This last line implies that the drive may work by pushing against the ghostly cloud of particles and anti-particles that are constantly popping into being and disappearing again in empty space. But the NASA team has avoided trying to explain its results in favour of simply reporting what it found:

"This paper will not address the physics of the quantum vacuum plasma thruster, but instead will describe the test integration, test operations, and the results obtained from the test campaign."

Fetta also presented a paper at AIAA on his drive, "Numerical and Experimental Results for a Novel Propulsion Technology Requiring no On-Board Propellant". His underlying theory is very different to that of the Shawyer's EmDrive, but like Shawyer he has spent years trying to persuade sceptics simply to look at it.  He seems to have succeeded at last.

Shawyer himself, who sent test examples of the EmDrive to the US in 2009, sees the similarity between the two.

He believes the design accounts for the Cannae Drive's comparatively low thrust.  He says. 

"From what I understand of the NASA and Cannae work -- their RF thruster actually operates along similar lines to EmDrive, except that the asymmetric force derives from a reduced reflection coefficient at one end plate.  Of course this degrades the Q and hence the specific thrust that can be obtained."

Fetta is working on a number of projects which he is not able to discuss at present, and NASA's PR team was not able to get any comments from the research team. However, it's fair to assume that the results will be picked over very closely indeed, like CERN's anomalous faster-than-light neutrinos. The neutrino issue was cleared up fairly quickly, but given that this appears to be at least the third independent propellant-less thruster to work in tests, the anomalous thrust may prove much harder to explain away.

The NASA paper projects a 'conservative' manned mission to Mars from Earth orbit, with a 90-ton spacecraft driven by the new technology. Using a 2-megawatt nuclear power source, it can develop 800 newtons (180 pounds) of thrust.  The entire mission would take eight months, including a 70-day stay on Mars.

This compares with NASA's plans using conventional technology which takes six months just to get there, and requires several hundred tons to be put into Earth's orbit to start with. You also have to stay there for at least 18 months while you wait for the planets to align again for the journey back. The new drive provides enough thrust to overcome the gravitational attraction of the Sun at these distances, which makes manoeuvring much easier.

A less conservative projection has an advanced drive developing ten times as much thrust for the same power -- this cuts the transit time to Mars to 28 days, and can generally fly around the solar system at will, a true NASA dream machine.

COMMENTARY:    The validation of the Roger Shawyer's electromagnetic drive or EmDrive appears to be a potential gamebreaker for the nation that can develop a fully-functional and scalable microwave-powered EmDrive that can prove its efficiency and reliability in outerspace.  

A propellantless rocket thruster that will meet or exceed the requirements needed for future manned space missions to Mars or even neighboring star systems, will depend on fully exploiting this EmDrive technology to its fullest.   In fact, the future of mankind could rest on just such a propellantless rocket thruster.  

The World is rapidly running out of natural resources used in developing rocket propellants, and since anti-magnetic propulsion systems do not appear to be in our immediate future, ion-powered engine thrusters and EmDrive powered systems are two options that are open to exploitation.  

I believe that our country to do everything possible to develop such a propellantless microwave-powered engine thruster for future space travel.  

Courtesy of an article dated July 31, 2014 appearing in U.K. Wired, an article dated August 1, 2014 appearing in Sploid Gizmodo, an article dated February 6, 2013 appearing in U.K. Wired, an article dated August 6, 2014 appearing in Guardian Liberty Voice, an article dated February 6, 2013 appearing in U.K. Wired, and Roger Shawyer's website SPR, Ltd

TESLA TO BUILD A NEW 'GIGAFACTORY' TO MAKE LOWER COST LITHIUM BATTERY PACKS, SHARES BATTERY PATENTS WITH AUTOMAKERS TO INCREASE EV PRODUCTION

Earlier this year serial entrepreneur and Tesla Motors CEO Elon Musk decided to allow anyone to, “in good faith,” make use of the automaker’s patent portfolio without fear of being named in a patent lawsuit.

The goal of this new strategy, he wrote in a blog entry on Tesla’s website, was to entice other automakers to enter the electric vehicle (“EV”) market by allowing them to leverage Tesla’s technology as a platform on which to build new EVs.

In February 2014, Tesla Motors announced strong fourth-quarter results with record shipments and gross margin. Its investor newsletter also included a tantalizing paragraph:

"Very shortly, we will be ready to share more information about the Tesla Giga factory. This will allow us to achieve a major reduction in the cost of our battery packs and accelerate the pace of battery innovation. Working in partnership with our suppliers, we plan to integrate precursor material, cell, module and pack production into one facility. With this facility, we feel highly confident of being able to create a compelling and affordable electric car in approximately three years. This will also allow us to address the solar power industry’s need for a massive volume of stationary battery packs."

Understanding that it was “impossible for Tesla to build cars fast enough to address the carbon crisis,” this patent policy shift was put forth in an effort to quicken the percentage growth of EVs in the 2 billion strong global automobile fleet, currently dominated by internal combustion engine (“ICE”) vehicles.

Despite the fact that the company is bucking the conventional wisdom that patents are to be held onto by manufacturers and leveraged for license fees and exclusivity, yesterday’s second quarter earnings call showed shareholders that the manufacturer’s future lies not in patents, but in its ability to build powerful partnerships and scale.

Tesla’s current progress is providing significant disruption in the sport-luxury space. As this Head 2 Head episode shows (starting at the 1:20 mark), the Model S is selling units in excess of European competition. But this week the mission to expand the role of EVs in the global marketplace took another important step.

Tesla announced it is cooperating with Japanese industrial giant Panasonic to develop a new, US-based battery production facility. Dubbed the Gigafactory, the facility will be able to produce batteries for as many as 500,000 EVs per year by the year 2020. The scale of the production is projected to be so large, in fact, that by 2020 the Gigafactory alone would produce as much battery capacity as the entire world produced in 2013.

To be sure, the impact of the Gigafactory will positively affect electric auto sales. The Gigafactory’s scale and capacity may be felt across the technology and energy sectors as well.

Background

Panasonic has long been a partner of Tesla Motors, having supplied the automaker with the lithium-ion batteries that Tesla used in both its inaugural vehicle, the Roadster, as well as the current Model S sedan and the upcoming Model X crossover SUV.  By eschewing the creation of their own proprietary battery technology and making use of existing infrastructure, Tesla was able to cut significant costs from the most expensive part of any high-performance electric vehicle: the battery.  The planned Gigafactory is a key strategic step in carrying out Tesla’s long-term mission to deliver lower-cost EVs to consumers around the world.

Auto

The economies of scale that the Gigafactory is designed to deliver will mean that by 2017 new battery packs will cost as much as 30% less than current Model S batteries (PDF).  These upcoming Generation III battery packs will contain more power capacity than Tesla’s current fare, a key factor to the success of Tesla’s long awaited Blue Star project.

The Blue Star project is Tesla’s long-proposed, low-cost automobile model (recently dubbed the Tesla Model III), and is set to debut alongside the Generation III batteries in 2017. The 200-mile range EV’s base configuration will retail for about $35,000 — nearly 40% less than the cost of the $57,000 base price of the current Tesla Model S.

