A SUMMARY
REPORT
-------
a summary report
Prepared by the
CACR Organization Committee
Robert McGregor, chairman
Craig Lentz, coordinator
Ron Francis, director
Steve McGregor, director
Ty Rabe, director
William Charles, director
Christopher Exton, member
Katherine Hooper, member
Diane Lentz, member
Michael Martin, member
Elisabeth McGregor, member
Mary McNulty, member
Al Harger, MIT liaison
John Heywood, faculty advisor
This document was supported by contract #CPA-70-169 from the
Environmental Protection Agency.
FEBRUARY 1971
-------
Copyright, the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 1971.
All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced without
permission of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. However, since
this document was supported by the Environmental Protection Agency (Air
Pollution Control Office); the U.S. Government reserves the right to use,
reproduce or have reproduced and use, without charge, for its own use,
all or any portion of the materials herein. Requests for copies or
permission to reprint portions should be addressed to:
CACR Committee
Rm 35-438
M.I.T.
Cambridge
Massachusetts 02139
The symbol on the cover is the official CACR logo and is patterned
after the international traffic sign meaning "do not."
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page No.
FOREWORD
I. THE AUTOMOBILE AND AIR POLLUTION 1
Introduction 2
The Sources of Air Pollution in the United
States 2
Health Effects of Air Pollution 6
Automotive Sources of Pollution 7
Current Procedures for Controlling the
Exhaust Emissions from Internal
Combustion Engines 9
II. THE 1970 CLEAN AIR CAR RACE 13
Nota Bene 14
In Retrospect 14
A Synopsis of Events 15
A Summary of Achievements and Impacts 17
The Future 22
III. THE WINNERS OF THE CLEAN AIR CAR RACE 25
Prologue 26
Classification of Entrant Vehicle Power
Plants 26
The Selection Procedure for the CACR Winners 27
The CACR Class Winners 30
The CACR Overall Winner 54
-iii-
-------
IV. PERFORMANCE TEST PROCEDURES FOR CACR
VEHICLES 61
Introduction 62
Preliminary Setup 62
The Noise Measurement Test 63
The Acceleration Test *>**
The Braking Test 66
Measurement of General Roadway
Handling and Maneuverability 68
General Observations and Comments on
the Hanscom Field Performance Tests 70
Performance Test Data 71
Fuel Economy Measurement-Introduction 71
Test Description 73
Measurement Method 73
Results 75
Evaluation 76
V. EXHAUST EMISSION STANDARDS AND CACR TEST
PROCEDURES 77
Introduction 78
Exhaust Emissions Test Procedures 79
Problems in Obtaining Accurate
Measurements 82
The Federal Exhaust Emission Control
Standards 84
The CACR Exhaust Emission Control
Formula 87
Emissions Results Evaluation 94
Emissions Attributable to Electric
Vehicles 98
-iv-
-------
Page No.
VI. A DISCUSSION OF AUTOMOTIVE FUELS USED IN THE
CLEAN AIR CAR RACE 99
Role of the Committee 100
Summary of the Fuel Types Used 101
Discussion of the Fuel Types Used 102
Comments and Implications 111
VII. WHAT IT COST TO HAVE A CLEAN AIR CAR RACE 115
Summary 116
A History of the CACR Fund Raising
Campaign 117
Estimate of Financial Support
Accumulated 120
Committee Operating Expenses 121
APPENDICES
A. Clean Air Car Race Entrant Teams 125
B. Entrant Team Technical Reports 129
C. A History of Organization Committee
Activity 237
D. CACR Rules 259
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
-v-
-------
FOREWORD
H. G. Wells once said that future history will be a race between
education and catastrophe. In 1969 a spirit of impending catastrophe
was darkening the university horizon. Students were forcing the realization
that more national attention must be given to social or human problems,
and protesting appeared to be very effective in getting attention. Often
times attention seemed to be the only reward which they received-, however,
more students wanted to become part of a constructive rather than a critical
action.
In the Spring and Summer of 1969, I came to believe that the quickening
desire on the part of more students to get involved in a relevant and
constructive issue might lead to a favorable reception for a clean air car
race. At the same time, the nation seemed to be struggling with the per-
plexing problem of whether our technical progress must inevitably be detri-
mental to our social goals. Many of us engineers believed we had simply
given to society what it wanted, and if the consequences were not as x*el-
come as the comforts and convenience then we would have to work together to
determine new goals.
In retrospect, I believe that a great many people benefited from the
race. It has left its certain mark on the history of the automobile, and
it undoubtedly has influenced the lives of many student participants who
were, or soon would be, at that crucial point of setting out on a career.
It seems to be affecting the history of some universities, as I understand
that several faculties from the competing universities are changing their
plans to include much more student involvement in constructive and socially
relevant programs.
I know also that the experience was of great value to each member of
the Organization Committee. Upon taking over responsibility for the race
in February 1970 they were a confident group but not always sure of their
authority. It was quickly realized that they might be responsible for
spending or controlling the allocation of over one hundred thousand dollars
(it turned out to be a large fraction of a million dollars) and thay wonder-
ed whose "approval" was necessary on some major decisions. However, as their
own decisions established a base of confidence in their judgment they
learned that authority comes from responsibility and that no "approvals"
were necessary. In short, they now had an insiders view of "the establish-
ment."
Lastly, I learned once again what intelligent young men and women can
accomplish when they put their energies to a task which they believe is im-
portant. It there is a generation gap, I want to be counted on their side.
February 10, 1971 Dr. Milton U. Clauser
First faculty advisor to
the Clean Air Car Race
Organization Committee
-vi-
-------
-------
I. THE AUTOMOBILE AND AIR POLLUTION
INTRODUCTION
Although the existence of the automobile on city streets dates back
to the first years of this century, its role as a contributor to air con-
tamination did not receive wide acceptance among scientists until within
the last two decades. Factual evidence that urban area smog was chemically
related to automobile emissions had been produced and acknowledged by
scientific groups in the early 1950's. Despite vehement disagreement which
ensued between government and the automotive industry on this volatile
issue, research and development programs were initiated by both groups
in an effort to identify the internal combustion engine's sources of
pollution and determine what corrective action might be taken.
The roots of the general pollution problem, however, had already
buried themselves deeply within the American value structure and, in
retrospect, there should be little wonder that the related issue of auto-
motive air pollution took so long to resolve. Traditionally, American
society had not concerned itself with the economics of pollution of any
type; a price tag had never been levied upon the consumer for the presence
and continuing accumulation of unwanted and harmful materials in his
natural environment. This century's value systems dictated that all
decision making be oriented toward product development which took the
most direct route, namely, minimizing cost and maximizing convenience
and performance. Eventually, the alarming rates of urbanization and
population increase compelled the U.S. to treat the issue of pollution
by-product formation at all levels of decision-making. The rampant pace
of technological development could no longer go unchecked in the expectation
that our environment would naturally continue to absorb and adjust.
Applying the brakes and opting for pollution control techniques, then,
is perhaps just as much a societal problem as it is a question of coping
with science and technology, provided one understands where the actual
sources of inertia lie.
THE SOURCES OF AIR POLLUTION IN THE UNITED STATES
The recent recognition of pollution as a major national problem has
spawned countless programs of investigation and research within government,
industry, private foundations, and educational institutions. However, the
data available to date is incomplete, estimates abound, conclusions are
tentative, and disagreement inevitable.
The total air pollution emissions from all sources for the calendar
year 1968 has been estimated at 214 million tons on the basis of a
-2-
-------
nationwide inventory conducted by the Federal government.1 (See Fig. 1-1)
STATIONARY SOURCES - 57.7%
123.7 million tons per year
TRANSPORTATION - 42.3%
90.5 million tons per year
Fuel
Combustion
21.4%
Gasoline
Motor Vehicles
38.1%
Solid Waste
)isposal
Industrial
Processes
Diesel Motor
Vehicles - 0.7%
Other
Transportation
i S7
J . J 10
Fig. I - 1:
U.S. air pollution emission levels by
source for the calendar year 1968
Motor vehicles on the highway today account for roughly 40% by
weight of all pollution being emitted into the nation's atmosphere each
year. The principal contaminants for which it is responsible are carbon
monoxide (CO), hydrocarbons (HC), and oxides of nitrogen (NOX ),
Particulate matter emitted by the automobile, almost all of which is lead,
and oxides of sulfur are practically negligible as far as the automobile's
contribution to the total levels of these air contaminants is concerned.
(See Fig. 1-2).
U.S. Dept. of Health, Education, and Welfare, Nationwide Inventory
of Air Pollution Emissions, 1968, U.S. Government Printing Office,
August, 1970.
-3-
-------
Millions of tons
>er year (1968)
100
90
10-
Motor
Vehicles -
Motor Vehicles
All Other Sources
1%
Source: U.S. Dept. of HEW, Nationwide Inventory of Air
Pollution Emissions, 1968.
Fig. 1-2; The motor vehicle's contribution to five major air contaminants,
-4-
-------
HC
47.5%
1.3%
CO
59.0
0.2
NO
32.0
2.9
Partic.
1.8
1.0
Table 1-1 provides a further breakdown of information on automotive
emissions as regards the use of diesel fuel vs. gasoline in internal
combustion engine (ICE) power plants.1
Table 1-1
Automotive Pollutant Percentages vs. Type of Fuel Being Combusted.
PERCENT OF TOTAL AIR POLLUTION
S0y Total
Gasoline 47.5% 59.0 32.0 1.8 0.6 38.1%
Diesel 1.3% 0.2 2.9 1.0 0.3 0.7%
When discussing atmospheric pollutants, the following facts are
important to note:
1) The different pollutants, carbon monoxide, hydrocarbons, oxides
of nitrogen and particulates each have different effects on human health
and the environment. The total tonnage of pollutants emitted by the
automobile does not measure its contribution to the air pollution problem,
thus each pollutant must be considered separately.
2) Some of the products of fuel combustion, e.g. hydrocarbons and
oxides of nitrogen, react with each other and other compounds in the
atmosphere. Nitric oxide (NO), for example, is the oxide of nitrogen
emitted during normal ICE operation which is oxidized in the atmosphere to
nitrogen dioxide (N02). Together, NO and N02 are often referred to as
the oxides of nitrogen (NOX) when talking about automotive emissions.
Another example is the complex interaction of hydrocarbons and NOX in
the presence of sunlight; the chain reaction which takes place results
in the formation of photochemical smog, a major component of which are
irritating oxidants. The Los Angeles basin is the worst example of this
photochemical smog and offers ample evidence of its damaging effects.
3) Hydrocarbon emissions cover a range of many different organic
compounds which vary in their basic molecular structure, formula, and
associated chemical and physical properties. The composition of the
hydrocarbon emissions depends on the composition of the fuel burned.
Simpler fuels such as methane (CH^) and propane (CjHg) result in hydro-
carbon emissions that are less reactive in the photochemical smog process
than hydrocarbon emissions from gasoline combustion.
-5-
-------
HEALTH EFFECTS OF AIR POLLUTION
Hydrocarbons, carbon monoxide, oxides of nitrogen, and various photo-
chemical oxidants are all toxic of themselves when found in sufficient
quantity in the atmosphere. Current medical health effects result from
variable dosages of each pollutant type and how serious the effects become
with increasing time length of exposure.
The presence of NO, in sufficiently large quantities is a suspect-
ed cause of reduced visibility in urban atmospheres, and may inflict
damage upon lung tissue. Both hydrocarbons and photochemical oxidants
are suspected of being the responsible agents for eye and throat irritation
and respiratory disease aggrevation.
It has been clinically shown that CO impairs the oxygen-carrying
ability of the blood; small concentrations can reduce usual acuity
and motor ability; large doses are fatal.
Particulate emissions from the automobile are the major source of lead
in the environment. In general particulate matter in the atmosphere re-
duces the amount of solar energy reaching the earth and reduces visibility.
It is a health hazard through its effect on the respiratory system, and a
cause of a wide range of material damage.
A number of documents published over the last three years by the
Air Pollution Control Office (APCO) in the Environmental Protection
Agency (formerly the National Air Pollution Control Administration in
the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare) contain extensive
reporting on the different types of pollutants found in the atmosphere,
how to measure their concentration, and what effects might be attrib-
utable to each. These documents are commonly referred to as the Air
Quality Criteria. The CACR Committee recommends that anyone interested
in pursuing the effects of the different air pollutants in more detail
consult these documents. The titles and dates of publication have been
listed below; copies may be obtained from the Superintendent of Documents,
Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C. 20402.
Air Quality Criteria for Particulate Matter. Pub. No. AP-49, January 1969.
Air Quality Criteria for Sulphur Oxides, Pub. No. AP-50, January 1969.
Mr Quality Criteria for Carbon Monoxide. Pub. No. AP-62, March 1970.
Air Quality Criteria for Photochemical Oxidents, Pub. No. AP-63, March 1970.
Air Quality Criteria for Hydrocarbons, Pub. No. AP-64, March 1970.
Air Quality Criteria for Nitrogen Oxides. Pub. No. AP-84, January 1971.
-6-
-------
AUTOMOTIVE SOURCES OF POLLUTION
In the environment, natural levels exist for the different atmospheric
elements and compounds. Urbanization and industrialization have increased
the former ambient levels (or geophysical component) substantially. Of
notable interest are the high concentrations of pollutants emitted by the
automobile in regions of high traffic density. Figure 1-3 shows schemetically,
for example, the concentration of CO in the vicinity of our nations road-
ways. In busy city centers, CO levels are now sufficiently high to con-
stitute a health hazard. Corrective action to protect the public's health,
and such action is now underway.
Main
Street
Expressway
(Rural or Urban)
ITRRAN-AKF.A COMPONENT
INTER-T1KBAN COMPONENT
GEOPHYSICAL COMPONENT
Fig. I - 3: Hypothetical profile of CO concentrations in the environment.
The uncontrolled automotive spark-ignition engine had three major
sources of air pollutants: crankcase blowby, fuel evaporation from the
fuel tank and carburetor, and exhaust emissions. Crankcase blowby has been
controlled since about 1964, nationwide, by returning the blowby gases
to the air intake through a positive crankcase ventilation (PCV) value.
Evaporative losses have been controlled on 1970 and subsequent model years
by employing vapor-tight systems on fuel tank and carburetor. Exhaust
emission control, however, has been and is the most difficult of the tasks
confronting the automotive engineer as the the three pollutants CO, HC and
NOX have different origins inside the engine cylinder and require different
control techniques and devices.
Vehicle exhaust customarily contains about 60% of the total HC
emissions and 100% of the CO, NOX, and particulate emissions for a com-
pletely uncontrolled automobile. Efforts by the automotive industry over
the past five years have succeeded in reducing the magnitude of hydrocarbons
by 70% and that of CO by 60% for 1970 model year vehicles. The recently
passed Amendment to the Clean Air Act (December, 1970) requires that a
-7-
-------
virtually pollution-free automobile be manufactured by the industry in
the 1975-1976 model year with all pollutants having been reduced by
90 to 97% over uncontrolled vehicles.
Figure 1-4 illustrates what effect the exhaust emission control pro-
cedures could have on the total emissions of HC, CO, and NOX into the at-
mosphere if the Federal standards are attained. Note that the absolute
levels begin an upward trend around the 1980 model year because while most
vehicles on the road will posses the proper emission control devices, the
number of total vehicle miles per year will once again have become the
dominant factor in this calculation.
500-
CARBON MONOXIDE
HYDROCARBONS
S 400
CO
c
o
H 300-
CO
Is 200
n)
co
§
£ 100
Without Controls
1980
1940
1960 1980
Year
80-
(0
c
o
H
60-
CO
"S4^
cd
co
O
H 20H
Without Controls -»/
1940
1960
Year
1980
Fig. I - 4; Current automobile pollutant emission levels and pro-
jected estimates on a national scale.
-8-
-------
CURRENT PROCEDURES FOR CONTROLLING THE EXHAUST EMISSIONS FROM INTERNAL
COMBUSTION ENGINES^
This is more or less where the Clean Air Car Race (CACR) came
into the picture. The hope of involving university groups in the
automobile pollution control effort could not have received a better
shot in the arm than the discovery that both the Federal government
and the automotive industry would be willing to sanction such involve-
ment. The original concept was to have a competition in designing and
building automotive power plants, be they ICE or unconventional, that
could attain the then-proposed 1975 Federal standards for exhaust
emission control. This, in a nutshell, was the intent of the event.
Since the focus of this chapter has been on the conventional automobile,
the conluding paragraphs review the techniques employed by those CACR
entrant teams who went the ICE route.
Several methods are being considered to reduce emissions from
internal combustion engines. Since they will be referred to repeatedly
in the technical reports on the CACR vehicles (see Appendix B), their
descriptions and the principles upon which they operate will be summarized
here. Due to the trade-offs which often exist in the formation of nitro-
gen oxides, carbon monoxide, and hydrocarbons during combustion, the set
of techniques which any entrant picked represented his assessment of the
optimum resolution of those trade-offs. (See Figure 1-5).
