AXP Raises the Curtain

It's a big day for the Automotive X PRIZE (AXP) - we released the Draft Competition Guidelines for a 60-day public comment period.  The Draft Guidelines are the result of a year long effort by the AXP team, with huge contributions from hundreds of individuals, organizations, companies and government agencies (especially the U.S. Department of Energy, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, and the U.S. Department of Transportation).  

We like the results, and we hope that you will too.  But we want you to know that the public-comment is not pro-forma.  The current Draft Guidelines document is actually the sixth version.  Along the way, we've had quite a few "Eureka!" moments - big smiles, high-fives, and the conviction that we had finally nailed it.  But we hadn't, and perhaps we haven't yet.  Our attitude is that we're entering another round of feedback from our advisors, except this time from a much larger advisory group: everyone that's interested. 

So please send us your comments.  We do ask that you try to understand our general goals and approach - we're looking for a balance that makes the AXP simple, fair, technology-neutral, and likely to result in a vehicle that is feasible to bring to market. We need this to attract strong teams and engage the public. We know we can't satisfy all interested parties, and we know that even our own principles will sometimes conflict.  That said - don't hold back.  Let us know what you think!

Comments

[David L. Wenbert]

The prize as currently constructed seems intended to create more carmakers rather than the necessary environmental/energy innovation in vehicle power and propulsion.

Successful innovation to meet the mileage and emissions targets identified need not involve "a whole new car" - the vehicle design issues need to be dropped for any team that modifies a standard production automobile, no matter how extensive the modifications to the engine and/or drive train.

Handling and crash test issues are irrelevant for a new carburetor, a plasmatron, or a hydrogen-on-demand system, that can work with existing engine infrastructure.

Indeed, the "less different" a successful ultra-low-emission, 100MPG car is from those currently being produced, the greater the likelyhood of the winning technology actually being adopted by the marketplace.

The ideal winners would be small, inexpensive devices that could be rapidly mass produced, retrofitted to existing vehicles, and integrated into all new models everywhere, with no more production disruption than adding an airbag or catalytic converter.

Requiring an emphasis on overall vehicle design, rather than on the only thing that really matters - the powerplant - is a distraction which will make the AXP a parade of sleek-looking, plastic "hangar queens", that business plans alone will not push into the general marketplace.

A successful new engine, carburetor, fuel processor, etc. should not have to have the excess baggage of reproducing the rest of the vehicle as part of their qualification package. Let all such technologies compete, using any commercial vehicle that has been in general mass production, in the current or previous model years.

AXP could play its part by bringing to the table the major aftermarket automotive retailers - AutoZone, Discount/Advance, and PepBoys - to participate in evaluating such reto-fit technologies, with an eye toward effective productization. A technological 'black box' innovation that works should be able to compete head-to-head with the flashiest 'all new car' that anyone can enter.

[Jacque]

I'm a big fan of achievement by those who work out of their garage. If nothing else, I'm very interested in seeing what innovations are the result of this endeavor.

That being said, most garage innovators will not be able to afford the entry fee you've established for this contest. So while you are trying to establish a level playing field, lets face it, those with more money and resources have an obvious advantage over those who do not in this contest.

[Jack Murray]

David L. Wenbert's comments are spot-on. The key technology is not building a car, it is coming up with an innovative way to propel the car that makes it dramatically more efficient than current technology. And I also agree that modification of existing vehicles rather than a new one is MORE important, because it saves the cost and energy needed to build new cars and recycle the old ones. If we are going to propose building new cars, we can explore more innovative ideas than "the same but different" as todays cars.

An innovative approach that I have proposed is what I call the "EV Train", in which small electric cars are used for city driving with small lightweight batteries. Then we have EV Locomotives Servers that run on the freeways which the EV clients attach to in 1 or more chains and are pulled along and have their batteries recharged from the regen of their wheels. We use the battery to energize a magnetic coupling between EV clients so they can easily attach and unattach without mechanical means. Maybe it isn't practical we don't know until its tried and tested, but such an idea would not conform to the rules in this contest.

[Steven]

I heard about this on PBS radio. As an engineer (computer science) it got me very interested, however I was a little disappointed to find the rules aren't as friendly to small teams (think 2 guys in a garage silicon valley types). It seems only someone with massive funding and production capabilities is welcome. I understand the need for an organization with the capability to bring something to market, but I think that may limit the amount of innovation as well. Toyota could probably do this in a month considering how relatively easy it is to alter a prius.

[Mark Paul]

This is great! I've been a proponent of getting the U.S. off of foreign oil since the 1973 oil embargo! Please check out www.energy2025.com!

[David W. Lee, Soceity for Sustainable Mobility]

Too much to type, too little space. I put my comments online here:

http://www.osgv.org/SSM-OSGV_Automotive_AXP_comments.pdf

[Dion Damato]

After reading and reviewing the rules for some time now, I've concluded there are a couple major issues.

1) Time Line: This development time line is far too aggressive for a ground up development. Having designed and built a solar car from the ground up in two years, 18 months is insane to provide the level of detailed required the meet the competition rules (crash simulation, air bags, AC, etc.) It favors incremental change (i.e. change based on modification of current vehicles) or companies already established (i.e. Tesla, Toyota, and the like).