While battery production and capacity has grown worldwide over the last decade, Tesla notes that nearly all of that growth has been in Asia. In contrast to that trend, the joint collaboration between Panasonic and Tesla will take place at a facility in the American West, likely near Reno, NV and less than four hours’ drive from the Fremont plant where Tesla’s autos are assembled. Without having to ship batteries from Asia, this close proximity will lead to additional cost savings through considerably lower Model S and Model X production times.

The specifications for the Gigafactory have been published.  As reported earlier, Tesla will provide the facilities, human resources, and materials for the site, while Panasonic will invest between $200 and $300 million and focus on manufacturing techniques. Panasonic’s efforts will take up about one half of the Gigafactory facility, while the other half will be allocated to suppliers who turn raw battery cells into the finished battery modules, ready to be installed in Tesla’s vehicles, according to the press release.

 

Click Image To Enlarge

In keeping with Musk’s environmentally sustainable reputation, the facility, which will sit on 500 to 1,000 acres, will not only recycle older battery packs but will also be powered by “new local renewables,” namely wind turbines and photovoltaic panels. Musk is also the Chairman  of Solar City, which is currently ranked second among the top 250 solar contractors of 2013. This relationship would presumably add to the cost savings on the acquisition, installation, and maintenance of the solar piece of the renewable energy system meant to service the Gigafactory.

Demand for the batteries will go beyond Tesla’s own customers. Jonathan Ward, founder of LA-based Icon, a specialty auto manufacturer and modification shop, has indicated interest in using not only Tesla’s patents but also the very platform of the Model S to build a vehicle he’s calling the Helios.

Helios would be Icon’s “revisionist approach” to automobile manufacturing; a car that in Ward’s words, “[Fuses] vintage design with the best modern drive experience and technology.”   To be clear, Icon’s Helios, which is in the earliest stages of design, is a lifestyle vehicle that takes the likes of Chrysler’s once-popular but now discontinued 1930s-style PT Cruiser to an extreme, almost aeronautical level.  For those who feel that the subtle lines of Tesla’s Model S lack flare, the dramatic curves of Ward’s Helios have the potential to expand the market for Tesla’s automotive technologies.

​​Despite selling an impressive 95,000+ units since 2010 (in 35 countries and on four continents), Nissan, the world leader in EV sales, plans to significantly augment the look and range of the Leaf, its flagship EV in favor of a look more like Tesla’s Model S.  While most automakers favor incremental changes to best-selling vehicles like the Leaf, Nissan has said that its next -generation Leaf will abandon its low-impact, hybrid-like styling in favor of something more sporty.   In a move that signals direct competition with Tesla, Nissan is developing a vehicle related to the Leaf, but built under the Nissan’s upscale Infiniti marque, in order to market an EV with a performance/luxury message not unlike Tesla’s Model S and the upcoming Model III.​

While there’s currently no indication that Nissan will seek to make use of Tesla’s technologies, with over 40 percent of the Leaf’s global sales in the US market, it’s almost certainly something the company will consider. Even though Nissan is working on new batteries that allow for nearly 200 miles of range, it could instead choose to install Tesla’s similarly ranged Generation III modules into the Leafs it produces in Smyrna, TN. Tesla’s economies of scale may be able to reduce the cost of the American-born Leaf.

Technology

Today’s power-hungry mobile and laptop devices use similar lithium-ion technology to what Tesla uses in its vehicles. The challenge Tesla faces in packing more range into its vehicles is essentially the same challenge device makers like HP, Microsoft, and others face in trying to get more hours of life out of their gadgets.

As the Gigafactory’s massive scale lowers the cost of of lithium-ion batteries, Tesla becomes more and more attractive as a battery supplier to any portable device manufacturer interested in cutting costs and growing profits. Tesla’s dedication to renewable energy supplies in the production of both its batteries and its vehicles also make it an attractive supplier to Apple, which stands staunchly behind its environmental record and which also seems to consistently stretch the resources of its component vendors with every new iPhone.

Energy

Tesla and Panasonic are betting big that the demand for EVs will go up as battery prices come down and as so-called range anxiety is quelled by ever more powerful cells. Meanwhile, others are excitedly studying Tesla’s emerging energy storage capacity in a somewhat more stationary light.  As intermittent energy sources (e.g. photovoltaics and wind turbines) become popular energy solutions in the US and abroad, both commercial and home users are looking for ways to store the energy generated by the sun (or wind) for cloudy (or not so breezy) days.

In conventional energy generation (fuel oil, coal, gas, or other hydrocarbons), power utilities often scale their energy resources to the demands of their consumers. This can often mean brownouts as demand spikes and utilities rush to burn more hydrocarbons to create power. When demand is lower than expected, utilities burn more hydrocarbons than are needed, and that energy goes to waste.

Tesla’s low-cost batteries could offer a cheap and powerful solution to a problem that utility analysts almost uniformly believe is currently expensive and requires significant subsidies. Aside from the wasted fuel burned, the techniques for storing energy, which can include maintaining fields of volatile molten salt, are again expensive and hardly scalable compared to the Gigafactory’s projected output. Additionally, while few utilities practice energy storage today, California has proposed a rule that will force its utilities to get into the storage business by 2024.

Bolstered by strong earnings, significant profits, and growing demand for its products, Tesla’s vision for the future of EVs has the potential to continue to transform auto while also delivering technology to help mobile and portable devices profitably scale and to help the country make significant gains in energy storage. The vision (as is the case with every vision tied to Musk) is bold. We look forward to covering the implementation.

COMMENTARY:   The Tesla CEO envisions “a plant that is heavily powered by renewables, wind and solar, and that has built into it the recycling capability for old battery packs.”

Musk said in a previous earnings call. 

“It is going to be a really giant facility, like say we are doing that something that’s comparable to all lithium-ion production in the world in one factory,” 

Investment bank Barclays writes,

“For the time being, our model does not reflect the additional cost of building out a gigafactory, or the significant potential revenue that Tesla could generate from non-automotive sources such as grid storage. Optionality could provide upside for the stock, as investors consider the potential upside to revenue from non-automotive sources.”

Morgan Stanley analyst Adam Jonas wrote in a January research note, adding,

“We believe the days when Tesla was known as purely an auto company are numbered.  We are witnessing the most disruptive intersection of manufacturing, innovation and capital experienced by the auto industry in more than a century.”

Jonas also claimed.

“Tesla may be in position to disrupt industries well beyond the realm of traditional auto manufacturing. It’s not just cars.”

Competition for Gigafactory Plant Sites

Tesla Motors has stirred up some competition among four Southwestern states that want the automaker to place its new Gigafactory within their respective borders.    According to USA Today, Nevada, Arizona, New Mexico and Texas are all crossing their fingers that Tesla will bring its Gigafactory for lithium-ion batteries to their state. Tesla recently announced the four states as finalists for the factory's location.  

 Click Image To Enlarge

Tesla's Gigafactory aims to create electric vehicle batteries on a mass scale, which will bring battery costs down and help the automaker deliver an affordable EV. Right now, the company offers its high-end, all-electric Model S sedan that has a starting price of $69,900 in the U.S.   Tesla said the giant factory would create 6,500 jobs, which is an attractive offer to these states. 

Click Image To Enlarge

Tesla will invest around $2 billion in the plant through 2020 while investors will pay another $2-3 billion for a total $4-5 billion investment.    All four states are good candidates because they have the climate and terrain necessary to power the plant, which will run on solar and wind.    Nevada would be the closest option for Tesla, since its EV manufacturing plant is in Fremont, California. New Mexico would likely be favorable to Tesla as well, since the automaker previously planned to manufacture its EVs in the state before settling on the California factory.  