1-1
cfl
o
W
o o
a
O )-i O
EC 4J C
c
T3 0)
C O
e
o
> U M
X C
Own)
& G >->
O
" T-l 0»
O tn w
o to co
Cu
cfl
STOICHIOMETRIC
12 14 16 18
Air-Fuel Ratio
20 22
Fig. I - 5:
Trade-off curves illustrating the-formation of HC, CO
and NO
air-fuel ratio.
x within the combustion cylinder as a function of
2. U.S. Dept. of HEW, Control Techniques for Carbon Monoxide, Nitrogen
Oxide, and Hydrocarbon Emissions from Mobile
March 1970.
Sources, U.S. GPO,
9
-------
Hydrocarbons can be reduced by increasing the air-to-fuel ratio
(running lean), by creating a higher exhaust gas temperature, or by
lowering the "quench mass" within the combustion cylinder. Running lean
simply provides a greater ratio of oxygen in the cylinder with which the
reduced amount of fuel can react. By running richer than the well-known
stoichiometric condition of 14.5 to 1.0, i.e., what is chemically ideal,
hydrocarbons are virtually forced to skyrocket. Raising the exhaust gas
temperature increases the reaction rate between the hydrocarbons and
oxygen in the exhaust stream.
An extension of the concept of lean operation and higher exhaust
temperatures for hydrocarbon reduction is the exhaust reactor, of which
there are two major varieties - thermal and catalytic. A thermal
reactor consists of an insulated chamber which provides the necessary
residence time at high temperatures (around 1500°F) for the hydrocarbons
within the exhaust gases to react. Frequently air is injected upstream
of the reactor to increase the 02 content of the exhaust gas. A cataly-
tic reactor operates similarly to the thermal reactor, but includes the
addition of some surface catalyst (such as platinum) on an inert sub-
strate which enables it to function at lower temperatures and higher
efficiency. Air injection is often used with catalytic reactors as well.
In a thin zone along the metal surface of the combustion chamber,
temperatures are not high enough to allow combustion. The quenching
phenomenon which results is a major source of hydrocarbons. Decreasing
the quenching surface area by either using a smaller engine, having
fewer cylinders for a given engine displacement, or optimizing the bore-
to-stroke ratio can reduce hydrocarbon emissions. Greater turbulence
within the cylinder during the injection of the air-fuel mixture or a
higher compression ratio can decrease the quench zone thickness.
Carbon monoxide is produced in much the same way as the hydro-
carbons , although air-fuel ratio becomes a more important factor and
quenching less important. Catalytic and thermal reactors are both effec-
tive in the control of CO as well as hydrocarbons.
At the high temperatures which momentarily exist within the cylinder
during flame propagation (above 4000°F), a small fraction (0.3%) of the
nitrogen in the air-fuel charge is oxidized to nitric oxide NO. The
process is highly temperature dependent, and is most easily attacked by
utilizing various means to lower the peak combustion temperatures.
Lowering compression ratio and retarding the spark timing both
reduce the rate at which nitric oxide is formed. Both these changes
reduce the peak pressure within the engine cylinder and therefore peak
temperatures are lowered. Running lean also results in lower combustion
temperatures; but at an air-fuel ratio setting which is only slightly
leaner than stoichiometric, it becomes counter-productive (see Figure
I - 5), with the increased 02 and N2 supply counteracting the effect of
reduced temperature.
With the addition of an inert substance to the air-fuel mixture,
some of the thermal energy must be used to raise the temperature of the
substance during combustion. Commonly, the inert substance used is 10%
-10-
-------
to 20% of the engine exhaust itself, and less commonly, water is used.
The former approach is called exhaust gas recirculation or EGR and the
latter is referred to as water injection.
Finally, catalytic reactors can be used to reduce NO concentrations
in the exhaust via the following reaction::
2NO + 2CO - N2 + 2C02.
This requires low levels of oxygen in the exhaust to avoid com-
petition between D£ and NO for the available CO. Consequently, the same
reactor cannot be used to reduce both hydrocarbons and NO.
Please realize that the above-listed procedures constitute only a few
of the techniques which can be employed in controlling HC, CO, and N02
output from automobiles.
-11-
-------
-------
II. THE 1970 CLEAN AIR CAR RACE:
A SYNOPSIS OF EVENTS
A SUMMARY OF ACHIEVEMENTS AND RELATED IMPACTS
NOTA BENE
In the 1970 Clean Air Car Race (CACR), seven vehicles out of 43
demonstrated particular low pollution potential by exceeding stringent
exhaust emission control standards which had been established by the
organization committee. However, because the CACR test procedure for
measuring the exhaust gas pollutants did not correspond on a number of
points to what had been specified in Volume 33 of the Federal Register
(see Section A of Chapter V), there is some question as to whether these
same vehicles have actually bettered the proposed Federal standards for
exhaust emission control, namely:
Proposed Federal Standards Federal Standards,
at Race Time (August 1970) 1970 Clean Air Act
Amendments
1975 1975 1976
Hydrocarbons (HC): 0.5 gm/mile 0.45 0.45
Carbon monoxide (CO): 11.0 " 4.7 4.7
Nitrogen oxides (NOX): 0.9 " 3.0* 0.4*
*Not yet officially announced by the Federal Government. Proposed
Standard for 1973.
Although seven of the CACR entrant teams had reduced the pollutant levels
in their vehicle exhausts below the then-proposed 1975 standards, the
differences between the CACR and Federal test procedures should make one
sufficiently cautious before concluding that the breakthrough to the
automotive air pollution problem has been found. (See Chapter V for an
explanation of the CACR exhaust emissions test procedure.)
IN RETROSPECT
Several tangible objectives had been drawn up by the CACR organiza-
tion committee during the spring of 1970 while preparing for the competi-
tion. The objectives as formulated by the committee at that time have
been reproduced below:
-------
1. To involve educational institutions in the field of
automotive technology and control of pollution emissions
in vehicle exhaust;
2. To stimulate interaction in this field between educa-
tional institutions and industries with ongoing programs;
3. To assess the state-of-the-art in this field with respect
to both potential short and long range solutions; and
4. To encourage the design and development of unconventional
(non-ICE) power plants for vehicular propulsion.
In the committee's opinion, a fair statement to make in retrospect
is that the initial goals were in part eventually realized. The reader
is invited to conclude for himself what the CACR actually proved and
whether the participants, including academia, government, and industry,
realized any gains from becoming involved in a project of this nature.
The 1970 Clean Air Car Race witnessed 43 student teams from 32
different educational institutions successfully complete construction on
various types of vehicle power plants which were subsequently tested for
exhaust emissions, general performance, fuel consumption, and reliability.
A number of teams had received strong industrial support consisting of
funds and technical assistance, while other student groups had relied
upon textbook knowledge and plausible experimental methods. Both those
who made the starting line on time and the teams which never completed
vehicle construction discovered that the reduction of exhaust emissions
for any type of automotive power plant is not a matter to be taken for
granted. The technology whereby exhaust emissions can be reduced, the
cost involved, and the task of educating the consumer to accept his share
of the responsibilitythese issues were dealt with firsthand by the CACR
student-faculty teams. With the conclusion of the CACR, the participat-
ing academic groups had learned a great deal about existing and potential
control methods for ICE exhaust emissions, the use and availability of
different types of automotive fuels, and the challenge of promising al-
ternative propulsion systems.
A SYNOPSIS OF EVENTS
The history of organization committee activity is a complete story
in itself (see Appendix C), but tells only half of what actually happened
during the 1970 Clean Air Car Race. Every participating group created its
own sphere of influence and undoubtedly experienced a number of successes
and failures therein. Crossroads confronting the young engineers included
correctly analyzing combustion chamber chemistry, making design decisions
regarding a total emissions control package, and securing the essential
support from university administrations and interested industrial firms.
-15-
-------
With many forces interacting on the controversial subject of automotive
air pollution, the CACR provoked quite a stir in government and industri-
al circles as it set out to demonstrate that the then-proposed 1975 Fed-
eral standards could be attained now.
To meet the CACR entrance requirements, the major obstacle confront-
ing a potential participant was the reduction of vehicle power plant e-
missions to the 1975 standard levels on the basis of a hot start, Cali-
fornia seven-mode cycle test. Other qualification requirements included
that the vehicle be four-wheeled and fully enclosed, have a two-passenger
minimum capacity, and be capable of traveling 60 miles in 90 minutes
without refueling. The test vehicles also had to comply with the 1970
Federal safety standards to insure legal passage on the interstate high-
way system.
Competition rules were drawn up by the organization committee and
93 student-faculty teams at approximately 60 colleges and high schools
completed preliminary registration. The event had been divided into
three major time blocks, namely: pre-race testing at MIT in Cambridge,
cross-country travel, and post-race testing at Caltech. There would be
a winner for each class of power plant type determined on the basis of
scoring formulae devised by the organization committee. An impartial
panel of experts on automotive air pollution had agreed to select an
overall winner, using subjective criteria such as design cost-effective-
ness, practicality of the concept, and potential for public acceptance.
The period of competition took place between August 17th and Septem-
ber 2nd. The vehicles were tested on three separate occasions for ex-
haust emissions, while roadway performance and noise emission were as-
sessed only once, prior to the start of cross-country travel. While
journeying between Cambridge and Pasadena, fuel economy was measured for
each entrant vehicle over a limited portion of the route and an accurate
record of malfunctions was maintained to establish a measurement of each
vehicle's reliability. Upon arrival in Pasadena, the third of the exhaust
emission tests was administered and a final score for each team was im-
mediately computed by the organization committee. The winners were an-
nounced at an awards banquet held on the evening of September 2nd, the
official conclusion of CACR activity.
After the event, the organization committee returned to MIT, where
its post-race responsibilities were essentially to disseminate the CACR
results to interested groups as well as to the general public. During
this time, films on the CACR have been produced, this summary report has
been published, and over 50 presentations by organization committee mem-
bers have been made upon request by interested schools and civic groups.
-16-
-------
A SUMMARY OF ACHIEVEMENTS AND IMPACTS
The 1970 Clean Air Car Race succeeded in generating widespread
interest at different levels within a number of organizations, the most
notable of which were the engineering departments of universities, the
automotive industry, and the National Air Pollution Control Administra-
tion (NAPCA) within the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare.1
The CACR story concerns to a significant degree the group interaction
between these different organizations and the sense of accomplishment or
failure felt by each after the awards had been presented in Pasadena.
This chapter is devoted to assessing the achievements and impacts
for which the CACR was responsible. Many comments, opinions, and criti-
cisms have been collected since the race's conclusion toward this final,
overall assessment. Much of what follows embodies the common feelings
of those who participated in the CACR. Some of the issues, however, re-
main extremely controversial and will go without resolution.
There are five major areas, outlined below, in which the CACR pro-
duced meaningful impact:
1. Engineering education within universities,
2. Technical achievements: system design and hardware development,
3. Interaction between participating organizations,
4. Political impact, and
5. Public information.
Engineering Education
The control of exhaust emissions from the conventional internal com-
bustion engine or the development of an alternate type of automotive power
plant presented a formidable project for any interested and willing stu-
dent-faculty team. Impressed with the importance of the task, however,
at least 93 groups initiated efforts to grapple with the automotive air
pollution problem. High motivation was stimulated by the personal satis-
faction of becoming involved in an existing problem area of immense con-
cern to the general public. The need to concentrate interest and allow
for creative ability in student engineering projects was apparently satis-
fied by an undertaking of this nature, according to most CACR participants.
Because university groups hunger for meaningful project-oriented
experiences, the 1970 CACR received instant acclaim as a rather effective
In December of 1970, NAPCA was transferred to the newly formed Environ-
mental Protection Agency (EPA) and has since changed its name to the Air
Pollution Control Office (APCO).
-17-
-------
means for involving students in the issue of automotive air pollution.
With very little time to prepare, entrants found themselves on an ex-
tremely steep part of the learning curve. During the competition, the
CACR created a natural arena for a meaningful exchange of ideas, as was
evidenced by discussion at the technical report presentations and infor-
mal bull sessions during pre- and post-race activity. In retrospect, the
competitive nature of the event was an equally important factor, in that
the desire to participate and the necessity of brain-storming for answers
to the problem were significantly enhanced.
The cooperative effort required of these student-faculty teams com-
pelled them to divide the labor efficiently in order to cope with the ex-
tremely short timetable for preparing the vehicle. Researching available
literature on the chemistry of combustion for the respective power plant
types, understanding the test procedures used to measure a vehicle's ex-
haust emissions, and investigating existing technological solutions
all this had to be done with very little time to spare. Consequently,
it was little wonder to observe the spirit of cooperation exhibited by
most teams during the high-stress conditions which accompanied the com-
petition, for similar conditions had prevailed all during their prepara-
tion for the CACR.
The practical experience received in an event of this type is per-
haps the most valuable asset which students and faculty alike carried
back to their respective academic institutions. There is no doubt that
everyone involved learned a good deal about the problem of controlling
exhaust emissions for any type of automotive engine. An encouraging
sign in the race aftermath and the 1970 Clean Air Act Amendments is
the sustained effort being put forth by many of the teams to perfect
their ideas.
The importance of a continuing commitment cannot be overemphasized
if the universities are ever to help solve a problem which their own in-
activity has helped to create.
Technical Achievements
All developments taken into account, no major breakthrough in the
field of vehicular exhaust emission control resulted from the CACR ef-
fort. Nonetheless, innovation as well as harnessing of existing ideas
highlighted the student-faculty projects which attempted to demonstrate
the potential capability of attaining low pollution emission levels.
The reader is encouraged to review the technical report digest pre-
sented in Appendix B, which outlines the various modifications made to
the present internal combustion engine (ICE) and describes the uncon-
ventional approaches taken in developing some of the advanced power sys-
tems. For most teams, total system design and development proved to be
too great a task, requiring more time than was practically available.
Consequently, a concentration on component technology characterized the
main thrust of effort.
-18-
-------
The teams which by definition engineered an entire propulsion sys-
tem consisted of the non-ICE entries. Of noteworthy mention are the
following:
1. The MIT gas turbine, with its experimental control system
package and electric transmission drive.
2. The U. of Toronto hybrid-electric, which possessed four
distinct modes of engine operation due to parallel arrange-
ment of the electrical and mechanical drive systems.
3. The electric vehicles from Cornell U. and Stevens Insti-
tute of Technology, which, while displaying no advancement
in battery technology, demonstrated reasonably reliable
roadway performance during continuous operation.
Within the ICE category, the Wayne State entry had combined many
conventional techniques for controlling exhaust emissions with a number
of innovations based upon research work which had investigated the impor-
tance of various combustion parameters. Careful control of the air-fuel
ratio, the use of exhaust gas recirculation, and the installation of
catalytic reactors were the major steps taken by most teams in reducing
the exhaust gas emissions. Reducing valve overlap and employing a sub-
merged electric fuel pump in the gas tank were two examples of the en-
gineering innovation used by Wayne State to obtain even lower pollutant
levels.
The gaseous fuel vehicles, namely those running on liquid propane
and liquid or compressed methane (LPG, LNG, and CNG respectively), de-
monstrated by far and away the greatest consistency in maintaining low
exhaust emission output.
In the liquid fuel's category, emissions were usually higher because
the control problem is more difficult. Poor fuel vaporization with a cold
engine results in significantly increased emissions during engine warm
up. The Stanford entry with alcohol as fuel achieved the lowest emissions.
The UCLA entry showed that the diesel cycle even without exhaust emission
controls, has the potential of being a low emission, highly reliable, and
economically practical system.
Other teams experimented with fuel injection, dual fuel operation,
and the design of thermal and catalytic reactors. The approaches taken
are too numerous to list here, but have been briefly outlined at the end
of Chapter I and covered in detail in the entrant team technical reports.
-19-
-------
Interaction
The long list of acknowledgements at the end of this document
readily indicates how essential it was to have the backing of several
organizations within both government and industry in making the CACR an
event of widespread national interest. The automotive industry provided
much of the necessary equipment and manpower to conduct the vehicle test-
ing that had been planned for the competition. Entrant teams secured
funding, technical assistance, hardware, and the use of testing facili-
ties from both local and nationwide industrial concerns to defray a large
part of their project costs. The Federal government assisted the organ-
ization committee in a number of areas, the most important of which was
the coordination of the noise and exhaust emissions testing. The tech-
nical expertise and support capability, which in most cases only govern-
ment and industry could provide the ambitious student-faculty teams, was
in high demand and, in fact, indispensable to the CACR.
Establishing guidelines for the CACR competition also provoked a
sizeable amount of interaction between test engineers from NAPCA and the
automotive industry. Agreements concerning the type of emissions test-
ing, availability of equipment, and time constraints had to be reached
after only a few meetings and many long phone calls. The controversial
question of having vehicle test results compared against Federal stan-
dards which did not correlate with the measurement procedure used was
discussed at length and the obvious pitfall seemed inevitable. But
despite the pressure of having too much to resolve in too short a time
span, the importance of maintaining the forward momentum was realized
and preserved by mutual agreements and compromise.
The interaction between academic groups, government, and industry
resulting from the CACR took place at practically every decision-making
level within these respective organizations. Aside from university
sponsorship, a fantastic amount of support was invested by NAPCA, the
automotive industry, and the electric utilities. In each case, the
student representatives of entrant teams or the organization committee
initiated proposals requesting assistance and pursued the matter by
working closely with an official from the industrial concern or govern-
mental agency. Test engineers from these organizations were also con-
sulted frequently, and exposure to in-house projects during laboratory
tours revealed to the student and faculty visitors how professional
groups were approaching the problem. The discussion and exchange of
ideas taking place on such occasions was an encouraging sign of the in-
terest of the engineering students in what could be done. Hopefully, the
students' experience in the CACR, although brief in duration and inconclu-
sive in many of its test results, gave the student community a feeling
for a problem where academic knowledge is indeed relevant, and will mo-
tivate continued involvement in this field.