2) Entry Fee: Five thousand dollars show intent to compete. For a small team, this could be 10%-100% the prototype budget. These smaller low budget teams must now spend time fund raising for an entry fee as well as for a prototype. This seems to favors established companies and competitors with larger bank roles. It also forces smaller teams to waste valuable time, which is already far too scarce, to fund raise at the beginning with no proof they can deliver a viable product to potential investors.

I'm very surprised others have not mentioned the above concerns.

[Dion Damato]

Check out the CalCars website. www.calcars.org

I attended the most recent Maker Fair and saw three retrofitted vehicles and they seemed to meet the Automotive X-Prize standards (100+ mpg and 200 g/mi or less C02 emissions).

In particular take a look at this page:
http://www.calcars.org/vehicles.html

Seems like all a competitor would need is a Toyota Prius ($22k), converted to plug-in ($10-$12K), and make any modifications necessary to reduce weight and/or improve fuel economy ($1K and up). Oh, and a whopping $5k as an entry fee (15% of the Prius + conversion budget above, less any modifications). That money would be better spent getting someone involved or making the improvements to the car.

This all makes me wonder if this prize is really pushing the envelope.
http://www.calcars.org/images/photos/felix-car-full.jpg

Best Regards

[RustyLugNut]

Most of the above comments and questions could be answered with a thorough reading and understanding of the proposed AXP Guidelines. The intent is simple and very clear: they want to shake up the established automotive structure, see what falls out, and help the ideas take root and have the best chance to see the showroom floor "as a complete vehicle" or "technology repackaged and licensed to a range of manufacturers".

Using existing vehicles is not prohibited. Provisions seem to be in place to allow such a course. But current construction methods are relatively heavy, though economical, and you immediately incur a weight-performance penalty. This might be enough to keep an entry from being a top competitor. For small teams, an existing platform might be a way to at least enter, compete and attract the resources needed to bring a technology to market. That is the burden of the AXP committee, to give teams a stage upon which they can perform and attract the needed resources to achieve success in the market place. One of the problems of any startup venture is the cost of effective advertisement. The AXP gives you this as part of your entry price! In spades! All you have to do is convince the judges that your team has a viable business plan. If you are serious about taking a system to market, you will have to do this anyways. The AXP gives you a sounding board to cultivate this plan with help from "industry professionals". I cannot begin to tell you how valuable this service is ( and how pricey it can be to hire consultants ). The harping on the 5000 dollar entry per vehicle is nothing more than a misunderstanding of the realities of product design and development. 5000 is nothing to a well organized and focused team. These are some of the traits the AXP organizers are trying to find. And it is often lacking in the "garage inventor" -organization and focus. I have worked with many garage inventors over the years (mainly in the medical device field) and it never ceases to amaze me how these small time inventors can be so brilliant and naive at the same time. More organization and focus, and more of these devices would get to market. The AXP guidelines will actually help a team to market if they can qualify for the race. Harping on these "restrictions" is missing the point. The AXP is here to help you succeed!

As to large manufacturers, such as Toyota, with their market leading Prius, jumping in and competing; that too is the goal of the AXP. If Toyota or anyone else has something up their corporate sleeve, entering and announcing a new product during the AXP race would be the equivalent of hundreds of millions in advertising dollars. The prize money would not even begin to cover their development costs, but the publicity . . . Priceless!

In either case, all the competition will do, is shake out more technology the establishment will have to consider. If only a fraction of the technology makes it to market, we all will benefit from it.

[Michael]

Maybe the AXP needs to broaden its scope. Perhaps add additional categories and prizes that would make it easier for small groups to participate. New categories might include: Best retrofit technology for existing vehicles, Most promising new technology, Best advertising campaign to change driving habits (VMT).

[Dion Damato]

Over the Labor Day weekend I happen to read an article in Design News that is relevant to my previous post. Please read the following.

http://www.designnews.com/article/CA6470737.html?industryid=43655#_self

I feel the article provides more evidence as to how far the AXP is pushing the envelope (e.g. not that far). Be sure to scroll through the images at the bottom. Pay particular attention to image 3 (A123 Systems Conversion of a Prius, big 150mpg on the side of the car.)

My bet is; a converted plug-in hybrid will win this competitions, which is hardly a revolutionary technology (see Calcars link in previous post).

Also, I could easily see Toyota creating a plug-in version of the Prius to directly compete with the Chevy Volt.

Also notice that the several companies have supplied significant financial resources or entered development deals with A123 Systems to develop this technology (i.e. plug-in hybrid).

[Scott Parker]

It seems to me the 20 million prize is too small to really get enough people interested. For something this valuable, you would think California, or some other states or countries could pass a Billion dollar bond to up the prize ante'. Its not like they have to pay if it dosen't happen. Bill Gates or Warren Buffet not good for a few hundered million to help the world? Or how about the Lottory Prize winnings one week for powerball go twords the prize. I'll spend a few hundered bucks that week in the gamble that a few years from now I'll be driving a car that gets 100+ mpg.

[Charlie]

I think that people should start to look away from the hybrid entirely. We should look into something in the way of developing that doesn't need gasoline at all.