Click Image To Enlarge

Global Equities Research analyst Trip Chowdhry, said New Mexico would be an “ideal” location for the $2 billion factory according to reports in the Albuquerque Journal. He told the Journal that he believes Tesla will announce plans to build the facility in New Mexico in the next “six to eight months.” According to the Journal,

“The analyst said the factory would be capable of generating 30 gigawatts of production capacity a year, which would make it the largest such facility in the world. It may also manufacture a hybrid battery pack that could increase the driving range on Model S cars by 10 percent to 15 percent.”

Jon Barela, secretary of the New Mexico Economic Development Department, in a statement said. 

"Gov. Susana Martinez, state and local leaders greatly admire Tesla. We are believers in the company's vision and philosophy.  This is an incredible company that is changing the world for the better. We are ecstatic that New Mexico is a finalist for this phenomenal project."  

While Arizona has the sunshine Tesla needs in abundance, the state's fiscal conservatives might not be onboard with so many incentives funded by taxpayers.  Texas is another good choice, because it already provides space for other auto plants and is close to auto manufacturing infrastructure in Mexico. But Tesla has had issues with Texas in the past that could ruin future business together.  

Last April, Tesla CEO Elon Musk showed support for House Bill 3351, which would allow distributors and manufacturers of electric vehicles (EVs) only to sell directly to customers without the use of dealerships in Texas. The state fought Tesla in an attempt to protect the position of auto dealers, which can lobby a lot harder than Tesla.   

However, Tesla could strike a deal with Texas where the automaker demands the anti-dealership sales model in exchange for bringing the Gigafactory to the Lone Star state.   

The giant Gigafactory will span 500 to 1,000 acres of land and have a space requirement of 10 million square feet. It aims to produce 35 GWh of cells and 50 GWh of battery packs a year.   

Tesla added that it's getting ready to produce 500,000 EVs a year in 2020, and the Gigafactory will supply those battery packs. What's more is that Tesla expects the per-kWh cost of a Tesla battery pack to be lowered by more than 30 percent once the factory is up and running for the first year.   

Construction will continue through 2015, and in 2016, equipment installation is set to begin. The year 2017 will finally see production launch, and will gun for the half million EVs produced in 2020.

Click Image To Enlarge

An energy investor contact emphasized that the battery pack is the strategic component to Tesla’s vehicle, and just as Apple often does for critical technology, Tesla is vertically integrating — or possibly taking an Apple/Foxconn funded manufacturing partnership approach.

“Musk has the ability to mark up the price of his high-end finished vehicle — whereas most battery manufacturers/developers are stuck in an incredibly competitive market, requiring massive scale, with little pricing power and visibility to end consumers.”

Courtesy of an article dated August 1, 2014 appearing in VentureBeat, an article dated March 3, 2014 appearing in DailyTech, an article dated February 27, 2014 appearing in Green Tech Media, an article dated February 26, 2014 appearing in Mashable

 

 

HARLEY-DAVIDSON UNVEILS THE 'LIVEWIRE', ITS FIRST ELECTRIC MOTORCYCLE, AND SURPRISINGLY IT DOESN'T SUCK

The LiveWire, Harley-Davidson's first electric motorcycle (Click Image To Enlarge)

Harley-Davidson is more than a motorcycle, or even a brand. It is an icon, one that brings to mind big, loud bikes ridden by burly men with tattoos and beards.

The company has long been known for rumbling V-twin engines and the open road. All of which makes the idea of an electric Harley seem downright absurd.

It’s actually pretty cool.

The LiveWire is the first electric two-wheeler out of Milwaukee. We spent an afternoon riding one amongst the weeds and broken glass of an abandoned Marine Corps runway outside Los Angeles last week and came away impressed. The Hell’s Angels aren’t going to be riding them anytime soon, but the bike offers an entertaining blend of power and comfort. It doesn’t sound anything at all like a proper Harley—or a “fighter jet landing on an aircraft carrier” as Harley brass say—but it’s got a futuristic sound that brings to mind an airliner taking to the air.

The LiveWire may not rumble like the Harleys everyone knows, and it doesn’t perform like them. But it’ll hit 60 mph in under four seconds and it’s got more style than other electrics we’ve ridden. Now Harley has to find out if anyone actually wants the thing.

Cutting weight and potatoes

If Harley-Davidson isn’t the world’s most famous motorcycle, it’s close. The company has been building motorcycles since 1903, and typically subscribes to the bigger-is-better school of engineering. But even Harley-Davidson knows the times are changing, and it recognizes the need to diversify a customer base dominated by middle-aged white guys.

The Los Angeles Police Department has bought a Zero MMX electric motorcycle, that offers the advantages of a regular motorcyle with the addition of stealth. (Click Image To Enlarge)

Upstarts like Zero Motorcycles, BRD RedShift and Brammo have proven one way to attract younger, urban riders is selling small, compact bikes powered by batteries.

BRD RedShift all-electric motorcycle. (Click Image To Enlarge)

Even major players like Yamaha are giving electrics a go. So Harley is trying it out, too.

Mark-Hans Richer, Harley’s top marketing guy, says. 

“Any business has always got to look ahead to see where customers are interested in going, and see where society might be going,” 

 

That said, this isn’t a production model. Not yet, anyway. Harley is taking a few dozen LiveWires on a tour, dubbed Project LiveWire, of the United States and Europe. It will invite people in each city to check out the bike and provide feedback. The tour starts Monday in New York.

The key challenge in building the LiveWire was the shift from building a bike around an engine to building one around a battery.  A battery is heavy—Harley wouldn’t say what the pack weighs, but one EV expert told us something with the range and recharge time Harley claims would be around 250 pounds—so engineers had to cut weight elsewhere. The cast aluminum perimeter frame wrapped around the battery box weighs just 14 pounds, which makes it a full eight pounds lighter than the Zero’s frame. The wheels have hollow spokes, and Harley claims they’re among the lightest aluminum wheels it’s ever produced. There’s no need for an exhaust system, which not only saves weight but gives the bike a sleeker look. The result is a clean, tightly packaged bike without frivolous details.

 

Harley did most of the chassis work—it’s been building bikes since the dawn of internal combustion, so it’s got that down pat—but brought in experts like Mission Motors for help with things like the motor controller.

Speaking of the motor, the LiveWire marks quite a departure from Harley’s signature sound. You don’t get the syncopated “potato, potato, potato” that is synonymous with a 60-degree V-twin engine. But even though it’s electric, and therefore has no engine, the LiveWire had to live up to Harley’s “look, sound, and feel” mantra. That took a lot of work, but company president and COO Matt Levatich insists the result is “not contrived.”

The high-pitched whir of the longitudinally-mounted, three-phase AC induction motor reverberates through the chassis, amplifying the sound. It starts off quietly, then builds in pitch and volume as the bike gains speed. It’s louder than you’d think, and though it’s not going to set off any car alarms, it’ll definitely make you smile.

Click Image To Enlarge

What customers want

The LiveWire offers 74 horsepower, 52 foot-pounds of torque and a (governed) top speed of 92 mph. It’s more powerful and quicker off the line than the $13,000 Zero DS, but it’s got less torque and range. That said, it’s got more torque and power than Harley’s Iron 883.