If the automotive industry can detect a continuing commitment among
university groups to help work toward a viable solution, then the invest-
ment has most certainly been a worthwhile one. In any case, many student
groups now have an increased appreciation for the difficulty of the task
confronting the automotive industry since passage of the 1970 Clean Air Act
-20-
-------
Amendments. Pertinent questions such as economic feasibility and
public acceptance of an emission-free vehicle were not tackled head-on
in the CACR, and the fact that they have not been answered is a disturb-
ing thought to those who must carry the work forward.
Political Impact
The Clean Air Car Race could not have been staged at a more appro-
priate time than the summer of 1970, when the issue of automotive pollu-
tion was prominent in the mind of every environmentally-conscious indi-
vidual. Congress had just finished drafting legislation which acceler-
ated the timetable for attaining already stringent exhaust emission con-
trol standards. Because certain vehicle entries in the CACR had performed
extremely well during the emissions testing, congressional advocates of
cleaner air were quick to seize on the test results and interpret them
as factual proof of an existing solution. Although this was an obvious
misuse of the data, the low pollution potential of these vehicles was
not ignored by industry.
The stricter automobile emission standards contained in the recent-
ly passed 1970 Clean Air Act Amendments have definitely increased the
workload ahead for the automotive industry (see Section B of Chapter V).
The degree to which the Clean Air Car Race was instrumental in the
passage of this legislation cannot be determined, but the test results
certainly were reviewed by automotive experts within government and in-
dustry. The CACR fostered speculation that a solution in the near fu-
ture was possible, and may have given a major boost to the impetus for
political action.
Public Information and Education
A continuous public relations program was conducted by the organi-
zation committee prior to and during the CACR competition. It consisted
primarily of press releases and was expanded to include taped interviews
and television appearances during the race week itself.
The general information which the public has retained concerning the
event probably boils down to a knowledge of there having been a student
event which addressed itself to the environmental issue of automotive
air pollution. The modifications actually made to the ICE and the devel-
opment of other power plant types are of little interest to the public,
although the questions of how much it all will cost and what the visible
effects to the air will be are of primary importance. Thus, the CACR
may have simply been viewed as an interesting demonstration of student
concern, but one having little impact upon emissions-control decisions
faced by the automotive industry.
A major failure of the CACR was the absence of an adequate public
relations effort at the termination of the competition in Pasadena.
Many people who had followed the event cross-country suddenly discovered
that no information could be obtained on the race winners. Despite the
-21-
-------
preparation of a detailed press release containing the results of the
competition, the delay in dispatching this release was an error that cost
the committee the interest of the media.
When the committee first came into existence, extensive thought
should have been given to a concerted public relations program with clearly
formulated objectives. The question of what the public should learn as
a result of this nationwide event was never really considered. In retro-
spect, public education could have been accomplished through the CACR,
but it would have required more time, funds, and foresight.
The completion of two major film productions and this document are
the fruits of committee effort since the finish of the race in September,
1970. One of the films is a documentary and has been tailored for general
audience viewing, while the other is more educational in its content and
is aimed toward a narrower audience. The committee has made a considerable
effort in attempting to interest the three major commerical networks as
well as the educational networks in televising both, either, or a com-
bination of the films within the coming months. In addition, both films
will be available for showing to schools and interested groups as soon
as a sufficient number of copies are available.
Finally, over the past four months committee members have given well
over fifty presentations to different universities, alumni clubs, civic
organizations, and professional societies concerning CACR activity and
the automotive air pollution problem. The presentation varies according
to the audience and usually consists of a slide show documentary, a short
lecture with summary comments, and, most recently, one of the CACR films.
Interested parties should contact the committee at M.I.T. to make the
necessary arrangements should a program of this sort be requested.
THE FUTURE
Although activity related to the 1970 CACR has essentially terminated,
the committee has instituted a proposal to conduct an inter-university
urban car competition in the summer of 1972. A pilot committee of five
students has already been selected to head up organizational activity for
this event. Judging from post-race inquires concerning another event of
this nature, it is to be expected that this competition will attract a much
larger entrant field. It remains a possibility that many international
entrants will appear representing universities from countries other than
Canada.
It is hoped that the new committee will benefit from the lessons
of the CACR committee, and that the lead time of a year and a half will
permit more attention to details than was apparent during the summer of
1970. It is the intention of the new committee to publish a set of rules.
schedule of activities, and a guideline to policy before May 1, 1971.
Noticification of the pending competition will be forwarded to interested
parties and all accredited institutions prior to that date.
Finally, in a parallel effort by certain CACR committee members,
several interested universities were approached on the idea of forming
-22-
-------
a non-profit corporation. Membership in the corporation would be confined
to universities and colleges and each member would be represented by a
Dean's level administrator from that particular Institution. The expressed
purpose of the corporation would be to sanction and actively support in a
variety of ways, including financial, acceptable student organized inter-
collegiate competitions in the areas of science and engineering. While
the formal planning stage in still being investigated, the proposal has
been met by sound and dedicated support by those deans already approached.
Indeed, the future of this organization is bright.
-23-
-------
-------
III. THE WINNERS OF THE CLEAN AIR CAR RACE
PROLOGUE
"We're not in this race as such to beat anybody; we're
in this race to make a point of being involved in pollution
control and making the general public aware of the general
problems of pollution. And I think that these are the two
principally most important goals. As far as I'm concerned,
everybody that enters this race is a winner."
Doug Venn
U. of Toronto team captain
August, 1970
Although some teams displayed a greater sense of competitiveness than
the Canadians from Toronto, the general point about "being involved in
pollution control" speaks well for the CACR participants. Students in
search of relevance had at last come to grips with a pressing problem in
proportion to all of society - an extremely thorny issue over which
government and industry had debated for the past decade with significant
disagreement. The desire to help contribute to the solution of this
existing problem was a strong motivating force behind the widespread in-
volvement of educational institutions. In essence, the commitment put
forth by students and faculty alike, despite what may or may not have been
accomplished technically, did in fact make the whole event seem as if every-
one that entered had been a winner. The preceding chapter which summarizes
the acheivements of the CACR and points out the related impacts should
be sufficient testimony to Doug Venn's statement.
CLASSIFICATION OF ENTRANT VEHICLE POWER PLANTS
Prior to pre-race activity at M.I.T. (see Appendix C), each vehicle
participating in the CACR was placed in one of five separate classes for
competition purposes. The division was based upon power plant type and
has been reproduced below as it was originally defined in the CACR rule-
book:
Class I: Internal Combustion Engine (ICE)
Class II: Rankine Cycle
External combustion with heat transfer taking
place to the working fluid; examples include steam
-26-
-------
piston, steam turbine, and Stirling cycle engines.
Class III: Brayton Cycle
Gas turbine which includes a variety of possible
working fluids.
Class IV: Electric
A battery is the primary energy source; re-
charging occurs through off-board facilities such
as charging stations.
Class V: Hybrid-electric
A battery is coupled to a separate on-board
energy source (such as a piston engine) which accom-
plishes the recharging function.
During pre-race activity at M.I.T., the point was raised after the August
18th captains' meeting that a subdivision within the ICE class based upon
fuel type being combusted in the vehicle power plant would be plausible.
Consequently, those teams burning gaseous fuels such as liquefied natural
gas (LNG), compressed natural gas (CNG), and liquid petroleum gas (LPG)
were placed into one ICE subclass, while the engines running on liquid
fuels such as gasoline, diesel fuel, and methanol constituted the complement.
The chemistry of the combustion process for liquid vs. gaseous fuels was
used to justify this major separation of competing groups and was readily
accepted by all CACR participants. Moreover, the ICEs, containing 32 of
the 43 CACR test vehicles, managed to alleviate the tension build-up some-
what by reducing the total number of teams vying for top honors within
that class.
THE SELECTION PROCEDURE FOR THE CACR WINNERS
The selection of class and overall winners has been briefly mentioned in
organization committee history which appears in Appendix C. A concise
review of the actual selection procedure is one of the major purposes of
this chapter and will assist the reader in understanding how the competition
winners were determined.
Distinctly separate processes were employed by the committee to
establish the class winners as opposed to the overall winner. Measurements
of vehicle performance and emission characteristics were used to generate
scores for each team by using mathematical formulae derived and published
prior to the race; in this fashion, a winner for each power plant class
was selected. The overall winner, on the other hand, required the decision
of an independent panel of judges, which had been arranged for by the
organization committee prior to the competition.
-27-
-------
Scoring for the various class competitors was established by the
committee according to the following formula:
S = E (P + R + FE)
where S * total score
E = emissions factor
P = performance score
R = race score
FE « fuel economy score
Obvious emphasis has been placed upon the emissions score as can be
seen from its importance in the above formula.
The derivation of the E factor and its possible range of values has
been explained in detail in Section C of Chapter V.
The performance factor in the overall score was determined using a
formula which has been explained in detail in Chapter IV. Measurements of
vehicle acceleration, braking, general maneuverability, and noise emission
comprised the test data used to compute vehicle performance scores. Each
of the four tests had maximum possible value of 250; thus, P was always set
at 1,000 points for any entrant team.
The race score, R, consisted of seven separate scores obtained on each
of the seven different cross-country legs. The equation for determining
R was as follows:
R = LI + L2 + L3 + L4 + L5 + L6 + L7.
where R = race score
Ll,.....,L7= leg scores
The maximum possible value for any leg score was established according
to the distance constituted by that leg as a percentage of the total 3600
mile route. The maximum possible score for R was set at 1,000 points.
The fuel economy factor consisted of a calculation which determined
the miles per million Btu of fuel obtained by each test vehicle during
legs 3 and 4 (1,071 miles) of cross-country travel. The maximum score
possible was 1,000 points. Detailed information on the fuel economy
test has been provided in Chapter 4.
Entrant team scores obtained during CACR testing have been compiled
in Table III - 1 on the following page. The value of S has been determined
using the formula listed at the top of this page.
-28-
-------
Table III - 1
CACR ENTRANT TEAM SCORES
Entrant No. E p R
1
2
3
4
5
6
10
11
12
15
16
17
18**
19
20
21
22
23
24
30
31
32
33
34
35
36***
37
41**
42
50
51
52
61
65**
66
70 *
71 *
75*
90**
0.71
0.46
0.70
1.34
0.87
0.55
0.48
0.65
1.48
0.27
0.92
1.46
1.70
0.40
0.86
0.53
0.98
1.61
0.88
0.76
0.30
0.18
0.56
0.51
0.15
0.60
0.56
1.04
0.39
0.09
0.60
0.36
-
0.93
0.71
-
0.36
0.29
~
397
563
410
543
539
391
583
588
559
763
434
475
698
647
715
656
543
504
664
629
607
630
527
486
562
792
653
568
329
359
608
441
88
378
397
133
292
473
65
976
991
977
1000
938
945
993
1000
912
960
909
968
996
831
954
997
1000
850
957
884
979
684
970
1000
1000
1000
1000
997
904
1000
932
950
_
305
247
_
562
665
420
663
402
1000
822
806
419
1000
1000
464
544
402
766
445
1000
601
670
1000
577
756
374
638
845
553
1000
540
977
1000
819
1000
367
781
1000
936
665
_
672
640
0
1445
899
1670
3169
1986
965
1236
1682
2863
612
1605
3225
3636
991
1952
1231
2492
3108
2091
1434
667
388
1147
1267
315
1661
1485
2479
870
155
1392
860
-
1505
929
_
549
518
*** overall winner
** class
* class
winner
co-winner, tied
for first
place
-29-
-------
THE CACR CLASS WINNERS
The CACR class winners included six separate vehicle entries
representing four different power plant types. One of four teams from
Worcester Polytechnic Institute, an LPG-powered Chevy II Nova took
honors in the internal combustion engine class, a subdivision of which
was the vehicles running on gasseous fuels. Within the same power plant
class but representing vehicles burning a liquid fuel, Stanford University's
alcohol-powered Gremlin emerged the winner. The Brayton Cycle class (gas
turbine) possessed only one entry, a team from the Massachusetts Institute
of Technology, which upon the successful completion of cross-country travel
automatically became the winner. The electric vehicle category witnessed
a neck and neck race between two of the entrant teams; when the final
scores had been computed, Cornell University was declared the winner. The
electric-hybrid entries from the University of Toronto and Worcester Poly-
technic tied for top honors in this particular power plant class. The
Rankine Cycle category (steam car) had no winner due to the inability of the
entries in this class to successfully complete the race.
On the following pages are presented the technical reports and test
data obtained during the competition for the CACR class winners.
-30-
-------
WINNER-CLASS I (Gaseous Fuel)
Worcester Polytechnic Institute
Entrant: #18
Class; I.C.E. (Gaseous Fuel)
Team Captain: Edward W. Kaleskas
24 Brooks Street
Worcester, Massachusetts 01609
Body and Chassis: 1970 Chevy II Nova, 4-door sedan
Vehicle Weight: 2960 Ibs.
Power Plant; I.C.E., 350 C.I.D. Chevrolet propane engine,
factory equipped with high temperature valves
and seats, and impact extruded pistons.
Transmission: Chevrolet turbohydramatic with kickdown linkage
disconnected.
Fuel: Liquefied Petroleum Gas (propane)
'' (
Fuel System;
Storage in 35 gallon pressure tank located in trunk. Fuel flows
through high pressure hose to the converter. In the converter, fuel
is reduced in pressure and vaporized. Vapor then passes to Ensign
variable venturi carburetor.
Exhaust System;
Standard single exhaust system, but with two Engelhard catalytic
reactors at the exits of the exhaust manifolds.
Emission Control:
1) Catalytic exhaust reactors used to oxidize HC and CO.
2) Double head gaskets installed to lower compression ratio, thereby
lowering flame temperature and reducing NOX.
3) Ignition timing set at 6° BTDC and vacuum advance eliminated to
reduce NOX.
4) Lean air-fuel ratio (23/1) used to reduce NOX by lowering flame
temperature.
-31-
-------
WORCESTER POLYTECHNIC INSTITUTE
SCHEMATIC OF FUEL AND EXHAUST SYSTEMS
u>
ro
EXHAUST
MANIFOLD
.CATALYTIC
REACTOR (2)
PRESSURE
REGULATOR -
VAPORIZER
PROPANE
CARBORETOR
-------
Performance Data: #18
1) Acceleration
Speed range (mph)
0-30
0-45
20-50
Time (sec.)
5.6
8.6
5.2
2) Braking
Speed (mph)
29
53
Stopping distance (ft.)
35
127
3) Urban Driving Cycle
Driver #1
Driver #2
Best time (sec.)
75.0
76.8
4) Noise Levels
Test Mode
30 WOT
30 cruise
Idle
Microphone Distance dB (A)
50' 78.0
50' 62.0
10' 67.5
Emissions Data: #18
Cold Start Hot Start
Detroit Cambridge
(gin/mile) (ppm)
HC 0.24 10
CO 1.00 1000
NO 0.55 100
Hot Start
Pasadena
(ppm)
20
1000
100
Part, (gm/mile): 0.02
Fuel Economy; #18
111.2 miles/million Btu
-33-
-------
WINNER-CLASS I (Liquid Fuel)
Stanford University
Entrant: 41
Class: I.C.E. (liquid fuel)
Team Captain: Dana G. Andrews
c/o Robert Byer
Hansen Labs
Stanford University
Stanford, California 94301
Body and Chassis: 1970 American Motors Gremlin
Vehicle Weight; 2569 Ibs.
Power Plant; I.C.E.; 232 C.I.D. American Motors 6-cylinder engine.
Drive Train; Three-speed manual transmission, 3.08:1 rear axle ratio
Fuel; Methanol (Methyl Alcohol)
Fuel System:
Standard fuel tank retained. Conelec electric fuel pump installed,
but malfunction necessitated use of lower capacity stock fuel pump.
Zenith model 32 NDIX two-barrel carburetor, mixture heater, and water
heated intake manifold installed.
Exhaust System;
Standard system augmented with an Engelhard Diesel Exhaust Purifier
(catalytic reactor). Exhaust gas recirculation system installed.
Emission Control:
1) Lean air-fuel ratio (8.5:1 at low speeds to 7.5:1 at full throttle)
used to reduce HC, CO, and NOX. Stoichiometric ratio is 6.5:1.
2) Heat exchanger (heated by engine coolant) installed in adapter plate
between carburetor and intake manifold. In conjunction with water-
heated manifold, this provides better fue.l vaporization and distribu-
tion, which results in lower HC, CO, and NOX.
3) Catalytic reactor employed to oxidize HC and CO with excess air provided
by lean operation.
4) Exhaust gas from exhaust manifold recirculated into intake manifold to
lower NOX. Hot gases also help vaporize fuel.