Still, Harley execs and engineers don’t like talking about specs. They don’t want potential customers making judgments based on what the LiveWire offers right now. The LiveWire is a work in progress, based on “what we think our customers are looking for,” Richer says. The company hopes to glean more info during the LiveWire tour, and iterate accordingly to suit consumer tastes. Think of this as LiveWire v1.0.

Harley isn’t saying much about the drivetrain beyond saying the bike uses a lithium-ion battery with a range of 53 miles. It charges in 3.5 hours at 220 volts. Assuming the bike has a 3.3 kw charging system like other electric motorcycles, some back-of-the-envelope math suggests the LiveWire uses a 10 kilowatt-hour pack. Twist the throttle and the bike leaps forward with authority. Roll off the throttle and the regenerative braking kicks in, bringing the bike down from speed with due efficiency.

Click Image To Enlarge

Harley emphasizes its excitement over the LiveWire, but downplays its importance. An electric bike is just an idea, something that could draw younger, urban buyers to the brand. Companies like Zero have had some success with that strategy, and even convinced a few police departments to add electrics to their fleets.

Richer says.

“This is just part of us understanding where the world might want to go.”  

The upside of so cautious an approach, of course, is there’s less fallout if the bike is a flop.

New direction

That’s not out of the question. Harley’s past forays into the potentially lucrative market for smaller, city-focused bikes have ended poorly.  That hasn’t kept it from trying again this year with the launch of the Street, a simpler, cheaper, bike made for city riding.  The LiveWire is another step in that direction.

Levatich says.

“Why can’t Harley do some of these other cool things, too, and see where it takes us?” 

COMMENTARY:   Now that's what I call a cool looking all-electric motorcycle.  What I don't like about Harley-Davidson's new all-electric motorcycle is the 53-mile range on a battery charge. That's just not going to cut it if you start using it for commuting long distances like here in the San Francisco Bay Area.  You might be able to make it from Walnut Creek to San Francisco on a charge, but you would have to recharge it there, in order to get back home.  

Harley-Davidson did not provide any prices, but I would like to know what the LiveWire is going to cost owners initially.  I don't think it is going to attract hardcore Harley riders, who prefer the loud roar and rumble of their choppers, a principal reason why they bought one in the first place. The LiveWire does not live up to the Harley image, so it makes sense to introduce the bike to younger, more environmentally conscious, urban riders who travel short distances close to where they live.  

From a strictly marketing standpoint, I would not produce the LiveWire under the Harley-Davidson brand, because the brand is too closely identified with loud rumbling motorcycles, not electrics.  So marketing the LiveWire under the LiveWire brand name makes more sense to me, because it distances itself from Harley-Davidson's image.  

Courtesy of an article dated June 19, 2014 appearing in Wired 

THE MOOR HOUSE, A BEAUTIFUL, ECO-FRIENDLY AND WELL LIT AUSTRALIAN HOUSE, ONLY 15-FEET WIDE, BUT IT'S A DREAMHOUSE

Andrew Maynard, Australia's hottest young architect, has just unveiled a dreamy new addition to the back of an old Victorian Rowhouse in the Melbourne suburb of Fitzroy, Victoria. (Click Image To Enlarge)

AUSTRALIA'S HOTTEST YOUNG ARCHITECT HAS TRANSFORMED A SKINNY VICTORIAN ROWHOUSE INTO A DREAMY SUSTAINABLE DWELLING. IF ONLY EVERY SHOEBOX COULD FEEL LIKE A PALACE.

Only 15 feet wide, the Moor House is a beautiful mullet of a residence--business in the front, party in the back. Maynard avoided an imposing monolithic structure and opted instead to stack and stagger small cubes.  The front of the home was left as is, with a humble, aging white façade, but its back was removed to make way for a new solar-paneled, daylight-filled space.  The Moor House design is remarkable in its transformation of an aging and claustrophobic space into a thoroughly modern dream house, proving that bigger isn’t always better.  (Click Images To Enlarge)

One of Australia’s hottest young architects, Andrew Maynard, has just unveiled a dreamy new addition to the back of an old Victorian Rowhouse in the Melbourne suburb of Fitzroy, Victoria. Only 15 feet wide, the Moor House is a beautiful mullet of a residence--business in the front, party in the back. The front of the home was left as is, with a humble, aging white façade, but its back was removed to make way for a new solar-paneled, daylight-filled dwelling. Maynard's design took the rowhouse's traditional blocky, monolithic structure and divided it up into three staggered boxes, creating a hierarchy in space and a sculptural, modernized look. Working within a cramped area--15 feet is about the length of the average car--Maynard had to make the most of every millimeter.

A 15-foot wide space that makes people ooh and aah has implications that reach far beyond Fitzroy—what if such smart architectural planning could be applied to tiny apartments the world over, making all of our shoeboxes feel like palaces?  Maynard created a light well at the center of the house, illuminating rooms from three sides instead of just two.  (Click Images To Enlarge)

The diagrams for the house reveal inspirations as quirky as Miyazaki’s anime film Princess Mononoke, which encouraged designers to go for “an accumulation of little features that shapes the entire image.” By avoiding a single blocky unit and instead stacking and staggering small cubes, Maynard created a light well at the center of the house, which illuminates rooms from three sides instead of just two.

The kitchen's concrete floor soaks up thermal energy, helping to heat the house in winter.  Cozy banquettes and a built-in desk conserve space, while a steel-framed sliding glass wall converts the kitchen into an idyllic indoor-outdoor area, merging it with the timber deck.  Floor to ceiling windows allow for ample natural light, even while you're taking a bath.  (Click Images To Enlarge)

The eco-friendly structure is split into three volumes--one on the bottom floor and two on the top, which house bedrooms. Maynard tells Co.Design,

"The eaves allow sunlight to flood the internal space in winter (as the sun is low), while excluding the sun completely in summer (when the sun is high), which allows for passive solar gain."

Bright red paneling pops on the upper level’s façade, and an overhang shades the backyard, which is home to a lovely Japanese maple tree.  The diagrams for the house reveal inspirations as quirky as Miyazaki’s anime film Princess Mononoke, which encouraged designers to go for “an accumulation of little features that shapes the entire image.”  (Click Image To Enlarge)

Bright red paneling pops on the upper level’s façade. Cozy banquettes and a built-in desk conserve space, while a steel-framed sliding glass wall converts the kitchen into an idyllic indoor-outdoor area, merging it with the timber deck. Maynard says.  

"The thermal mass of the kitchen's concrete floor allows it to hold the heat from the sunlight that hits it.  It slowly releases this heat throughout the evening, passively heating the house. This works the opposite way in summer. As the sun does not hit the thermal mass of the floor directly it remains cool." 

transformation of an aging and claustrophobic space into a thoroughly modern dream house, proving that bigger isn’t always better. A 15-foot-wide space that makes people ooh and aah has implications that reach far beyond Fitzroy--what if such smart architectural planning could be applied to tiny apartments the world over, making all of our shoeboxes feel like palaces?

COMMENTARY:   I love the "smaller is better" design concept that the Moor House incorporates, and yet is still able to remain eco-friendly with solar panels for power and the central ceiling opening for lots of natural light during the day.  The kitchen concrete floor absorbs the suns heat during the day, and distributes that heat in the evening to conserve on energy.  It shows that you don't have to build big to incorporate these eco-friendly and practical features. 

Courtesy of an article dated November 4 2013 appearing in Fast Company Design 

BETTER PLACE FOUNDER SHAI AGASSI SAYS THAT DETROIT AUTOMAKERS CAN LEARN FROM TESLA MOTORS, RESPOND BUT NOT COPY IT

Should major automakers be concerned about the fact that Tesla's market cap is rapidly approaching the levels of Ford and General Motors? Of course.  (Click Image To Enlarge)

As the electric car company becomes more and more successful, the Big Three need to respond. But just copying a brash startup won't work. Here is what will.

Earlier this summer, General Motors vice chairman Steve Girsky hinted that the company's CEO, Dan Akerson, was more than a little concerned about the rise of electric vehicle startup Tesla Motors:   Girsky said in an interview with Bloomberg. 

“He thinks Tesla could be a big disrupter if we’re not careful.  History is littered with big companies that ignored innovation that was coming their way because you didn’t know where you could be disrupted.”

Shai Agassi, the founder of bankrupt electric vehicle infrastructure company Better Place, has some advice for them: Don't copy Tesla. Just learn from it.  (Click Image To Enlarge)

Should major automakers and their investors be concerned that Tesla's market cap is rapidly approaching the levels of Ford and General Motors?  Of course. That's why Shai Agassi, the founder of bankrupt electric vehicle infrastructure company Better Place, has some advice for them: Don't copy Tesla. Just learn from it.

Tesla Motors Inc (NASDAQ.TSLA) - Share Prices Jan 1, 2013 through September 13, 2013 - Google Finance (Click Image To Enlarge)

In a series of three posts on LinkedIn, Agassi expresses his thoughts on what Detroit should be doing to get in on the electric vehicle market, which Tesla currently has cornered.

In a series of three posts on LinkedIn, Agassi expresses his thoughts on what Detroit should be doing to get in on the electric vehicle market, which Tesla currently has cornered. (Click Image To Enlarge)

Agassi says.

"This was my reaction to a number of posts in the business media that were starting to compare and contrast Tesla with the rest of the industry.  There's this whole idea that the industry should copy Tesla or somehow figure out how to copy Tesla when they're making probably a thousand times as many cars as Tesla."

Agassi says, "There's this whole idea that the industry should copy Tesla or somehow figure out how to copy Tesla when they're making probably a thousand times as many cars as Tesla." (Click Image To Enlarge)

The auto industry, in other words, needs a different strategy.

Agassi's four main takeaways for the industry: Electric cars are objects of desire; Electric cars are like a modern appliance that has software and physical components which need to be constantly updated; Electric cars are on wheels, so automakers need to design vehicles with exponentially improving battery packs in mind; and electric cars drive and sell differently--because car dealers won't invest in marketing a new product category, direct sales may be the way to go.

He has four rules to remember:  Electric cars are objects of desire. Electric cars are like a modern appliance; Electric cars are Moore's Law on wheels; and Electric cars drive and sell differently. (Click Image To Enlarge)

When I ask Agassi if he thinks it's realistic for big, clunky automakers to switch to an entirely new distribution model, he points to the used car industry.  He says.  

"eBay is selling more than a million cars a year at a price point that's roughly around $10,000. If you were able to offer a $10,000 car--one third to one half the price of a new car today--you create a whole new proposition for a whole new market segment."

Agassi says, "If you were able to offer a $10,000 car--one third to one half the price of a new car today--you create a whole new proposition for a whole new market segment." (Click Image To Enlarge)

That requires bringing electric vehicles down to that new low price point--a daunting proposition considering the high cost of batteries. But Agassi has an interesting solution: Don't factor battery prices into EV costs; it's not like gas prices are included in vehicle sticker prices. Instead, he says, automakers should follow the cell phone subscription model and ask people to pay a certain amount per month ($300, say) for battery use.

Agassi argues that automakers shouldn't factor battery prices into EV costs--it's not like gas prices are factored into regular vehicle costs. Instead, they should opt for a subscription model. (Click Image To Enlarge)

Even though Agassi's now-defunct Better Place also relied on a subscription model for battery use, he still believes the model is valid. Better Place, he says, deployed its "battery switch" stations before testing consumer demand, whereas Tesla is deploying charging and battery switch stations only after gauging demand (Tesla also manufactures its own vehicles, while Better Place did not). He writes:

"Produce a base version of an electric cross over. Make it beautiful and benefit from great electric performance. Then take a page from Ford’s Model-T game plan: price that new car at a disruptive price of $9,999, “batteries not included” (after operator subsidies and government incentives).   At high volume, even at that price, this car will be making great profit for the carmaker."

"Support the car with an operator that deploys infrastructure making this EV more convenient to use than a gasoline car. The operator will own the batteries, and offer electric miles at weekly cost which is at parity what the average driver pays for gasoline today. Only this service contract will come with unlimited miles. Then offer various luxury versions of the car, with many “options” offered at higher price points. Consumers who are offered an insanely great car for $9,999 will buy a ton of add-ons, generating even better margin for the carmaker."

Tesla is deploying charging and battery switch stations only after gauging demand. (Click Image To Enlarge)

And he says.

"The company that follows this advice will capture not just a portion of the EV market, it will capture a portion of the car market. That's how industries are formed."

It's hard to say whether legacy automakers are nimble enough to make such a dramatic shift.  The next major EV manufacturer--if there is one--may be a company that doesn't yet exist.

The company that follows this advice, he says, "will capture not just a portion of the EV market, it will capture a portion of the car market. That's how industries are formed." (Click Image To Enlarge)

He says.  

"If you had to guess in the year 2000 who would bring a music device that would capture most of the market, you'd say Sony--they own music labels, they own everything in the industry.   If I told you it was Apple, you'd be laughing because they didn't make a music device at the time."

COMMENTARY:    I agree with Agassi Shai's assessment of Tesla Motors.  Right now the market for electric vehicles or EV's is too small and too early in its development for either the Big Three or Asiatic automakers.  However, they see that the handwriting is on the wall:  The world's oil supply is quickly running out.  We are now entering a period where we consume more oil than the "Oil Shieks" can produce.  Global warming is becoming a reality, no matter what the neysayers think.  With oil prices exceeding $100 per barrel, and the oil refineries producing less gasoline, this has driven gas prices to the highest levels since 2005.  

Electric vehicles are filling a real need in the marketplace, but until the battery technology can improve storage capabilities, and the cost of the vehicles comes down, sufficiently to attract more buyers, EV manufacturers will be stuck in this "dead zone."  Tesla Motors is not immune form this.  It knows it too.  Elon Musk knows that Tesla Motors cannot survive strictly by meeting the demands of affluent buyers who afford to pay premium prices for the Tesla Model S sedan.  This is why Tesla Motors is pushing for a lower-priced EV like the Model C.  

Agassi says it like it is.  The Big Three and Asiatic automakers should not try to copy Tesla, but learn from it.  Furthermore, you cannot simply copy Tesla's design and technology innovation which is clearly head and shoulders above anything the big automakers presently have.  Tesla Motors has intellectural property protection to insure they will be around.  It is being sought out by other companies, including several of the big automakers like Nissan and Toyota to license Tesla's lithium battery technology.