-34-
-------
EMISSION CONTROL FEATURES #41
WATER HEATED
INTAKE MANIFOLD
CARBURETOR
STOCK
MOTOR
EXHAUST
MANIFOLD
HEAT EXCHANGER
EGR CONTROL VALVE
EGR METERING
VALVE
ENGELHARD DIESEL
EXHAUST PURIFIER
-35-
-------
Performance Data: #41
1) Acceleration
Speed range (mph)
0-30
0-45
20-50
2) Braking
Speed (mph)
29
50
Time (sec.)
6.0
11, e>
10.2
Stopping Distance (ft.)
40
122
3) Urban Driving Cycle
Driver #1
Driver #2
Best time (sec.)
83.8
81.0
4) Noise Levels
Test Mode
30 WOT
30 cruise
Idle
Microphone Distance dB (A)
50' 70.5
50' 59.0
10' 52.0
Emissions Data: #41
HC
CO
NO
Cold Start
Detroit
(gm/mile)
0.42
4.68
0.86
Hot Start
Cambridge
(ppm)
23
1000
279
Hot Start
Pasadena
(ppm)
44
2300
116
Part, (gm/mile): 0.02
Fuel Economy; #41
171.0 miles/million Btu
-36-
-------
WINNER-CLASS III
Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Entrant; #90
Class; Brayton Cycle (turbine)
Team Captain; Michael L. Bennett
12 Lawrence Road
Brookline, Massachusetts 02146
Body and Chassis; 1970 Chevrolet C.10 half-ton pickup truck
Vehicle Weight; 5200 Ibs.
Power System;
Turbine-Electric configuration. Gas turbine drives an alternator
which provides A.C. power to a rectifier system. D. C. power from the
rectifier is delivered to a D.C. motor, which drives the rear wheels
through the 4.11:1 differential.
1) Turbine - Airesearch GTP-70-52 gas turbine. 225 horsepower maximum
output, rated at 136 H.P. at sea-level atmospheric pressure and
80°F.
2) Alternator - General Electric model 2CM 357A1. Provides 150 KW,
400 c.p.s. A.C. at 6000 r.p.m.
3) Motor-Inland M-12004-A series wound D.C. Motor. Rated at 100 H.P.
continuous, 600 H.P. maximum output.
4) Rectifier - Designed and built by entrant team.
Turbine, alternator, and rectifier are mounted in truck bed. Electric
motor is mounted in engine compartment.
Control Features:
Constant motor torque or current control. Turbine and alternator
run at constant speed, with output controlled by excitation applied
to field windings.
Fuel:
JP-1 or JP-4 (aviation fuel)
Fuel control unit of the turbine is controlled by mechanical,
thermal, pneumatic, and electronic feedback units. Fuel tank mounted
in bed.
-37-
-------
Miscellaneous Features;
1) Heavy-Duty wheels and tires mounted.
2) Aluminum camper shell installed over truck bed to cover turbine, etc.
3) Acoustic intake and exhaust mufflers installed.
-38-
-------
MASSACHUSETTS INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY *90
VO
I
ENERGY FLOW a CONTROL SCHEMATIC
(DOES NOT REPRESENT PHYSICAL
LOCATION OF COMPONENTS)
TURBINE
4
1
1
ALTER-
NATOR
4
I
i
A.C.
RECTI-
FIER
D.C.
CONTROL SYSTEM
D.C.
MOTOR
DRIVE
SHAFT
WHEELS
ACCELERATOR
/.
4
1
-------
Performance Data: #90
1) Acceleration
Speed range (mph) Time (sec.)
0-30 12.0
0-45 27.1
20-45 21.0
2) Braking
Speed (mph) Stopping distance (ft.)
28 44
47 133
3) Urban Driving Cycle
Best time (sec.)
Driver #1
Driver #2
4) Noise Levels
114.0
110.6
Test Mode Microphone Distance dB (A)
30 WOT
30 cruise
Idle
50'
50'
10'
89.5
89.5
105.0
Emissions Data: #90
HC
CO
NO
Cold Start
Detroit
(gm/mile)
5.73
78.50
6.24
Hot Start
Cambridge
(ppm)
no data
no data
no data
Hot Start
Pasadena
(ppm)
no data
no data
no data
Part. (gm/mile): No data
Fuel Economy; #90
24.0 miles/million Btu
-40-
-------
WINNER-CLASS IV
Cornell University
Entrant; #65
Class; Electric
Team Captain: Mark Hoffman
224 Phillips Hall
Cornell University
Ithaca, New York 14850
Body and Chassis; American Motors Hornet
Vehicle Weight; 5311 Ibs.
Power Plant; Electric motor, D.C. four pole configuration.
20 H.P. continuous rating, with overlaod capacity
to 120 H.P.
Drive Train: Standard Hornet 3-speed manual transmission, driveshaft
Energy Storage:
Battery pack consisting of 24 six-volt Electric Fuel Propulsion
lead-cobalt (variation of lead-acid) batteries. 34 kilowatt-hour
capacity.
Power Control:
"3 in 1" dual chopper: circuitry which pulses battery voltage to the
motor. Even harmonics of chopper frequency are cancelled, reducing A.C.
component and, therefore, heat losses in the motor. Pulse width and
frequency are modulated to control motor speed.
Chopper also functions as regenerative braking control. Motor acts as
a generator when accelerator is released. Pressing brake pedal brings
regenerative braking to its maximum, and actuates the hydraulic brakes.
Power generated by this process is returned to batteries.
Due to last-minute problems, the 3-in-l dual chopper was not used
during the Race. A ten-step series-paralled contactor controller was
used as a substitute. This controller provided levels of 12, 24, 36,
72, 108, and 144 volts to the motor, with a motor field weakening step
after each of the last four voltage levels.
Recharging Scheme;
On-board charger can accept 208 to 240 volts single-phase A.C.,
three-phase A.C., or D.C. and can supply up to 500 amps to the battery
pack. Charger regulation includes voltage, current, temperature, and
gassing controls.
-41-
-------
CORNELL UNIVERSITY
ENERGY FLOW DIAGRAM
K5
BATTERIES
EXTERNAL ELECTRIC
POWER SOURCE
CHARGER -
CONTROLLER
CLUTCH 8
TRANSMISSION
t
ACCELERATOR <£_J
4
I
BRAKE
ENERGY CAN ALSO
FLOW IN REVERSE
DURING REGENERATIVE
BRAKING
WHEELS
-------
Performance Data: #65
1) Acceleration
Speed range (mph) Time (sec.)
0-30 8.5
0-45 18.4
20-40 14.0
2) Braking
Speed (mph) Stopping distance (ft.)
30 61
49 186
3) Urban Driving Cycle
Best time (sec.)
Driver #1 89.8
Driver #2 87.8
4) Noise Levels
Test Mode Microphone Distance dB (A)
30 WOT 50' 62.0
30 cruise 50' 61.0
Idle 10" Not applicable
Emissions Data: #65
Not applicable.
Fuel Economy; #65
189.8 miles/million Btu*
Electrical Efficiency; #65
1.85 miles/kilowatt-hour
*includes correction for power plant efficiency of 352
-43-
-------
CO-WINNER-CLASS V
Worcester Polytechnic Institute
Entrant; #71
Class; Electric-I.C.E. Hybrid
Team Captain: Steven Clarke
Mechanical Engineering Department
Worcester Polytechnic Institute
Worcester, Mass. 01609
Body and Chassis; 1970 American Motors Gremlin
Vehicle Weight; 4740 Ibs.
Power Plant; General Electric type BY401, 25 H.P., series wound
direct current traction electric motor. Battery
pack rated at 200 amp-hours at 20 hour rate.
Drive Train; Jeep drive shaft, heavy duty 5:1 ratio differential
Batteries:
Twenty Exide type 3EC-19, 6 volt lead-acid batteries, connected
in series for 120-volt power. Battery pack rated at 200 amp-hours
at 20 hour rate.
Power Control;
Modified General Electric model 300 SCR controller. Full battery
voltage applied to motor in pulses. Speed and torque controlled by
varying pulse frequency through foot-pedal potentiometer. Pulsing
circuit by-pass provided for top speed operation.
Recharging Scheme;
Batteries charged with current supplied by a General Electric tri-
clad brushless synchronous generator. The generator is driven by an
internal combustion engine. Control curcuits allow the batteries to accept
charge during low-power vehicle operation, or deliver power at greater
loads. The generator can provide 25 KVA of 3-phase A.C. power, which is
rectified to provide D.C.
Engine:
Jeep Dauntless V-6 I.C.E.
Emission Control;
1) Englehard catalytic reactors installed just downstream of exhaust
manifolds to oxidize HC and CO.
-44-
-------
2) Mr injection on exhaust manifolds to provide oxygen for reactors.
3) Exhaust gas recirculation to lower NOX emissions.
Vehicle Modification;
1) Suspension stiffened by installing coil and leaf springs from an
A.M. ambassador, and adding Booster coils to the shock absorbers.
2) Goodyear 15 inch radial tires and wheels to match installed.
3) Rear seat removed to make room for battery pack.
4) Ten-inch brake drums installed.
5) Hood Modified (raised) to provide clearance for engine components.
6) Instruments include tachometer, speedoment, odometer, water tempera-
ture gauge, oil pressure gauge, alternator voltmeter and ammeter,
motor voltmeter and ammeter, and watt hour meter.
-45-
-------
WPI - ELECTRIC HYBRID
I. DAUNTLESS V-6 ENGINE
2. GE AC SYNCHRONOUS GENERATOR
3. GE DC MOTOR
4. 20 SIX VOLT EXIDE BATTERIES
5. SOLID STATE CONTROLS
-------
ENERGY FLOW DIAGRAM
rT
THIS PORTION OF SYSTEM SHUT DOWN
FOR URBAN DRIVING
FUEL
ENGINE
GENERATOR
I
I
CONTROLS
fe
ELECTRIC
MOTOR
>-
WHEELS
BATTERIES
-------
Performance Data: #71
1) Acceleration
Speed range (mph)
0-30
Time (sec.)
17.2
2) Braking
Speed
46
Stopping distance (ft.)
153
3) Urban Driving Cycle
Driver #1
Driver #2
Best time (sec.)
106.0
104.5
4) Noise Levels
Test Mode
30 WOT
30 cruise
Idle
Microphone Distance dB (A)
50' 67.5
50' 59.5
10' 49.5
Emissions Data: #71
HC
CO
NO
Cold Start
Detroit
(gm/mile)
0.59
1.67
6.09
Hot Start
Cambridge
(ppm)
27
1000
1041
Hot Start
Pasadena
(ppm)
20
1500
1000
Part, (gm/mile): No data
Fuel Economy; #71
147.6 miles/million Btu
-48-
-------
CO-WINNER-CLASS V
University of Toronto
Entrant; #75
Class: Electric-I.C.E. Hybrid
Team Captain; Douglas Venn
Mechanical Building
University of Toronto
Toronto 5, Ontario
Canada
Body: Fabricated fiberglass
Chassis; Custom built-constructed from 1970 Chevelle front end
and 1967 Corvair transaxle and rear suspension.
Vehicle Weight; 4160 Ibs.
Power System;
Propane-fueled I.C.E. used as prime mover, transmitting power through
an electric power system, or mechanically through a drive shaft, or in
parallel with electric drive. Electric drive may also be used on battery
power with I.C.E. shut down.
Electric Drive - Two Delco 12 KW motor-generators. One (used as motor)
drives the main driveshaft by a belt drive, the other (used as a genera-
tor) is mounted forward and driven by the engine. Ten 90 amp-hour lead-
acid batteries used for electric energy storage.
Electric power controlled by an SCR chopper with automatic control
logic circuitry.
Engine;
302 C.I.D. Chevrolet V-8, modified to run on propane.
Transmission r
4-speed manual (Corvair transaxle)
Fuel System:
Propane tank in rear of vehicle. Two ALgas gaseous carburetors
feed into a split plenum chamber which is mounted on a Weber intake
manifold. Balance line between plenum chambers provides uniform vacuum
and better mixture distribution.
-49-
-------
Exhaust System;
Dual system with regular manifolds. A platinum catalytic reactor
and a conventional muffler followed each manifold, in the order given.
Emission Control;
1) Engine intake and exhaust ports were ported and polished. Larger,
high temperature, valves were installed. Displacement of each
upper combustion chambers rendered precisely the same. These modifi-
cations provide better and more uniform breathing characteristics.
2) Catalytic reactors installed to oxidize HC and CO.
Additional Modifications;
1) Compression ratio raised from 7.1:1 to 11:1 to achieve more complete
combustion in the cylinders and lower exhaust temperature.
2) 1965 truck hydraulic lifter camshaft with short duration (252°) and
later opening and closing times installed.
3) Scintilla vertex magneto ignition system installed.
4) Dual electric fans installed to assist regular belt-driven fan in
cooling the 1970 Buick radiator.
5) Aluminum wheels and Dunlop six-ply radial 185 x 15 tires installed.
-50-
-------
ENERGY FLOW DIAGRAM #75
r
THIS PORTION OF SYSTEM
SHUT DOWN FOR PURE
ELECTRIC MODE
FUEL
ENGINE
GENERATOR
L_
WHEELS
ELECTRIC
MOTOR
' |
BATTERIES
*~*{3:
Four Driving Modes
1) Direct drive: Energy flows through path 1 only.
2) Indirect-electric: Energy flows through path 2 and 3.
3) Pure electric: Energy flows through path 3 only.
4) Parallel: Energy flows through path 1, 2 and 3.
-------
SCHEMATIC OF DRIVE LINE, PROPANE SUPPLY AND EXHAUST SYSTEM
i
i/i
N)
REAR
UJ
O
cr
Q.
TRANS-
MUFFLER
MUFFLER
PLATINUM
REACTOR
REACTOR
LIQUID PROPANE DELIVERY LINE
PLATINUM
FRONT
-------
Performance Data: #75
1) Acceleration
Speed range (mph) Time (sec.)
0-30 6.3
0-45 12.4
20-50 10.6
2) Braking
Speed (mph) Stopping distance (ft.)
27.0 35
49.5 131
3) Urban Driving Cycle
Best time (sec.)
4)
Emissions
HC
CO
NO
Driver #1
Driver #2
Noise Levels
Test Mode
30 WOT
30 cruise
Idle
Data: #75
Cold Start
Detroit
(gm/mile)
2.59
1.06
2.35
80.8
78.5
Microphone Distance dB (A)
50'
50'
10'
Hot Start
Cambridge
(ppm)
58
1000
336
82.0
72.0
66.5
Hot Start
Pasadena
(ppm)
46
1000
615
Part, (gm/mile): 0.01
Fuel Economy: #75
143.8 miles/million Btu
-53-
-------
THE CACR OVERALL WINNER
As was stated earlier, a judging panel selected the overall winner
of the CACR competition. The five panel members who contributed their
time and energies in this singularly important capacity were as follows:
Dave Ragone Dean, Thayer School of Engineering
Bill Gouse Executive Office of the President,
Office of Science and Technology
John Brogan Director, Division of Motor Vehicle Research and
Development; National Air Pollution Control Admin.
Harry Barr President, Society of Automotive Engineers
John Maga Executive Secretary, California Air Resources Board
Prior to the competition, the committee had instructed the panel to select
that CACR test vehicle which exhibited the best potential as a solution to
the problem. In order to allow complete flexibility, they were not bound
by the scoring formulae set forth in the CACR Rules.
The Wayne State entry was judged the winner by the panel on the
strength of the overall quality of engineering, the written and oral
presentations made by the students involved, and its potential applica-
bility to the solution of the national automotive air pollution problem.
Knowing that the Wayne State car did not perform particularly well in
the Detroit cold-start test, Dr. Ragone, upon investigation, found that the
manual choke wire had been left in the out-position during the first two
cycles of this test due to a driver error. The last five cycles in the
Detroit test showed the car's emissions to be excellent, but could not be
used to determine how low the vehicle's emissions actually were since the
first two cycles are of critical importance in the cold-start test. Subse-
quent to the Race, the car was tested at the NAPCA facility in Los Angeles
and was found to be very close to the 1980 Federal standards on the basis
of a 4 hour soak, cold-start, CVS test. This, in some sense, is an indica-
tion of the potential of this particular design, and should substantiate
the selection of the overall winner.
Presented on the following three pages are a synopsis of the Wayne
State technical report and the test measurements made upon the vehicle
during and after the CACR competition.
-54-
-------
OVERALL WINNER
Wayne State University
Entrant: #36
Class; I.C.E. (Liquid Fuel)
Team Captain: Richard Jeryan
18261 Forrer
Detroit, Michigan 48235
Body and Chassis: 1971 Ford Capri
Vehicle Weight; 2300 Ibs. (approximately)
Power Plant: I.C.E.; 302 C.I.D. Ford V-8
Drive Train: Ford C-4 automatic transmission, 2.33:1 rear axle ratio
Fuel: Unleaded gasoline
Fuel System;
Polyethylene fuel tank (18 gal. capacity) with an in-tank electric
fuel pump installed. Insulated fuel lines led to modified carburetor.
Mechanical fuel pump retained for emergency use.
Exhaust System:
Conventional manifolds. Two Engelhard PTX-5 catalytic reactors
installed below each manifold. Air introduced below the first set (before
the second set) of reactors. Dual pipe combines, then enters conventional
muffler.