One other thing:  Tesla Motors has Elon Musk.  In all my years, I have never seen another entrepreneur with a track record of success that comes even close to what Elon has been able to accomplished.    Musk co-founded of Zip2, Founded PayPal, SpaceX, Tesla Motors. With his management team he has successfully scaled each company to the point where they now have developed sustainable and predictable revenue models.  He is the real deal.  Tesla Motors has a successful IPO and its stock is now at 165 a share, impossible, but true.  It would not surprise me if the does get SpaceX to put the first American on Mars in another 20 years.  The big automakers cannot replicate someone like Elon Musk.

Courtesy of an article dated August 29, 2013 appearing in Fast Company Exist

TESLA MODEL S ACHIEVES BEST SAFETY RATING OF ANY CAR EVER TESTED BY THE NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMINISTRATION (NHTSA)

Tesla Motors Model S luxury sedan (Click Image To Enlarge)

SETS NEW NHTSA VEHICLE SAFETY SCORE RECORD

Palo Alto, CA — Independent testing by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has awarded the Tesla Model S a 5-star safety rating, not just overall, but in every subcategory without exception. Approximately one percent of all cars tested by the federal government achieve 5 stars across the board. NHTSA does not publish a star rating above 5, however safety levels better than 5 stars are captured in the overall Vehicle Safety Score (VSS) provided to manufacturers, where the Model S achieved a new combined record of 5.4 stars.

Click Image To Enlarge

Of all vehicles tested, including every major make and model approved for sale in the United States, the Model S set a new record for the lowest likelihood of injury to occupants. While the Model S is a sedan, it also exceeded the safety score of all SUVs and minivans. This score takes into account the probability of injury from front, side, rear and rollover accidents.

The Model S has the advantage in the front of not having a large gasoline engine block, thus creating a much longer crumple zone to absorb a high speed impact. This is fundamentally a force over distance problem – the longer the crumple zone, the more time there is to slow down occupants at g loads that do not cause injuries. Just like jumping into a pool of water from a tall height, it is better to have the pool be deep and not contain rocks. The Model S motor is only about a foot in diameter and is mounted close to the rear axle, and the front section that would normally contain a gasoline engine is used for a second trunk.

Click Image To Enlarge

For the side pole intrusion test, considered one of the most difficult to pass, the Model S was the only car in the "good" category among the other top one percent of vehicles tested. Compared to the Volvo S60, which is also 5-star rated in all categories, the Model S preserved 63.5 percent of driver residual space vs. 7.8 percent for the Volvo. Tesla achieved this outcome by nesting multiple deep aluminum extrusions in the side rail of the car that absorb the impact energy (a similar approach was used by the Apollo Lunar Lander) and transfer load to the rest of the vehicle. This causes the pole to be either sheared off or to stop the car before the pole hits an occupant.

The rear crash testing was particularly important, given the optional third row children's seat. For this, Tesla factory installs a double bumper if the third row seat is ordered. This was needed in order to protect against a highway speed impact in the rear with no permanently disabling injury to the third row occupants. The third row is already the safest location in the car for frontal or side injuries.

Click Image To Enlarge

The Model S was also substantially better in rollover risk, with the other top vehicles being approximately 50 percent worse. During testing at an independent facility, the Model S refused to turn over via the normal methods and special means were needed to induce the car to roll. The reason for such a good outcome is that the battery pack is mounted below the floor pan, providing a very low center of gravity, which simultaneously ensures exceptional handling and safety.

Of note, during validation of Model S roof crush protection at an independent commercial facility, the testing machine failed at just above 4 g's. While the exact number is uncertain due to Model S breaking the testing machine, what this means is that at least four additional fully loaded Model S vehicles could be placed on top of an owner's car without the roof caving in. This is achieved primarily through a center (B) pillar reinforcement attached via aerospace grade bolts.

Click Image To Enlarge

The above results do not tell the full story. It is possible to game the regulatory testing score to some degree by strengthening a car at the exact locations used by the regulatory testing machines. After verifying through internal testing that the Model S would achieve a NHTSA 5-star rating, Tesla then analyzed the Model S to determine the weakest points in the car and retested at those locations until the car achieved 5 stars no matter how the test equipment was configured.

The Model S lithium-ion battery did not catch fire at any time before, during or after the NHTSA testing. It is worth mentioning that no production Tesla lithium-ion battery has ever caught fire in the Model S or Roadster, despite several high speed impacts. While this is statistically unlikely to remain the case long term, Tesla is unaware of any Model S or Roadster occupant fatalities in any car ever.

The graphic below shows the statistical Relative Risk Score (RRS) of Model S compared with all other vehicles tested against the exceptionally difficult NHTSA 2011 standards. In 2011, the standards were revised upward to make it more difficult to achieve a high safety rating.

 Click Image To Enlarge

COMMENTARY:   The 5-Star Safety Rating gives Tesla Motors a slam dunk, winning the top three automobile awards.  In a blog post dated May 15, 2013, I reported that Consumer Reports had given Tesla Motors a score of 99 points, beating all the major automobile carmakers.    Consumer Reports said that the Tesla Motors Model S sedan was "the best car ever tested."      Last year the Tesla Model S won Motor Trends' Car of the Year for 2013.   It's an incredible car.  Yes, it's expensive, but you get what you pay for.   Last year the Tesla Model S won Motor Trends'  Car of the Year for 2013.   It's an incredible car.  Yes, it's expensive, but you get what you pay for.

Courtesy of a press release dated August 19, 2013 by Tesla Motors

2013 VOLKSWAGEN XL1 DIESEL/ELECTRIC PLUGIN HYBRID CAR TEST DRIVE, COULD REACH 209 MPG, LIMITED PRODUCTION, PRICE UNKNOWN

The 2013 Volkswagen XL1 diesel hydbrid is the most aerodynamic and fuel-efficient hybrid ever produced (Click Image To Enlarge)

Smaller than a Golf and lower than a Boxster, Volkswagen's XL1 looks like a bijou supercar. It has a sleek, thigh-high, carbon-fiber composite body, butterfly wing doors, a mid-mounted powertrain, and a seven-speed dual-clutch transmission. The XL1 is a supercar of a different sort, though. It won't hit 200 mph, but it will go more than 200 miles on a single gallon of diesel. 

Click Image To Enlarge

In fact, on the official European combined driving cycle, the XL1 is rated at 261 mpg. European and American fuel-consumption tests are quite different, but VW engineers say an equivalent combined EPA city/highway number would be about 20 percent lower -- say, 209 mpg. What does that mean? It means you could drive the 2800 miles from Santa Monica Pier to downtown Manhattan on about 55 bucks' worth of fuel. And a bit of electricity. 

Click Image To Enlarge

Perhaps what's most remarkable about this little diesel/electric plug-in hybrid, however, is that it wouldn't be stuck in the freeway slow lane the whole way. With a combined system output of just 68 hp and 103 lb-ft, acceleration is understandably modest -- VW claims 0-60 mph takes about 12.5 seconds -- but during our brief test drive, the XL1 was content to happily bowl along a Swiss freeway at 70-75 mph, the diesel twin purring at a little over 2100 rpm. The XL1's top speed is electronically limited to 100 mph.