Emission Control:
1) Vehicle weight reduced to lower power demand, thereby lowering total
emissions, improving fuel economy and performance.
2) Low valve overlap(11°) camshaft installed to reduce hot residual gases
in cylinder and allow more cold exhaust gas recycle. This lowers
peak combustion temperature which reduces NOX emissions.
3) Combustion chambers contoured to reduce "dead" (non-burning) volumes,
which reduces HC emissions.
4) Projections on the head and piston were removed to eliminate hot spots,
thereby reducing NOX formation.
/
5) Time constant of Vacuum spark advance system increased to lower tran-
sient emissions.
-55-
-------
6) Exhaust gas recirculation system employed to lower NOx emissions.
Vacuum override system connected to spark advance line prevents
recycle when spark vacuum is below 4 or above 20 inches of mercury.
7) Air-fuel ratio stabilized between 14.5:1 and 15:1 by carburetor air
and fuel temperature control features. Air temperature controlled
by temperature-sensitive valve which mixes high and low temperature
inlet air. Fuel lines insulated, and carburetor insulated from
engine heat. Close air-fuel ratio control allows catalytic exhaust
reactors to function at maximum efficiency.
8) Dual power valve system added to carburetor to reduce bore-to-bore
imbalance, providing additional control of air-fuel ratio.
9) PCV valve replaced by .076 inch orifice to reduce effect of varying
crankcase flow rate on air-fuel ratio.
10) First set of catalytic reactors employed to reduce NOX.
11) Second set of reactors, in conjunction with air injection, installed
to oxidize HC and CO.
Miscellaneous Modifications
1) Hardened valve seats installed.
2) Oil pan and pump, front end belt drives modified to facilitate
engine installation.
3) Extra-capacity radiator installed, and extra air ports cut in front
sheet metal.
-56-
-------
EXHAUST SYSTEM DIAGRAM #36
CARBURETOR
EGR CONTROL
i
en
S7/7/7/
NOy CATALYST (TWO)
HC -CO CATALYST (TWO)
-------
Performance Data: #36
1) Acceleration
Speed range (mph)
0-30
0-45
20-50
2) Braking
Speed (mph)
35
53
Time (sec.)
3.6
5.2
4.2
Stopping distance (ft.)
59
124
3) Urban Driving Cycle
Driver #1
Driver #2
Best time (sec.)
69.4
68.6
4) Noise Levels
Test Mode Microphone Distance dB (A)
30 WOT
30 cruise
Idle
50'
50'
10'
73.0
63.0
59.0
Emissions Data: #36*
HC
CO
NO
Cold Start
Detroit
(gm/mile)
1.21
13.76
0.70
Hot Start
Cambridge
(ppm)
10
1000
100
Hot Start
Pasadena
(ppm)
16
1000
118
Part, (gm/mile): 0.04
Fuel Economy; #36
196.3 miles/million Btu
* These data recorded for official C.A.C.R. tests. Unofficial post-
race data are recorded on the following page.
-58-
-------
Unofficial post-race emissions data: #36
After the official race events had been concluded, the Wayne State
vehicle was emissions tested at APCO (NAPCA) facilities. The test
procedure used was the 1970 Federal Test Procedure, which employs the
LA-4 driving cycle and constant volume sampling. A four-hour cold
soak was used for this test. The results were:
HC 0.19 gm/mile
CO 1.48 gm/mile
NO 0.29 gm/mile*
* Uncorrected for humidity and N02 expression.
-59-
-------
-------
IV. PERFORMANCE TEST PROCEDURES FOR CACR VEHICLES
INTRODUCTION
Long before the CACR was ever conceived, there existed vehicles
which were very low polluters. The original electric cars of the early
1900's were clean and quiet, but were eventually replaced by the inter-
nal combustion engine (ICE) primarily because they could not match its
superior performance. Steamers could deliver the necessary power for
the desired roadway performance but the power plant was necessarily
larger and more expensive.
In the search for a cleaner auto, the organization committee felt
that any reasonable effort could not make large compromises in the areas
of vehicle safety and performance. It was decided that three specific
vehicle characteristics should be measured as the major performance
indicators, these being acceleration, braking, and general handling and
maneuverability. In addition, noise level testing would be included
under the heading of vehicle performance for scoring purposes, although
it is not a performance factor in the usual sense. Although we were
concerned about each vehicle's safety features and general roadworthiness,
we found no practical way to incorporate safety into the scoring formulae.
Consequently, the rule was made that all entries must comply with the
Massachusetts State vehicle inspection standards.
PRELIMINARY SETUP
All performance testing was done at the M.I.T. Flight Facility,
Hanscoin Field in Bedford, Mass. The testing area included an airplane
hangar, a large paved apron, and a 2000-foot taxiway. A standard inspec-
tion station was set up in the hangar by two officers from the Mass.
Registry of Motor Vehicles. Major items to be checked included lights,
steering, exhaust systems, ball joints, and brakes. The inspections were
conducted on all test vehicles during the morning of that day on which
they were to be performance tested.
Due to space limitations, all tests could not be run concurrently.
Each day was divided into three blocks of time; the first being reserved
for noise level measurements, the second for acceleration-braking, and the
third for the road handling tests.
-62-
-------
THE NOISE MEASUREMENT TEST
The noise level tests were conducted by Bolt, Beranek, and Newman,
Inc., (B.B. & N.) an acoustical consulting firm under contract with the
Federal government's Department of Transportation. Part of the measure-
ment procedure was taken from SAE J-986a, a standard test procedure for
passenger cars and light trucks; three additional tests were established
by the committee, in consultation with Mr. Charles Dietrick of BB & N. The
four situations were as follows:
1. the test vehicle at 30 miles per hour (mph), wide
open throttle (30 WOT)
2. the test vehicle at 30 miles per hour (mph), cruising
3. jthe test vehicle at 60 miles per hour (mph), cruising
4. the test vehicle in a stationary position with motor
idling.
The layout of the test area, vehicle path, and microphone placement
described in SAE J-986a were used for all moving tests. The CACR entrant
vehicles were driven in a straight line past a microphone which was
placed fifty feet from the travel lane. First, the noisier side of each
vehicle was established by having the car cruise past the mike in each
direction at 30 mph. Thereafter, all noise measurements for each test
were made from the noisier side.
The 30 mph wide open throttle (30 WOT) test was conducted in a
50-foot long test "trap", the center of which was directly opposite the
microphone. Each vehicle entered the trap at 30 mph, then accelerated
at full throttle in the lowest gear for which maximum or "red line"
engine speed would not be exceeded within the trap. The vehicle was
required to continue accelerating in the same gear for another 100 feet
after leaving the trap, unless maximum engine speed was reached, at
which point the throttle was feathered to avoid excess engine speed.
The 30 mph cruising test required the vehicle to traverse the
trap at a constant 30 mph speed in the normal road gear. The 60 mph
cruising test was identical, except for the speed.
The idle noise measurement was taken at a distance of 10 feet,
with the vehicle stationary and idling, if the vehicle engine possessed
such a mode of operation.
Several days of rain during the pre-race week of testing made it
necessary to delete the 60 mph cruising test for noise. Thereafter,
each car completed both of its moving noise tests in turn, and then all
cars were tested at idle.
Noise levels were recorded on a dB(A) scale, which includes
frequency compensation, and converted to point scores using the scoring
curve illustrated in Figure IV-1 on the following page.
-63-
-------
POINTS
250
200
150
100
50
0
50
T
60
r~
70
80
90
dB(A)
Fig. IV - 1; Scoring curve used for all
noise measurement tests.
The point scores for the three test situations were then averaged to give
the final noise score.
THE ACCELERATION TEST
It was decided that three ranges of vehicle acceleration should be
measured in order to simulate only a few of several possible situations
in urban traffic. The acceleration modes measured included:
1. 0 to 30 mph
2. 0 to 45 mph
3. 20 to 50 mph
For each speed range, the elapsed driving time between the designated
speeds was measured, and an average rate of acceleration was computed
by the committee in units of g, where one g equals 32.2 feet per second
(lg=32.2 ft/sec2)-
The measurements of speed versus time were at first taken by
attaching a fifth wheel to the rear of each vehicle and recording the
output on a properly calibrated strip chart recorder, mounted within the
vehicle. An accelerometer was mounted on each vehicle and its output
simultaneously recorded on another track of the strip chart.
The accelerometer output was not used to compute acceleration, but
only to establish the exact point in time at which acceleration began.
The starting point was taken as the first point at which a non-zero
acceleration was recorded. Time was measured from this point to the
point at which the specified terminal speed was reached. For the 20 to
50 mph test, time was measured between the point at which 20 mph was
registered on the strip chart and the point at which 50 mph was reached.
The rate of average acceleration for each speed range was computed
using the following standard kinematic equation:
-64-
-------
(V -
where a = acceleration computed in units of g
v^ - the vehicle initial speed in mph
V2 = the vehicle terminal speed in mph
t = the elapsed time in seconds
1 g
c = .0455 = 22 ft/sec
15 mph I 32.2 ft/sec2
a dimensionless constant.
Due to an unfortunate accident (the fifth wheel dropped off of a
vehicle during a trial run),only six vehicles completed testing using
the fifth wheel, accelerometer, and strip chart recorder arrangement.
These teams included entrants 31, 34, 35, 42, 50, and 52. Thereafter,
a radar unit and stopwatches had to be used to measure vehicle speed
and elapsed time respectively. Each car was given a hand signal to
start, and timed by three stopwatches for the three speed ranges tested.
The elapsed time corresponding to each speed range was then recorded,
and the average rate of acceleration was computed by the same formula
as shown above.
Some doubts were raised by several entrants as to the accuracy
and consistency of comparing measurements which had been obtained by
using two different techniques and sets of test equipment. This
matter will be further discussed in the evaluation section at the end
of this chapter.
An unweighted time average of the three acceleration measurement
values was computed for each entrant team, and an acceleration score was
subsequently assigned using the scoring curve illustrated below:
250 -
POINTS
Fig. IV - 2;
Scoring curve used in the
vehicle acceleration test.
-65-
-------
or using the equivalent mathematical equation:
0, if a< .13g
p
a
250
.22
(a - .13), if .13g .35g
where P = points
a - average acceleration rate computed in units
of g.
The acceleration values of .13g and .35g were chosen as the
"break points" of the scoring curve on the basis of consultation with
auto testing experts at the Cornell Aeronautical Laboratories in
Buffalo, New York. These values were felt to be the minimum acceptable
and maximum necessary average acceleration rates, respectively, for a
vehicle traveling in today's urban traffic. The lower limit of .13g
corresponds to 0 to 30 mph in 10.5 seconds, which is comparable to many
foreign and domestic economy cars. The upper limit of .35g corresponds
to 0 to 30 nph in 3.9 seconds, which is slightly better than the average
Detroit production model V-8.
THE BRAKING TEST
Vehicle braking performance was tested for a controlled stop
situation from two speeds:
1. 55 to 0 mph
2. 30 to 0 mph
The first test was originally planned for 60 to 0 mph, but there was
an insufficient length of track for many of the vehicles to accelerate
and reach 60 mph before beginning to brake. When each car had attained
the designated speed, it entered a 300 foot-long by 12 foot-wide braking
lane demarcated by pylons. Once inside the lane, the driver applied the
vehicle's brakes with the objective of stopping in the minimum distance
without hitting any pylons.
For each braking run the actual vehicle speed was measured by radar,
since automobile speedometers can vary widely in accuracy. The stopping
distance traveled by each test vehicle during braking was measured, and
an average rate of deceleration was computed using the following kine-
matic formula:
-66-
-------
where a, =
d
V =
S -
Cn =
average deceleration rate computed in units of g
vehicle speed before braking in raph
stopping distance in feet
HAAS - 22 ft/sec
. Uobo =
15 mph
a dimensionless constant.
32.2 ft/sec2
N.B. This formula computes the distance average of deceleration, not
the time average.
The exact point at which the brakes were applied was marked by a
chalk "gun" x^hich blasted a chalk mark in the roadway pavement as soon
as the driver touched the brake pedal. The stopping distance of the
vehicle was measured from this chalk point to the final position of the
gun after the car had come to rest.
The deceleration values computed for each stop were then averaged
together and a score was assigned to each entrant team using the curve
illustrated below:
i
250
POINTS
.60
.85
g's
Fig. IV - 3; Scoring curve used for the
deceleration measurement.
or using the following mathematical equivalent:
^
0
250
if a, < .60
d ~"~
.25
250
(a, - .60)
if .60 .85
d "
where P = points
a, - average deceleration rate computed in units of g.
Again, the break points of .60 g and .85 g were chosen on the basis
of what is minimally acceptable and generally available, respectively.
-67-
-------
Only one stop at each test speed was recorded for each vehicle, due
to severely limited time and space availability. Acceleration and braking
tests were run concurrently for each car in order to save time and make
the most efficient use of the speed monitoring equipment.
The fifth wheel and strip chart recorder were used to make the
braking test measurements for entrant teams 31, 34, 35, 42, 50, and 52.
All others were tested with radar.
MEASUREMENT OF GENERAL ROADWAY HANDLING AND MANEUVERABILITY
The handling characteristics of the CACR vehicles were evaluated by
timing them on runs through a gymkhana, or "urban driving cycle" (UDC)
as it was customarily called during the pre-race activities. The UDC
consisted of a driving course demarcated by pylons on the runway and
apron area and was set up according to guidelines provided by the Sports
Car Club of America in its definition of a gymkhana. It included two
U-turns, an "emergency1' lane change, a stop and back-up situation,
several large-radius turns, a straight-away stretch, and a serpentine
series of short linked turns. The general layout of the UDC has been
depicted below.
FINISH^ LLXNE
1500 feet (approximately)
Fig. IV - 4:
The urban driving cycle course
layout at Hanscom Field in
Bedford, Massachusetts
Each vehicle was started at a distance of approximately 3 feet from
the starting gate. The stopwatch began clocking time as the front of
the car entered the gate. The driver then continued on through the course
as quickly as possible. Time was stopped as the front of the car crossed
the finish line.
-68-
-------
Each vehicle was required to have two separate drivers from the
respective team for this event, and each driver was in turn allowed
three runs through the UDC. A penalty of 2 seconds was added to a
driver's time score for each pylon knocked over during the run. If the
driver went off-course, or "washed outl:, no time was recorded and the
run was aborted.
The best recorded time for each driver was selected after all runs
had been completed, and times were then averaged for each two-man team
to vehicle run time against the scoring curve illustrated below.
250
POINTS
80 120
TIME (sec.)
Fig. IV - 5t Scoring curve used for urban
" driving cycle.
The mathematical equivalent of the UDC scoring curve is as follows:
0 if t >120
if 80 < t < 120
250 if t<80
where P = points
t = team average run time computed in seconds.
Original plans called for three drivers per vehicle, but the tight
schedule forced a cutback to two. The purpose of having several drivers
per vehicle, and three runs per driver was to minimize the effects of
driver skill. The performance characteristic to be measured was the
inherent handling quality of the car.
-69-
-------
The break point of the scoring curve were established by driving
a 1970 Ford station wagon through the course several times and then
estimating acceptable minimum and maximum times.
GENERAL OBSERVATIONS AND COMMENTS ON THE HANSCOM FIELD PERFORMANCE
TESTS
Both during and after the race, it was apparent that several areas
of weakness had existed in conducting the performance testing. The most
notable of these was the limited amount of data collected for each test
situation, with the exception of the noise level testing. Another was
the use of two different methods of speed and time measurement for the
acceleration and braking runs. Driver skill might also have introduced
inconsistencies into the UDC and braking test runs. It would be best
to discuss each of these separately.
Ideally, each vehicle should have been run several times through
each test situation, and then only the best results from each should
have been used for scoring purposes. For example, three or four accelera-
tion runs should have been sufficient to establish the maximum capabili-
ties of the vehicle, whereas mcst of the race vehicles were allowed only
two acceleration runs, and improvements of up to 15% were noted. It is
reasonable to suspect that further improvement might have resulted from
more test runs.
Similarly, at least three stops at each braking speed (instead of
the one conducted during CACR performance testing) would have given a
much better picture of the actual mechanical limits of the car. For
testing purposes of this type, sufficient time should be allowed between
stops for brakes to cool.
Driver skill can certainly affect a car's performance in acceleration,
braking, and handling. The driver must know exactly when to shift, how
hard he can apply the brakes without losing control, how to judge the best
speed and line going into a turn-in short, how to drive the car to its
maximum capabilities and always be just below the threshold of losing
control. An experienced professional test driver would have been helpful
in obtaining optimum performance data from most of the CACR vehicles. In
retrospect, the best arrangement might well have been to conduct the
tests using both the entrant teams and a professional as drivers, and then
computing the best average score.
After the accident which damaged the fifth wheel, all cars should
have been tested using the radar arrangement, which would have included
retests for the teams already tested using the fifth wheel. However, there
just wasn't enough time, due in large part to the two days of rain during
the pre-race week.
Each method had its own peculiar, potential sources of error.
There was some doubt expressed about the accuracy of the fifth wheel
-70-
-------
because it was suspected of bouncing off of the pavement during some
runs. With the radar setup the reaction times of the driver and timers
were introduced into the acceleration tests. These are different kinds
of errors, and there is no really effective way to reconcile them. The
errors, however, were estimated to be small compared to the quantities
being measured.
An overall evaluation of performance testing might be summed up in
one sentence: It was fair to the entrants as competitive teams, but unfair
to the vehicles in that it did not provide enough data to give a good com-
parison to standards which have been established using typical production
cars. The one exception to the above would be the use of the two different
speed measuring setups. Except for that unfortunate circumstance, every
team had an equal, though limited, opportunity to prove their vehicle.
Driver errors, skill, and luck all played a part, but we would hope that
adequate time and facilities could be respectively allotted and secured
in future events.
PERFORMANCE TEST DATA
Presented on the following page in Table IV - 1 are the measurement
values and scores recorded by the organization committee for the CACR
entrant teams during the vehicle performance testing.
Note that the maximum number of points which any entrant team
could have obtained was 1000 as can be seen from the following formula:
P * P + P +P,+P
a a, udc n
a
where each of the individual tests described earlier in this chapter
had a range of 0 to 250 points on the scoring curves.
FUEL ECONOMY MEASUREMENT - INTRODUCTION
Fuel consumption is an important design and operating parameter in
any automotive power plant. Since the demonstration of reasonable fuel
economy had from the beginning been one of the goals of the CACR competi-
tion, it was decided by the entrant teams and the organization committee
in joint session that the fuel economy measurement should be comparable
in importance to the performance tests and race score, and therefore
have a maximum obtainable value of 1000 points.
-71-
-------
Table IV - 1
CACR Vehicle Performance Scores
Entrant P
Team No.
1
2
3
4
5
6
10
11
12
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
41
42
50
51
52
61
65
66
70
71
75
90
397
563
410
543
539
391
583
588
559
763
434
475
698
647
715
656
543
504
664
629
607
630
527
486
562
792
653
568
329
359
608
441
88
378
397
133
292
473
65
Hans com
= P +
a
24
81
29
30
29
24
24
79
75
224
107
26
135
55
54
124
46
119
186
59
170
97
8
22
139
250
87
57
0
26
164
45
0
0
0
0
0
46
0
Field
P +
ad
0
86
14
113
120
0
134
101
112
147
34
58
171
250
238
115
97
0
86
188
70
125
102
72
56
125
158
93
0
0
44
0
0
0
41
0
0
60
0
Test
udc
231
246
250
250
215
225
250
250
222
250
118
233
250
250
248
250
250
218
250
232
250
250
250
250
250
250
250
235
187
183
250
238
88
195
156
0
92
250
48
Scores
+ P
n
142
150
117
150
175
142
175
158
150
142
175
158
142
92
175
167
150
167
142
150
117
158
167
142
117
167
158
183
142
150
150
158
-
183
200
133
200
117
17
Fuel Economy
Measurement
miles/106Btu
146.0
104.0
228.0
171.5
169.0
107.0
205.0
224.0
114.2
127.0
104.4
162.5
111.2
254.0
136.2
147.2
269.0
132.3
161.0
99.8
142.1
175.2
128.5
228.0
126.4
196.3
288.0
171.0
360.0
98.7
165.0
216.0
_
_
_
147.6
143.8
24.0
Score
663
402
1000
822
806
419
1000
1000
464
544
402
766
445
1000
601
670
1000
577
756
374
638
845
553
1000
540
977
1000
819
1000
367
781
1000
_
936
665
_
672
649
0
A ( - ) indicates that the vehicle did not complete that portion of the
competition.
-72-
-------
TJ'.h'l
'io establish a sufficiently accurate baseline for the test
vehicle fuelfconsumption was measured over two legs of the race from
Ann Arbor to Oklahoma City -- a distance of 1071 miles. It should be
noted that this consisted of practically continuous high speed (60 to
70 mph) on interstate highways.
because many different fuels were used by the various entrant
teams, fuel consumption was computed in units of vehicle miles traveled
per million British thermal units of energy consumed (miles/10^ Btu). No
allowance was made for vehicle weight or drag. The reasons for this
decision were as follows:
1. With the exhaust emissions factor in the scoring formula
expressed in units of grams/mile, a penalty for increased engine size
already existed.
2. Vehicle weight would not be the dominant factor in deter-
mining fuel economy since the vehicles were being operated at high speed
on interstate highways with few grades.
3. There was no straightforward method of allowing for the
different vehicle drag coefficients.
The importance of aerodynamic drag at high speeds was underlined
by the case of one entrant who illegally drafted in truck slipstreams for a
substantial fraction of the route. The driver improved his vehicle's
economy performance by about 25 percent. (He was, of course, penalized
for dangerous and illegal driving).
MEASUREMENT METHOD
With the exception of the pure electric vehicles, the fuel economy
measurement in units of miles/10^ Btu was computed by recording the weight
of the fuel consumed over the 1071-mile route for each entrant team. In
a few cases, a shorter distance of vehicle travel had to be used due to
inadequate fuel consumption records. The higher heating value of each
fuel type (see Table IV - 2) was then used to give the energy consumption.
Table IV - 2
Higher heating values of the fuel types used in the CACR.
Compressed natural gas (CNG) 1,070 Btu/standard cubic foot (scf)
Liquefied natural gas (LNG)
Liquefied propane gas (LPG)
Diesel Fuel
Gasoline
Kerosene,JP-4
Methanol
1,034
91,500
143,000
116,000
130,000
64,600
Btu/scf
Btu/gal
Btu/gal
Btu/gal
Btu/gal
Btu/gal
-73-
-------
The scoring curve is shown in Figure IV - 6 below; the
breaking points of 40 and 200 miles/106 Btu correspond approximately
to 5 and 25 miles/gallon for gasoline.
1000
POINTS
0
40
MILES/106 Btu
Figure IV - 6;
Scoring curve used for the
fuel economy measurement test.
Entrants were not required to provide accurate fuel meters in
their vehicles. This led to some difficulties in monitoring the fuel
consumed, and in future events such a requirement to provide against
this should be made. The measurement methods used for the different
fuels have been outlined in Table IV - 3.
Table IV - 3
Fuel
leaded gas
diesel
Fuel Consumption Measurement Methods
Read gallons off pump*
unleaded gas Cans of fuel weighed at impounds*
alcohol
kerosene
LPG
LNG
CNG
Record gallons fed to tank from
meter reading on the pump*+
Standard flowmeters recording
volume flow in scf
Record gas pressure and temperature in
cylinder before and after each filling
A full fuel tank was taken as the reference mark.
This was the least accurate measurement because (1) it was
difficult to assess when the tank is full; (2) flow meters
at propane filling stations were not always reliable.
-74-
-------
RESULTS
Petroleum Fueled Vehicles
Fuel consumption measurements in units of miles/10^ Btu and
fuel economy points scored by all entrants burning petroleum fuels
have been listed in Table IV - 1.
Pure Electric Vehicles
It was not possible to measure the electrical energy used at all
charging stations by the electric entries. The energy consumption of the
two pure electric vehicles (No. 65, Cornell University, and No. 66,
Stevens Institute of Technology) which reached Pasadena was measured over
a special 150 mile route at the end of the race. Batteries, initially
fully charged, were recharged three times over during this test run, and
the energy consumption in units of kilowatt-hours recorded.
A fuel economy measurement was then computed in units of miles/
kwh. To make these figures directly comparable to petroleum fueled
vehicles, it was assumed that the electric energy available at the charg-
ing station was generated from fossil fuel at 35 percent efficiency. The
electric energy consumption (miles/kwh), and thermal energy consumption
(miles/10^ Btu) test scores for entrant teams 65 and 66 are given in
Table IV - 4.
Table IV - A
Electric Vehicle Energy Consumption
Entrant Electrical Thermal*
No. Miles/kwh Miles/106 Btu Point Score
65 Cornell 1.85 190 936
66 Stevens 1.43 146.5 665
* Assumes 35% efficiency in the electrical power generation
process.
-75-
-------
EVALUATION
The fuel economy results span the range 100-270 miles/10^ Btu which
is equivalent to 13-34 miles per gallon of gasoline. The performance
of race vehicles was therefore comparable to current automobiles. One
question explored was whether the different fuels used by entrant teams
had a measurable effect on fuel economy. Figure IV-7 shows fuel economy
plotted against engine displacement. A rough correlation exists, but
within the scatter of the data there are no discemable differences between
the various fuels used.
It is interesting to note that the thermal efficiencies of the two
electric entries when expressed in miles/10b Btu of thermal energy fed
to the utilities electrical power generating plant, fall in the middle
of the range of values measured for the petroleum fueled vehicles.
ouu
-3
(-
m
(D
O
N.
0
1 200
s
o
z
0
o
LJ
_,
LJ
^
U.
100
<;
o 0 LNG CNG
0 LPG
- ° A GASOLINE
A METHANOL
D DIESEL
1!
o
o
A
A. .
0 0*
8
o
.0
A A 0
O -
o
A °» _
>
1
200 300 400
ENGINE DISPLACEMENT cubic inches
500
Fig. IV-7; Fuel economy vs. engine displacement
-76-
-------
-------
V. EXHAUST EMISSION STANDARDS AND CACR TEST PROCEDURES
INTRODUCTION
The proposal to stage a Clean Air Car Race (CACR) encompassed the
idea of reducing exhaust emissions for any type of vehicle power olant
to levels well below that of the present internal combustion engine (ICE).
Acceptable standards for entrant team qualification and the test proce-
dures for measuring vehicle tailpipe pollution and assessing vehicle per-
formance characteristics had to be determined in order to establish the
guidelines of greatest importance to all CACR participants.
The difficulty of this task was reflected by the extensive overhaul
which the current Federal test procedure for measuring vehicle exhaust
emissions has recently received. One need only inspect the Federal Regis-
ter (Volume 33, Number 108, June A, 1968; Volume 35, Number 186, July 15,
1970) to discover the modifications which have been made over the past
two year period. No longer will the concentrations of exhaust volume
pollutants be the object of measurement, but, more important, the actual
mass values for these respective pollutants in units of grams per mile of
vehicle travel will instead be recorded. Because the newly proposed
Federal test procedure for 1972 required measurement equipment which could
not be readily obtained at all CACR test sites, the organization committee
in conjunction with engineers from General Motors, the Ford Motor Co.,
and the National Air Pollution Control Administration formulated test
procedures which combined approved measurement techniques with available
hardware.
Inherent difficulties in designing a standard test procedure to
measure exhaust emissions for all vehicles became manifest when consideration
was given to the operating characteristics of the unconventional automotive
power plants. Turbines, for example, possess extremely high mass flow rates
(1.0 to 2.0 Ib-m/sec) compared to an ICE. Hybrid-electrics did not have
their charging engines running throughout the duration of the emissions test.
In short, proposing a test procedure for non-ICE power plants became
necessary because no commonly prescribed procedure had ever been established
at that time.
Even before the methods of testing for vehicle exhaust emissions had
been investigated, the organization committee had proposed that all entrants
comply with the then-proposed Federal standards for 1975 as a necessary
requirement for participation in the CACR. Little did we understand or
appreciate the complexity of this issue as we were not well-read or at all
experienced with the far-reaching modifications that had been made in the
current test procedure. The following three sections outline how the
organization committee handled the design of the CACR exhaust emission test
procedures, how these test procedures were related to the existing Federal
standards, and how the teams were scored for their emission control efforts.
-78-
-------
SECTION A
EXHAUST EMISSIONS TEST PROCEDURES
Devising a method to test exhaust pollution emissions from an
automobile is not altogether straight-forward. One important factor is
the speed versus time schedule, i.e., the "driving cycle" over which the
vehicle is operated during the test. Different driving cycle choices
can easily alter final results by a factor of two, thereby making it
difficult to compare test results from various driving cycles. How the
pollutant sample is collected, what instrumentation is used to analyze
the sample, and how the sample data is used to calculate actual emission
valuesall are factors which can effect the accuracy of a test and throw
uncertainty into any comparison with data obtained via other tests.
The necessity for some degree of standardization led us to consider
the existing 1970 and proposed 1972 Federal test procedures as desirable
starting points. We utilized the methods employed in these procedures
as much as possible by combining and modifying the different steps and
techniques to construct a meaningful test while observing constraints of
time avialability for testing, equipment availability, etc.
The remainder of this discussion will begin with a description of
the 1970 and 1972 Federal test procedures, continue with a description
of how these methods were modified for use in testing the CACR vehicles,
and conclude with a general criticism of the modified test procedures.
In the 1970 Federal test procedure (henceforth referred to as
1970 FTP) , the "seven mode" driving cycle is used and has been illustra-
ted below.
Speed
(mph)
50
40
30
20
10
Time (sec.)
20
40
60
80
100 120 140
Fig. V - li
Illustration of vehicle speed vs.
time chart, commonly known as the
"seven mode cycle", used in testing
automobiles for exhaust emissions.
In preparation for the test, each vehicle is required to have its engine
in an off-state for at least 12 hours (while parked in a temperature and
humidity controlled room, if possible) before being pushed onto a chassis
dynamometer and hooked to exhaust gas analyzing equipment. The chassis
-79-
-------
dynamometer is an instrument that simulates actual road-load conditions
for the test vehicle; large rotational drums of variable incremental
weight receive the torque-speed load applied by the vehicle's drive
wheels, thereby allowing the vehicle to remain stationary while in opera-
tion (like running in place). A dynamometer inertia wheel is set so as
to correlate with the energy absorption characteristics of the vehicle
in travel. A device known as the power absorption unit is set to dissi-
pate 4, 8, or 10 horsepower while the test vehicle is traveling at 50 mph;
the setting is based upon the weight range to which the vehicle belongs.
Seven repetitions of the seven mode cycle driving pattern are conducted
to form the total test driving cycle and consume approximately twenty-one
minutes in duration.
While the vehicle is being driven over the test cycle, a probe
placed in the tail pipe continuously samples the vehicle's exhaust gases
and routes a portion thereof through special gas analyzing equipment. In
brief, the exhaust gas sample is piped through water vapor traps into a
set of non-dispersive infared (NDIR) spectrometers which measure carbon
monoxide (CO), carbon dioxide (.CO 2) and hydrocarbons.
The test values from each mode are weighted by standard factors
(to reflect that certain modes are more frequently encountered by the
average motorist in an urban driving situation) , corrected for differences
in fuel composition and air-fuel ratio, and summed. Multiplication of
this single number by the calculated, vehicle exhaust volume flow rate
(determined by using a regression analysis which utilizes vehicle inertia
weight) yields a value for the mass emissions per mile of vehicle travel
for each pollutant.
For the 1972 and later model year cars, the Federal government will
use a different test procedure (henceforth referred to as "1972 FTP") .
The driving cycle for 1972 consumes almost 23 minutes of vehicle
operation and exhibits a complex, non-repetitive speed vs. time behavior
as illustrated below:
Speed
250
Fig V
T
500 750 1000 1250
Time (sec.)
- 2; Illustration of the vehicle driving cycle
for the 1972 Federal Test Procedure.
-80-
-------
Throughout the cycle, a technique known as constant volume sampling
(CVS) is employed. All of the test vehicle exhaust gas is collected, com-
bined with filtered air to form a constant volume flow rate of dilute mix-
ture, and temperature stabilized through a heat exchanger. A portion of
this dilute mixture is then sampled at a low, constant volume flow rate
into a large, transparent, plastic bag. The bag sample is analyzed using
an NDIR spectrometer for CO and a flame ionization detector (FID) for
hydrocarbons. The number of revolutions of the pump in the CVS unit are
counted and used to calculate the total volume of the mix. By conducting
concentration measurements (with this volume which is temperature and
pressure corrected) of the different pollutants in the bag to determine
the respective densities, this information can be combined with the CVS
pump measurement and the total distance traveled by the vehicle during
the driving cycle to give the mass of emissions for each pollutant per
mile of vehicle travel.
Exhaust emissions testing of all CACR vehicles was conducted on
three separate occasions during the competition: (1) in Cambridge,
during pre-race activity, using the Ford Mobile Emissions Laboratory;
(2) in Detroit, 1000 miles into the Race at the laboratories of the
Ford Motor Co., General Motors Corp., Ethyl Corp., Chrysler Corp., and
NAPCA; and (3) in Pasadena, at the conclusion of the race using the
California Air Resources Board (CARB) and Olsen Mobile Test Laboratories
(with instrumentation and additional assistance of personnel from the
Scott Laboratory).
For the Cambridge and Pasadena testing, CVS equipment was not
available. The test method used was identical to the 1970 FTP except:
1. Vehicles were tested from a "hot start", i.e., there was
no pre-test engine-off period;
2. Readings from the sixth and seventh repetitions only of the
seven mode cycle were used in the data reduction process;
3. Hydrocarbons were measured using an FID;
4. Nitric Oxide (NO) formation was measured with an NDIR. The
NO data was weighted and corrected in the same manner as was
done for CO and hydrocarbons, but with the addition of a
correction factor for ambient humidity; and,
5. Particulate matter in the exhaust gas was measured by sampling
a controlled constant volume flow rate through a heated glass
filter. The readings were corrected using a calibration curve
established by a different procedure for the measurement of
particulates.