Click Image To Enlarge

Duck under the door and into the cabin of the XL1, and you're greeted with a lot of familiar-looking VW hardware, right down to the instruments and switchgear, though most of it is actually bespoke to the XL1. The steering wheel is small, with a flattened base, and the DSG shifter looks like a three-quarter-scale version of the one you'll find in a Golf GTI. The small, fixed nav screen is the Garmin unit from the Up!, VW's cute little city car.

Click Image To Enlarge

You don't so much fire the XL1 up as switch it on. The hybrid system gives primacy to the 27-hp electric motor wherever possible. Squeeze the long-travel accelerator pedal and the XL1 oozes away with a distant high-pitched whine. The 47-hp, 800cc parallel twin diesel -- architecturally, it's one half of VW Group's 1.6-liter TDI four -- sounds like one of those air mattress inflation pumps when it first fires up, a rapid chocka-chocka-chocka-chocka-chocka-chocka in your right ear.

Click Image To Enlarge

The electric motor is situated between the diesel engine and the seven-speed DSG transmission. At low speeds and with modest accelerator inputs, the XL1 will run a considerable distance solely on electric power before the diesel kicks in. Press a button, and the XL1 will stay in pure EV mode for up to 30 miles, courtesy of a 5.5-kW-hr lithium-ion battery pack allowing emissions-free running in city areas. Management of the power flow is impressive: Only when the chocka-chocka of the little diesel overwhelms the whine of the electric motor are you aware of any change in how forward motion is being accomplished. The transitions are smooth and seamless.

Click Image To Enlarge

Just like any supercar, the XL1 demands compromises. It's noisy because there is very little sound deadening, which helps keep overall weight to just 1750 lb. Not only do you clearly hear both engines, but you also hear the tires on the pavement, the suspension working over the bumps, and the curious rasp of the tiny carbon-ceramic disc brakes as you came to halt. VW engineers considered an active noise cancellation system, but discarded the idea because of weight and the fact that it would consume precious power. Mechanical noise is part of the XL1 experience, just like it is in a Pagani Huayra.

Click Image To Enlarge

What you don't hear much of, however, is the wind. With a Cd of just 0.189, the XL1 is the most aerodynamic production car in history. It cleaves the air like a hot knife through butter, and, at 50 mph or more, the dull roar of the tires effectively cancels out any engine noise.

Click Image To Enlarge

It's been many years since we've driven a new car without power steering, so the XL1's manual system is at first a bit of a shock. It's heavy in tight turns at slow speeds, and loads up in faster corners. But you do know exactly what's going on with the front tires. It's old school and kind of entertaining. The regenerative braking system, by contrast, is almost state of the art in pedal feel and consistency.

 

VW has not announced a price for the XL1, saying only that it will offer what it calls "innovative financing" to get customers into the car, and that just 250 will be virtually hand-built on a special production line at VW's Osnabrück plant in northwestern Germany. Simple auto industry economics suggest this is easily the most expensive Volkswagen ever made -- after all, supercar technologies mean a supercar price tag -- and that it's a money loser. So why build it? "It's a lighthouse car," says VW Group R&D chief Ulrich Hackenberg. "This is the technology spearhead of the VW Group, and all the brands will benefit."

COMMENTARY:     The XL1 is powered by a source of 800cc two-cylinder turbo power (half engine BlueMotion), producing 47bhp.  It supports the 27bhp electric motor that is powered by a lithium ion battery.  These can be imposed on internal plug, which allows the car to travel 35 km (22 miles) on electricity alone.  The electric motor can also be used to support the torque of the diesel engine in the "full throttle acceleration, lifting the figure of £ 74m to £ 103 feet, but it also contributes to the overall effectiveness is well beyond the regular production cars.  XL1 8bhp only requires to maintain a constant speed of 62 mph, however, requires a 1.6 TDI Golf 18bhp to accomplish the same feat.  The result is a car that you can go back and let 313.9 mpg only 24g/km of CO2 - the same time allowing a maximum speed of 100 mph (electronically limited) and 0-62 mph time of 11.9sec. Despite its relatively small 10-liter tank of diesel, there are several XL1 about 340 km.

In its press release of February 27, 2013, here's what Volkswagen said about the XL1:

"Volkswagen to produce XL1 by handcrafting-like production methods at its Osnabrück plant in Germany

XL1 is the most aerodynamic production car ever

0.9 litre combined fuel consumption was a vision – now it is a reality

Wolfsburg, 21 February 2013 – The XL1 from Volkswagen is the most fuel-efficient production car in the world, with a fuel consumption value of 0.9 l/100 km. Thanks to its plug-in hybrid system, the two-seater can also cover a distance of up to 50 km in all-electric mode and therefore with zero local emissions.

The XL1 is an automotive hero that follows pure sports car design principles: low weight (795 kg), perfect aerodynamics (Cd 0.189) and a low centre of gravity (1,153 mm high). This gives the efficient Volkswagen the ability to cruise on the road at a constant speed of 100 km/h using just 6.2 kW / 8.4 PS. In all-electric mode, the XL1 requires less than 0.1 kWh to cover a driving distance of over one kilometer.

High-tech lightweight design, perfect aerodynamics and a plug-in hybrid system – consisting of a two-cylinder TDI engine (35 kW / 48 PS), E-motor (20 kW / 27 PS), 7-speed dual clutch gearbox (DSG) and lithium-ion battery – all make it possible for the new Volkswagen XL1 to emit just 21 g/km of CO2. If necessary, the XL1, with a top speed of 160 km/h, can accelerate to 100 km/h in just 12,7 seconds. Clearly, 0.9 l/100 km fuel consumption is a record figure that has not been achieved by any other vehicle to date, and it illustrates how Volkswagen is redefining what is technically feasible in carmaking.

Conceptually, the XL1 represents the third evolutionary stage of Volkswagen’s 1-litre car strategy. When the new millennium was ushered in, Prof. Dr. Ferdinand Piëch, who is today Chairman of the Supervisory Board of Volkswagen AG, formulated the visionary goal of bringing to market a production car that was practical in everyday use with fuel consumption of one litre per 100 km. In the two-seat XL1, this vision has become reality. Despite the tremendous efficiency of the XL1, developers successfully came up with a body concept, which delivers more everyday utility than in the two previous prototypes. While the driver and passenger sat in a tandem arrangement for optimal aerodynamics in the L1, the 1-litre car presented in 2002 and in 2009, in the XL1 two occupants sit slightly offset, side by side, nearly as in a conventional vehicle.

The XL1 is 3,888 mm long, 1,665 mm wide and just 1,153 mm tall. By usual automotive standards these are extreme dimensions. For comparison: a Polo has a similar length (3,970 mm) and width (1,682 mm) but is significantly taller (1,462 mm). Even a purebred sports car like today’s Porsche Boxster is 129 mm taller (1,282 mm). So, the XL1 will make a spectacular appearance – a car of the future, built for today."

VW Group chairman Martin Winterkorn promised it will be available by 2013 “at an affordable price.”  Car & Driver Magazine thinks that the VW XL1 will be somewhere around the equivalent of $50,000.   Qatar won’t get it—and the U.S. probably won’t, either—but this is just the thing European eco-warriors have been waiting for.

Sorry USA.   American's would buy them all at $50,000 a pop.