Although CVS equipment was available in Detroit, time constraints
prevented the use of the 1972 FTP. The test procedure used resembled the
1970 FTP except as detailed below:
1. The pre-test engine-off period (known as the "cold soak"
period) was only four hours instead of the prescribed 12 hours
or longer;
2. FIDs were used to measure hydrocarbons;
3. Total nitrogen oxides formation (written symbolically as NOX
or NOX) was measured using NDIR and nondispersive ultraviolet
-81-
-------
(NDUV) spectrometers except at NAPCA facilities where the
Saltzman technique (a wet chemical method) was used;
4. Nine repetitions of the seven mode cycle were conducted
instead of the prescribed seven;
5. On all entrant vehicles except numbers 42, 71, and 90, CVS
equipment and CVS data reduction were used;
6. On those entries listed in (5), an equivalent fuel-based system
technique was used, in which vehicle exhaust volume in each mode
is calculated from a measurement of fuel consumption in that
mode, coupled with measurements of CO, C02» hydrocarbons, and
exhaust gas temperature.
Due to the variances from standard test procedures used in testing
the CACR vehicles, care must be taken in comparing CACR data with other
existing data obtained via the 1970 FTP or the 1972 FTP. There is also
some question as to how well results from different test laboratories
correlate, even when the instruments have been calibrated from the same
gas sample.
PROBLEMS IN OBTAINING ACCURATE MEASUREMENTS
In general in emissions testing, considerable effort is expended to
ensure that results from different test cells are accurate and reproducible.
However, when analyzing the exhaust emissions data obtained with the test
procedure outlined in this section, several possible sources of error must
be considered and evaluated. The problems encountered during CACR testing
fall roughly into those categories: procedural differences between tests,
driver performance, and measurement system inaccuracies.
CACR test methods introduced some special procedural difficulties.
The Detroit cold-soak time for CACR vehicles was set at a maximum of four
hours. Some teams waited longer before their tests, which may have had
a slight effect on the subsequent warm-up time of their catalytic and
thermal reactor systems. Some CACR entrant vehicles overheated during
emissions tests. Whather this was due to variability in fan cooling
capacity or fan placement, or due to inadequate control of engine coolant
temperatures by the entrant team was not ascertained.
The chassis dynamometer contains a power absorption unit as explained
earlier in this section, which is adjusted to road load at 50 mph vehicle
speed and set on the basis of vehicle weight. There is some question
whether this technique adequately represents road-load conditions for the
wide range of vehicle models (and vehicle weights) entered in the CACR.
In CACR emissions tests in Detroit, professional drivers were used
to ensure the rapid testing of vehicles. Questions were raised by some
entrants about driver performance, gear-shift timing, and engine stall during
their tests. Since driving procedures are carefully standarized, it was
-82-
-------
felt that the slight variations in driving procedure during the cycle would
have a minor effect on emissions. The effect of an engine stall during
a cold start is more complicated. The Federal Test Procedure clearly spells
out that the engine be restarted and the test continue. Some CACR entrants
were given the option of a retest; in other cases, due to time limitations,
entrants were not given this option. While a stall can effect the vehicle
exhaust emissions, it was not clear whether the stalls which occurred resulted
from poor engine drivability (and which should therefore remain in the test),
or from the driver's lack of familiarity with the vehicle.
Since most CACR entrant vehicle emissions were substantially below
those of current automobiles, the question of the accuracy of current
instrumentation was carefully considered when test procedures were being
developed. Cutoff levels, below which measurements were considered question-
able, were introduced for HC, CO, and NOX concentrations. The values used
in hot and cold start tests are given in Section C. Emissions below these
levels were assigned the cutoff values in the scoring formula.
Also, because emissions were low, the concentrations of pollutants
in the ambient air used to dilute the engine exhaust in the CVS sampling
system become important. This diluting air is sampled just downstream
of the filter in the CVS system, collected in a bag and analyzed, and
these pollutant concentrations subtracted from the corresponding concentrations
in the exhaust sample bag. Errors are introduced because no correction is
made for the vehicle exhaust gas volume which is about 10 per cent of
the flow through the constant volume displacement pump. This error is
negligible if the pollutant concentrations in the air sample bag are small
compared with the exhaust bag. However, for some CACR entrants the two
sets of concentrations were comparable in magnitude. Under these circum-
stances, the error would vary with engine size with their different exhaust
gas flow rates. These problems underline the need for clean diluent air.
Also, had a turbine with its much larger exhaust gas volume been tested on
a CVS system, the error introduced would be more significant and corrections
would have to be made.
In general, it was concluded by the engineers who established the test
procedures that the errors normally encountered in testing vehicles was
within about 10 per cent for any given vehicle.
-83-
-------
SECTION B
THE FEDERAL EXHAUST EMISSION CONTROL STANDARDS
In Table V - 1, the Federal timetable for reducing vehicle
exhaust emissions has been illustrated as it existed at race time in the
summer of 1970. These standards had been formulated in November of 1969
by the National Air Pollution Control Administration (NAPCA), an agency
within the U.S. Department of Health Education and Welfare at that time.
The Air Quality Act, passed by Congress in 1967, had invested within NAPCA
the authority to investigate the issue of vehicular emissions and subse-
quently promulgate abatement standards.
Throughout 1969, a new test procedure, which employed what is
called "constant volume sampling" (CVS) equipment to collect vehicle
exhaust gas, was undergoing research and development. Its feasibility
as an advanced test procedure had been established, but the correlation
of its pollutant measurement values to those obtained using the customary
continuous sampling technique had yet to be determined. Over the course
of time, testing programs using both measurement procedures revealed that
the CVS hardware yielded pollutant emission values in vehicle exhaust gas
that were significantly higher than those obtained using the continuous
sampling technique. For example, referring to Table V - 1, the corres-
ponding emission values obtained using the 1970 Federal Test Procedure
(see Section A of this chapter) when testing an uncontrolled vehicle
are 73.0 gm/mile for CO and 11.2 gm/mile for HC (in comparison to the
figures of 125.0 and 16.8 measured respectively using the 1972 FTP). For
a vehicle whose exhaust pollutant levels meet the 1970 standards listed
in Table V - 1 using the 1972 FTP, the 1970 FTP records corresponding
values of 23.0 gm/mile for CO and 2.2 gm/mile for HC. As can be seen from
the data presented, the 1970 FTP fails to catch approximately half of the
vehicle exhaust pollutants by weight.
Realizing the discrepency between measurement procedures, the
CACR organization committee opted to employ CVS to obtain the desired
measurement accuracy, but the limited availability of this type of
hardware compelled the committee to accept the compromise discussed in
Section A of this chapter. Although entrance qualifications had required
that all CACR entrants meet the then-proposed 1975 Federal Standards, the
question of test procedures to be employed in making the measurements was
not fully understood in the early days of committee existence. As can be
seen from Table V - 1, requiring the entrants to meet the then-proposed
'75 standards using CVS equipment was asking for a great deal.
A second major modification recently made to the 1970 FTP, which
has been included in the 1972 FTP, was the substitution of a newly for-
mulated driving cycle (commonly referred to as the LA-4) as illustrated
in Figure V - 2. Once again, the pollutant emission values obtained
using this particular driving cycle were higher than what had formerly
been obtained using the standard seven mode cycle. Investigation into
differences in emission measurement values resulting from these two
different driving cycles is still underway at present with no conclusive
-84-
-------
correlation between government and industry test programs having been
reached as of yet.
The combination of CVS hardware and the non-repetitive driving
cycle illustrated in Figure V - 2 constitute the major elements of the
proposed 1972 FTP. Other detailed modifications of lesser importance
have also been made in revising the 1970 FTP; these are not essential
for purposes of providing the reader with additional significant
information.
The recent Amendments to the Clean Air Act which were
passed by Congress last December has accelerated the exhaust emission
reduction schedule. By model year 1975, the auto manufacturers will be
required to attain levels of 0.45 gm/mile and 4.7 gm/mile for HC and CO
respectively using the 1972 FTP. In 1973, there will very likely be
an NOX control requirement of 3.0 gm/mile which may well be reduced to
0.4 gm/mile for model year 1976 autos.
There can be little doubt that the percentage of emission
reduction achieved over an uncontrolled automobile will have exceeded
90% by 1976 if the auto manufacturers meet the proposed standards. In
retrospect, it would seem that the CACR entrants had indeed placed them-
selves on the frontier of exhaust emission control technology.
-85-
-------
Table V - 1
Federal Emission Standards
(Based on proposed 1972 Federal test cycle procedure)
BASELINE
ACTUAL - 1970 PROPOSED - 1972 PROPOSED - 1975 PROPOSED - 1980
i
oo
CO
Grams/mile: 125.0
Reduction from baseline:
HC
Grams/mile 16.8
Reduction from baseline:
Grams/mile; 6.0
Reduction from baseline:
PARTICULATES
Grams/mile:
Reduction from baseline:
0
0.3
4.6
73%
6.0
0
0.3
3.4
6.0
0
0.3
0.5
97%
©
0.9
85%
0.1
67%
0.25
98.5%
0.45
93%
o
0.03
90%
-------
SECTION C
THE CACR EXHAUST EMISSIONS SCORING FORMULA
The reduction of exhaust emissions was originally conceived as
the most important facet of the CACR competition. In order to maintain
emphasis along these lines, a nonlinear scoring formula was desired
which would award an entrant team with an increasing-return-to-scale
point system. With a linear formula, a reduction in emissions beyond
the 1975 Federal standards of, for example, 50% for HC, CO, and NO would
give that particular team an emissions score that was 50% higher than
a team which simply met the standards. The reward in all cases then
would be directly proportional to the improvement achieved in bettering
the 1975 Federal standards. A nonlinear formula, on the other hand, would
reward the team more heavily for the same degree of emission reduction.
An inversely proportional scoring system, for example, would double an
entrant team's score in the case where it had reduced all pollutants by
50% beyond the 1975 Federal standards.
The three major automotive pollutants, - HC, CO, and N0x - had to
be considered in devising a suitable formula, and a basis had to be found
whereby their individual levels of magnitude as measured within the
vehicle's exhaust gas would weigh separately when plugged into the scoring
formula. The possibility that the pollution control devices on some of
the CACR vehicles might degrade in performance over time made it desirable
to conduct a measurement for deterioration. The use of two different
test procedures for the exhaust emission measurements required that the
two sets of data obtained on each vehicle be used in separate ways. It
was within this framework of constraints that a complicated, nonlinear
scoring formula for emissions evolved.
The basic nonlinear structure of the formula for 'E1, the emissions
factor, expressed in units of absolute points, has been illustrated below:
E =
where E
CO
EHC
X
PART
'E
,+ PART
11.0 0.5 0
= the Detroit cold start test measurement value for
carbon monoxide.
- for hydrocarbons.
= for oxides of nitrogen.
= a value derived from a measurement for particulate
matter in the vehicle exhaust.
The numbers 11.0, 0.5, and 0.9 are the respective levels in
grams per mile for CO, HC, and NOX which,at the time of the race, con-
stituted the then-proposed 1975 Federal standards. These values became,
-87-
-------
in effect, the weighting factors which determined each pollutant's
influence upon the total score.
PART, a value obtained from particulate test measurements conducted
in Cambridge and Pasadena,constituted a separate term in the exhaust
emissions scoring formula. The two measurements were averaged together
and PART received one of the following three values: -0.1, 0.1, or 0.2,
depending upon whether the average value of the measurements was greater
than 0.1 gm/mile, between 0.1 and 0.03 gm/mile, or less than 0.03 gm/mile
respectively. 0.1 gm/mile constituted the then-proposed 1975 Federal
standard for particulate emission control, and .03 gm/mile the then-pro-
posed 1980 Federal standard.
To assess the amount of deterioration which each vehicle's emission
control system experienced during cross-country travel, a deterioration
factor was computed separately for CO, HC, and NOX- The factor in each
case consisted of the measured value of the specific pollutant in Pasadena,
divided by the value obtained in Cambridge. If the ratio turned out to be
less than 1, i.e., the vehicle's emission control system theoretically
improved itself during cross-country travel, a deterioration factor equal
to 1.0 was assigned. The mass emissions measurement obtained during the
Detroit testing for each pollutant was then multiplated by the appropriate
deterioration factor.
Although pollution emission control of the exhaust gases is one of
the most important problems of present day cars, a point is ultimately
reached where levels become so low that other considerations concerning
vehicle operation begin to dominate in importance. The proposed 1980
Federal standards at race time (which Congress has now put into effect in
a somewhat modified form to apply to the 1975 and 1976 model year auto-
mobiles) were designed to be sufficiently low and thereby cause atmospheric
CO, NOX, and oxidant levels to drop to an acceptable state commensurate
with reasonable air quality standards. For a CACR vehicle achieving the
1980 standards, the E factor in the scoring formula already more than
doubled in value. Since its value continues to rise much more rapidly
for emission levels any lower than this, the then-proposed 1980 Federal
standards of 0.25 gm/mile for HC, 4.7 gm/mile for CO, and 0.4 gm/mile
for NOX were chosen by the committee as the lower cutoff values for
scoring purposes on the Detroit cold start CVS data.
The above discussion of the deterioration factors, cutoff values,
and overall scoring formula is summarized below in algebraic form.
Deterioration Factors
Fco = max
1,
C0r,
Pas
Cam
-88-
-------
HC
NO
HC
Pas
HC
Cam
max
NO
Pas
NO
Cam
Cutoff levels below which measurement readings were considered
questionable during the hot start, continuous sampling testing are:
CO 0.1%
HC 10 ppm
NOX 100 ppm
The measurement cutoffs for cold start CVS (Detroit) testing are:
CO 1.00 gm/mile
HC 0.125 gm/mile
NOX 0.2 gm/mile
E__ = max (4.7,
Detroit Testing Cutoff Levels
= max (0.25,
-4' N°xCVS>
Exhaust Emissions Factor
E =
11.0
y n-Jr^r- U. P
HC 0.5 NO
ENOX]
0.9 1
+ PART
Test Results
Presented in Table V - 2 on the following page are entrant team scores
for the exhaust emission measurement tests conducted during the CACR. The
emissions factor E appearing in the final column constitutes the value used
to compute each entrant team's score using the formula described in Chapter III.
The measurements obtained during the Detroit cold start CVS test have been
listed in Table V - 2 along with the deterioration factors computed by the
committee after hot start testing had been completed in Pasadena. Finally,
the particulate emission measurement average value for each CACR vehicle has
been recorded in the second column from the right.
1. These are scoring cutoffs for Detroit tests, not the same as
measurement cutoffs for Detroit tests given above.
-89-
-------
Table V - 2
Exhaust Emission Test Measurements
PART
Entrant Detroit Cold Start Test
Team Test Values Values Emissions
No. (units of gm/mile) Deterioration Factor (gm/mi) Score
HCn C0n NO-
HC CO NO. TF7T- ^ «;;*
x HCB COB NOB
1 0.42 1.00 0.47 4.73 1.00 0.78 0.09 0.71
2 3.02 2.76 0.74 1.60 1.00 1.92 0.01 0.46
3 1.02 6.38 0.59 1.42 1.71 3.14 0.03 0.70
4 0.28 9.21 0.37 2.43 1.00 1.06 0.02 1.34
5 0.82 1.00 0.78 1,83 1.00 1.17 0.01 0.87
6 2.26 1.66 0.49 1.59 1.00 1.66 0.02 0.55
10 0.44 20.48 0.71 0.87 4.80 0.65 0.03 0.48
11 0.41 1.00 1.17 4.70 1.00 1.81 0.01 0.65
12 0.12 1.00 0.70 2.50 1.00 1.66 0.01 1.48
15 1.27 1.00 0.57 6.65 1.00 1.06 0.09 0.27
16 0.40 10.02 1.47 1.76 1.14 1.05 0.01 0.92
17 0.28 1.00 0.61 2.29 1.00 0.93 0.02 1.46
18 0.24 1.00 0.55 2.00 1.00 1.00 0.02 1.70
19 0.33 9.24 0.80 3.65 1.60 2.54 0.10 0.40
20 0.93 2.72 1.39 1.38 1.00 0.69 0.01 0.86
21 0.62 4.42 2.56 3.56 3.30 1.16 0.03 0.53
22 0.62 1.00 1.39 0.24 1.00 1.40 0.01 0.98
23 0.12 3.19 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.03 1.61
24 0.53 2.72 2.22 0.70 1.00 1.18 0.02 0.88
30 0.70 25.23 0.78 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.07 0.76
31 1.67 7.55 1.60 3.20 0.91 1.97 0.09 0.30
32 0.87 14.63 0.50 3.60 2.90 1.08 0.11 0.18
33 2.10 11.67 1.11 1.02 0.12 0.72 0.04 0.56
34 0.67 4.91 1.41 1.85 1.90 0.77 0.22 0.51
35 1.38 25.70 1.06 1.78 1.00 4.16 0.15 0.15
36 1.21 13.65 0.70 , 1.60 1.00 1.18 0.04 0.60
37 1.56 3.84 0.84 ' 1.31 0.50 2.08 0.10 0.56
41 0.42 4.68 0.86 1.91 2.30 0.42 0.02 1.04
42 1.60 3.40 2.30 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.16 0.39
50 4.19 8.81 4.27 0.72 2.52 1.20 0.16 0.09
51 0.94 1.43 0.84 2.71 1.00 2.07 0.01 0.60
52 1.43 1.00 1.77 5.68 1.00 0.38 0.02 0.36
61 ___ ___
65 ___ ___ _ 0>93
66 ___ ___ _ 0>?1
70 ___ ___
71 0.59 1.67 6.09 0.74 1.50 0.96 - 0.36
75 2.59 1.06 2.35 0.79 1.00 1.83 0.01 0.29
90 5.73 78.50 6.24 -
-90-
-------
Table V - 3
Deterioration Factor Emissions Data
CO
Entrant (%)
No.