Courtesy of an article appearing in the June 2013 issue of Motor Trend Magazine, an article dated August 1, 2013 appearing in All About Super Thunderspeed Cars, an article dated March 18, 2013 appearing in The Superslice and a video uploaded on YouTube on February 27, 2013 

THE 'AEROVELO ATLAS' HUMAN-POWERED HELICOPTER WINS THE 2013 IGOR I SIKORSKY HUMAN-HELICOPTER COMPETITION

A bike rider suspended beneath the Atlas, provides the power for the machine, the winner of the Sikorsky Human-Powered Helicopter contest prize (Click Image To Enlarge)

THE WINNERS OF THE SIKORSKY HUMAN POWERED HELICOPTER COMPETITION DIDN’T "THINK OUTSIDE THE BOX." THEY JUST CHOSE THE RIGHT BOX TO THINK IN.

On June 13, an enormous, ridiculous-looking pedal-powered contraption wafted itself into midair and made history. The helicopter, called Atlas, was designed to win an aviation challenge--the Igor I. Sikorsky Human Powered Helicopter Competition--that had defeated scores of aircraft designers and engineers for 33 years. The task sounds simple:  Create a human-powered aircraft that can hover three meters in the air for at least a minute without drifting outside a 10-meter square. But satisfying those constraints meant designing an aircraft like nothing you’ve ever seen:

On June 13th, 2013, the AeroVelo Atlas Human-Powered Helicopter captured the long standing AHS Sikorsky Prize with a flight lasting 64.1 seconds and reaching an altitude of 3.3 metres. Visit www.aerovelo.com for more details. (Click Image To View Video)

Cameron Robertson, Atlas’s chief structural engineer, told Co.Design.

"Until a few weeks ago, the people who literally wrote the book on the helicopter said that this problem is too hard--that this is actually physically impossible."  

So how did Robertson and his team at AeroVelo--which he describes as "not specialists"--crack the problem? The answer is in that ungainly, ridiculous-looking contraption itself. It’s not anyone’s idea of a "practical" aircraft. It’s designed to do one thing, and one thing only: Win the Sikorsky prize, by any means necessary.   Robertson says.  

"We weren’t afraid to construct a Rube Goldberg machine."

This kind of innovation strategy often goes by clichéd names like "lateral thinking" or "thinking outside the box."  But according to Robertson, "the box" was actually the key to succeeding where 33 years’ worth of other designs had failed. Atlas won the Sikorsky prize by zeroing in on the right box to think inside--and then rigorously, intensely, and persistently analyzing it. He says.  

"Achieving the so-called 'impossible' is a matter of removing unnecessary constraints, and understanding what’s in the box."

The "most salient feature" of Atlas’s winning design, according to Robertson, is its sheer size. It relies on four pedal-powered rotors for lift--and each one is 10 meters in diameter.   He says.

"Atlas is the size of every other human-powered helicopter [in the competition], combined."  

Other design teams knew that size was important, too.

Robertson says.  

"Everyone else said, 'We’re on a campus, so let’s find the biggest gym to build and test this aircraft in,'  which translates to, 'How big is the gym we have? Let’s build our helicopter that big.' But that’s not a real constraint on designing the 'copter. That’s artificial. So we removed it."

Click Image To Enlarge

By realizing that the literal size of "the box" wasn’t actually relevant to solving their problem, AeroVelo tested Atlas in an enormous indoor soccer stadium near Toronto. But that insight wasn’t enough to make the rest of the process simple. Robertson, chief aerodynamicist Todd Reichert, and the rest of the team spent months digitally modeling the physical parameters of their newly liberated problem:   Robertson says.  

"Structure, aerodynamics, engine thermodynamics, pilot physiology, kinematics, all these different design considerations."

They also programmed an "optimizer" to take these variables and relentlessly iterate on possible designs--not with perfect fidelity but with a "good enough" set of tolerances.   Robertson says.

"Then you hit 'go,' and it designs the helicopter.  It only takes five minutes to run on a laptop."

Click Image To Enlarge

It’s often said that solving tough design problems isn’t about bashing your way to a difficult solution as much as it’s about bashing your way to the right question. Atlas is indeed a Rube Goldberg machine--not much good for anything but winning the Sikorsky Prize. But as a proof of concept for an innovation strategy, Atlas’s example can apply to problems far more serious than hovering a furiously pedaling human being in midair.

Robertson asserts.  

"We don’t have 50 years to reevaluate our infrastructure, address climate change, or deal with other 'impossible’ problems.  Getting 2% improvement is no longer acceptable as the right answer. We all need to start really questioning the state that we’re in and how to move beyond it at a much more rapid pace than ever before, and this approach of removing artificial or unnecessary constraints is one way to do that. We knew nothing about helicopters, but we were able to do the impossible. Everybody can become better problem solvers and global citizens by inhabiting that state of mind."

[Read more about Atlas here.]

COMMENTARY:    Wow, that's an incredible achievement.  Without aeronautics knowledge or experience, and without even knowing whether the AeroVelo Atlas would even fly, these guys do the impossible.  How the AeroVelo Atlas is able to lift-off with those four, slow-revolving helicopter blades, is beyond me.  It's nothing short of a miracle.  They deserve the $250,000 price for winning.  

Courtesy of an article dated July 24, 2013 appearing in Fast Company Design

THE "FOOTLOOSE" BY MANDO, IS THE WORLD'S FIRST CHAINLESS FOLDING ELECTRIC BIKE

Click images to visit the Mando Footloose website

The Footloose by Mando is doubtless going to make you want to test ride it. Asserting that it is the world’s first chainless hybrid electric folding bike, Korean auto suppliers Mando Corp and Meister Inc have collaborated to bring us this beautiful design.

Click Images To Enlarge

Designboom states it can go up to 18.6 miles with the motor alone, and farther with pedaling by the rider.

“By directly transforming electricity via an alternator connected to the crank, power is generated directly from the user. The energy stored in a lithium-ion battery, which is then used to actuate the engine. Using an electronic control unit (ECU), the ‘footloose’ works with sensors and an automatic gear changer to monitor terrain and adjust the motor’s output as necessary. It monitors the system for problems, which it displays via a handlebar-mounted human machine interface (HMI).”

Click Images To Enlarge

It will apparently be available in the European markets starting 2013.  Here is a video illustrating the bike a bit more:

 

COMMENTARY:   This is a paradigm change in the e-bike world for sure.  It is a clean and simple design.  It removes all of the typical bicycle drivetrain components: the chain, chainrings, cogs, derailleurs, and shifters.  This also removes the dirty, greasy chain!    

Of course it adds the alternator and some other electronic components but overall it appears to be a system with less components.  As long as it proves to be reliable, the series hybrid system could be a great e-bike drive system for the future.

 

The Footloose was developed in a partnership project of Mando Corp. and Meister Inc. (automotive suppliers in South Korea).  British designer Mark Sanders and Dutch e-bike expert Han Goes were very involved in the design.

Footloose Design By Mark Sanders

Click Image To Enlarge

Footloose Advanced Technology

Click Image To Enlarge

Footloose Specifications

Click Image To Enlarge

Footloose Color Options

Mando Footloose in white and black colors (Click Images To Enlarge)

Mando Footloose in grey and light blue colors (Click Images To Enlarge)

Courtesy of an article dated November 26, 2012 appearing in FeedBox