1
2
3
4
5
6
10
11
12
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
41
42
50
51
52
71
75
Cam.
.10
.10
.21
.10
.10
.10
.10
.10
.10
.10
.22
.10
.10
.10
.10
.10
.10
.10
.10
1.35
.11
.10
.06
.10
.10
- .10
.20
.10
.10
.23
.10
.10
.10
.10
Pas.
.10
.10
.36
.10
.10
.10
.48
.10
.10
.10
.25
.10
.10
.16
.10
.33
.10
.10
.10
-
.10
.29
.12
.19
.10
.10
.10
.23
.10
.58
.10
.10
.15
.10
HC
(ppm*)
Cam.
11
40
66
14
12
82
23
10
10
17
21
24
10
20
37
16
369
24
61
13
10
10
57
13
27
10
13
23
141
337
28
128
27
58
Pas.
52
64
94
34
22
130
20
47
25
113
37
55
20
73
51
57
87
37
43
32
36
58
24
48
16
17
44
66
243
76
727
20
46
NO
(ppm*)
Cam.
128
100
132
100
859
100
155
260
108
155
289
165
100
428
382
291
470
301
288
100
185
491
326
406
233
100
190
279
472
1330
166
780
1041
336
Pas.
100
192
414
106
1004
166
100
471
179
165
314
154
100
1085
263
339
657
299
340
-
365
528
234
314
970
118
396
116
480
1590
347
294
1000
615
Particulates
(gm /mi.)
Cam.
.07
.01
.05
.02
.01
.04
.02
.01
.02
.15
.02
.02
.01
.19
.01
.05*
.01
.05
.03
.07
.13
.05
.04
.30*
.29
.05
.10
.03
.18
.22
.01
.03
-
.02
Pas.
.12
.01*
.01
.02
.01
.01
.04
.01
.01
.03
.01
.02
.03
.02
.01
.01
.02
.01
.01
.07*
.06
.18
.04
.15
.02
.04
.10
.02
.15
.10
.01
.01
-
.01
* ppm * parts per million.
-91-
-------
Correlation Between Test Methods
Equipment for performing 1970 FTP was available in Detroit, and so
it was decided to continuously monitor exhaust gas concentrations during
the Detroit testing, in order to gain some measure of the relations between
the two methods used to test the CACR vehicles. The following three
figures show the calculated emissions derived from continuous sampling in
cycles six and seven versus the CVS results for the same vehicle during
the total test for all ICE vehicles. The generally mediocre to poor
correlations do not necessarily reflect upon the accuracy of the deter-
ioration factor, since for any one vehicle the correlation may still
be very good. However, doubts are cast upon the accuracy of using hot
start continuous sampling values to estimate actual emissions of a range
of different vehicles.
Fig. V-3
CORRELATION COEFFICIENT = .60
.190
"O
0>
I .145
o
"o
o
.100
.055
.010
1
.1
.6 I.I 1.6 2.1
g/mf HC (actual)
2,6
3.1
-92-
-------
10.0
-5.0
o
o
& 9R
\ 2.5
0
CORRELATION COEFFICIENT = .006
I
0 4.5 9.0 13.5 18.0 22.5 270
g/mi CO (actual)
2.9
a>
| 2.2
"o
o
o 1.5
e
01 .8
.1
CORRELATION COEFFICIENT = .45
I I I I I
.3 .7 I.I 1.5 1.9 2.3 2.7
g/mi NO (actual)
-------
SECTION D
EMISSIONS RESULTS EVALUATION
In addition to fuel substitution, many emission control techniques
and devices were used by CACR entrants to achieve low emissions. Almost
all entrants ran their engines fuel-lean to obtain low HC and CO emissions;
with gaseous fuels most teams ran sufficiently lean to reduce NOX emissions.
Nineteen entrants used catalytic afterburners to further reduce HC and CO.
One entrant used a thermal reactor alone, and five used thermal and catalytic
reactors in series. Twelve entrants used exhaust gas recirculation (EGR),
and two water injection to reduce NOX emissions; at least fourteen entrants
retarded the spark timing to achieve lower NOX values.
A wide variety of other techniques were used to more carefully con-
trol engine-operating conditions, e.g., control of intake air temperature,
specially designed carburetors, insulated fuel lines, fuel injectors. Engine
geometry changes were also made by some entrants, e.g., lower compression
ratio, special piston rings to reduce quench volume, reduced valve overlap.
The techniques employed and significant design changes are listed in detail
in Appendix B, and summarized in Table V-A.
It had been hoped that the emission data obtained during the race would
allow some evaluation of these various techniques. However, after a pre-
liminary analysis of all the emissions data and control techniques used,
no detailed evaluation was attempted. The reasons were the following:
1. Only limited emissions data were available on each vehicle, and
for many vehicles emissions changed over the race route as
evidenced by the deterioration factors significantly greater
than unity in Table V-2.
2. Many different combinations of emission control techniques and
devices were used on different types of engine and car (see
Table V-4). Any cross comparison of emissions in an attempt
to evaluate any particular control device would have doubtful
validity.
3. The majority of entrant teams did not have adequate emissions-
monitoring equipment available to them during the period they
assembled their vehicles. The CACR emissions results do not,
therefore, necessarily represent the optimum that can be achieved
with the particular control devices used.
As an example of the difficulties involved In such cross comparisions,
entrant teams 5, 15, and 19 used none of the standard control devices,
e.g., catalytic or thermal reactors, exhaust gas recirculation, yet had
emissions which were not significantly higher than other entrants in their
class who did use some of these controls.
Some general conclusions can be drawn, however. Fuel substitution
alone to natural gas or petroleum gas can give a substantial reduction
-94-
-------
Table V-4: SUMMARY OF MAJOR EMISSION CONTROL TECHNIQUES
NO
Entrant
1
2
3
4
5
6
10
11
12
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
41
42
50
51
52
Fuel
CNG
CNG
LNG
LNG
CNG
LNG
LPG
LPG
LPG
LPG
LPG
LPG
LPG
LPG
LPG
LPG
LPG
LPG
LPG
unl.gas
l.gas
unl.gas
l.gas
unl.gas
unl.gas
ld.stl.gas
unl.gas
ale.
diesel
ale/gas
LNG
LPG
Vehicle
Weight
(Ib.)
3840
4750
1825
3800
3800
4350
1942
2438
3980
4200
4011
3300
2960
1900
3100
3434
2109
3610
2597
3700
4100
2500
3000
2500
3800
2300
1760
2569
2800
3500
2300
Engine
Size
(in3)
232
351
98
350
250
73
98
318
454
350
250
350
58
351
302
116
318
302
318
400
113
302
98
350
302
232
138
318
115
Water Spark
EGR Injection Retard
x
x
X
X
X X
X
X
X
X
X X
X
X X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X X
X
X
X X
Catalytic
Reactor
x
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Thermal
Reactor
x
X
X
X
X
X
X
Reactor
X
x
-------
in emissions. By running their engines lean, entrant teams 5 and 15
achieved values in their Detroit cold-start test which only exceeded the
then-proposed 1975 Federal Standards in hydrocarbon emissions. The
Detroit test results also show that CO control was most easily achieved
by lean engine operation and a catalytic afterburner. The average of
all Detroit CO measurements was below the then-proposed 1975 Federal Standard;
the average of HC and NOX emissions increased for almost all entrant vehicles
over the race route.
A comparision of the Detroit cold-start test data for different fuel
types shows liquid-fueled entrants had about three times higher CO emissions
and two times higher HC emissions than LPG fueled entrants. Average NOX
emissions for these two fuel types were quite similar. However, the
Pasadena and Cambridge HC and CO data do not show this difference; emissions
from liquid and gaseous-fueled vehicles are quite comparable. These data
underline the more difficult cold-start emissions control problem for liquid-
fueled vehicles, which must enrich the fuel/air mixture to compensate for poor
fuel vaporization with a cold engine.
Particulate emissions also correlated roughly with liquid or gaseous
fuel. Figure V-3 shows the particulate emissions data for each fuel type.
Though there is considerable scatter, the mean value for gaseous fuels
is about a factor of 3 below the mean of liquid fuels. Note that both
leaded gasoline-fueled entrants used particulate traps to reduce their
lead emissions.
In conclusion, the data obtained during the CACR confirm the already-
known emissions reduction potential of many of the control devices and design
changes used. It had already been shown2 that fuel substitution to natural
gas, and an engine tune-up, can achieve emission levels of HC151 ppm
(1.8 g/mile); CO0.35 per cent (4 g/mile) ; NOX462 ppm (2 g/mile). CACR
entrants, with a few exceptions, by using additional control devices con-
siderably improved these emission values. The winner of the gaseous fuel
class, No. 18-WPI, achieved values of HC0.24 g/mile; CO less than 1 g/mile;
NOX0.55 g/mile.
1970 model gasoline-fueled automobiles must meet Federal emission
requirements of HC2.2 g/mile; C) 23 g/mile; and NOX emissions are about
6 g/mile. 1 The overall winner, No. 36-Wayne State University, in the retest
requested by the CACR committee at Pasadena because operator error in the
Detroit tests prevented those results from being a true measure of the
vehicles*s potential, achieved the following: 3
HC 0.19 g/mile
CO 1.48 g/mile
N0v 0.29 g/mile
X
2. California 7-mode cycle.
3. LA4, CVS test. Gives higher emissions than 7-mode test. See section
V-B.
-96-
-------
u.
Cn
ry
^.
o
en
UJ
uu
^0.01
O
1-
£T
a.
- A
**.
H
- « HI
_
O
_ O
1
0
-------
The potential for emissions reduction through careful control of engine-
operation conditions, through exhaust gas recirculation and catalytic reactors
is readily apparent.
EMISSIONS ATTRIBUTABLE TO ELECTRIC VEHICLES
When discussing automotive emissions, it is often proposed that the
electric vehicle is an especially attractive alternative in that is con-
tributes no contaminates to the atmosphere during operation. This is true.
However, electrical stored energy systems derive their power from electric
generating plants and a case can be made that the consumption of fossil
fuel by these facilities produce pollution which in turn can be attributable
to electric vehicle operation.
In introducing an investigation of the magnitude of this pollution,
it will be assumed that electric vehicles travel 1.6 miles per kilo-watt
hour consumed^. In allowing for power station efficiency, the thermal
energy required for this is 164 miles per million Btu.
If coal is used as a plant fuel, a conservative assumption is that
it is 10% ash and contains 2% sulphur. Its heating value is 26 x 106 Btu/
ton. Using a recognized source *, the amount of pollution emitted by the
electrical generating plant in producing power for electric vehicle con-
sumption may be expressed in grams per mile as follows:
CQL H£ U0_x SQ.2 Particulate
.05 .02 2 8 0.3
By investigation, it is noted that although CO and HC emissions are
effectively eliminated, pollution by NOX, SQ2» and particulates becomes
critical.
Further areas of research on this issue might concern an evaluation
of the thermal pollution contributes by nuclear power plants or an evaluation
of equipment efficiency in eliminating contaminants caused by the combustion
of fossil fuels.
4. Average distance traveled by electric vehicles entered in the CACR.
5. Duprey, R. L., "Complication of Air Pollutant Emission Factors,"
Public Health Service, Department of Health, Education and Welfare,
1968.
-98-
-------
-------
IV. A DISCUSSION OF AUTOMOTIVE FUELS USED IN THE CLEAN AIR CAR RACE
ROLE OF THE COMMITTEE
The organization committee encountered several large-scale logistical
problems in preparing for the 1970 Clean Air Car Race (CACR) , one of which
was the supply of different fuel types to the entrant team test vehicles.
At first, the standard policy called for each team to assume individual
responsibility for securing and financing its own supply. By late spring,
however, the committee was in a position to arrange for distribution systems
for the most commonly used fuels. The committee had also accepted the
responsibility for the design and construction of a cross-country "electric
car expressway" along the CACR route.
With a rapid response from the CACR teams in returning their preliminary
applications, the committee noted that internal combustion engine powered
vehicles (Class I) appeared to dominate the entrant list, and that fuel
selection usually fell into one of three areas:
1. natural gas, both liquid, (LNG) and compressed (CNG)
2. liquid petroleum gas (LPG)1
3. gasoline, both leaded and unleaded
Although the actual breakdown of fuel types would remain unknown until the
entrants reported to MIT for the week of pre-race testing, initial plans
assumed that most teams would be using one of the three possibilities listed
above.
Concern for the hazards of transporting potentially dangerous fuels
led the committee to establish contact with the Federal government's
Department of Transportation (DOT) for the purpose of investigating national
and state safety regulations on this matter. Law required that a petition
be filed by any individual transporting fuel not in compliance with the
procedure described in the Federal Register (Volume 33, Number 108, parts
171-190). To assist entrant teams in this matter, the committee sent a
representative to the appropriate government offices for the purpose of
describing the CACR event, while simultaneously endorsing petitions received
by DOT from the entrants. Due to time limitations, the Federal government
gave special consideration to the CACR, and those entrants using hazardous
fuels obtained their permits with only minimal difficulty.
By mid-summer, the committee was setting up complete fuel distribution
systems for LNG, LPG, and electrically powered vehicles. It was unfortunate,
1. The primary component of LPG is propane.
-100-
-------
however, that time and manpower limitations did not permit the committee
from assisting all group fuel users, most of which did not experience any
insurmountable problems.
SUMMARY OF THE FUEL TYPES USED
The final breakdown on the number of teams using each fuel type is
shown in Table VI-1. The most common fuel, LPG, was used by sixteen of
the 43 entrants (37%).
Table VI-1; Fuel Type Breakdown of CACR Entrants
Fuel Type Total Users
Liquid Petroleum Gas (LPG) 16*
Electricity 8b
Unleaded Gasoline 7°
Liquid Natural Gas (LNG) 4
Compressed Natural Gas (CNG) 3
Leaded Gasoline 2
Methanol 2
Diesel Oil 1
Lead Sterile Gasoline 1
Aviation Fuel (JP4) 1
Kerosene 1
Due to the unusually short development time (no more than five months
in most cases), many student teams were forced to utilize conventional
engine systems and a large number of ICE entrant applications were received
early in the competition. With low exhaust emissions being of prime im-
portance, a ready-made solution appeared to be the selection of a substitute
for gasoline, namely, a less complex hydrocarbon fuel such as LNG, CNG, or
LPG. These fuels are advantageous for two reasons: 1) There are fewer
problems with vaporization of the fuel prior to combustion during a cold
start of the engine, and 2) the engine can run leaner, thus admitting
fewer hydrocarbon chains to the combustion chamber.
Therefore, with only slight engine modifications necessary (some
standard conversion kits are available commercially), many entrants quickly
converted their power plants to run on one of these gaseous fuels. Had
the 1970 CACR been conceived and announced at an earlier date, the number
of entrants using other fuel types would very likely have increased.
a. Includes one hybrid and one steam entrant
b. Includes all three hybrid entrants
c. Includes two hybrid entrants
d. Steam entrant
-101-
-------
DISCUSSION OF THE FUEL TYPES USED
A comparison of the basic data on all fuel types used in the CACR can
be found in label VI-2.
The following sections will discuss the use of the various fuels used
in the CACR mentioning the entrants, supply source and distribution system
for each fuel. A description of each entrant's vehicle fuel system is
included in Appendix B.
A. Leaded Gasoline
With few exceptions, the automobile of today was designed to operate
on leaded gasoline. Tetraethyl lead is a gasoline additive used to in-
crease the octane rating and to permit higher operating temperature and
pressures within the engine cylinders. The initial use of tetraethyl lead
resulted from the discovery that engine knock could very easily be eliminated
with this additive. Another positive effect was the lead deposits on the
cylinder head which provided a cushion for the valves.
Two entrants in the CACR ran exclusively on leaded gasoline: LSU (31)
and WPI (33).2 Both vehicles were 1970 American-made automobiles containing
a standard internal combustion engine. Refueling for each was executed at
commercial service stations on the route, and fuel was carried in standard
tanks.
B. Unleaded Gasoline
Nearly all of the lead particulate emissions in the atmosphere are
attributable to the tetraethyl lead additive in commercial gasoline. In an
attempt to eliminate this and because they were using catalytic reactors,
seven entrants in the race ran on unleaded gasoline. They were: UC
Berkeley (30), WPI (32), Michigan (34), Michigan (35), Wisconsin (37),
MIT (70), WPI (71).
While unleaded gasoline has been made commerically available since
the CACR, it was unavailable at most common service facilities until and
including the race. During the spring, one entrant school (Wisconsin) was
able to solicit an adequate supply of unleaded gasoline from Chevron
(California) for use during the CACR. When additional applications were
received from entrants also considering unleaded gasoline, the committee
referred them to the Wisconsin team. The first two additional schools
doing so entered into a fuel sharing agreement; however, subsequent
entrants were asked by Wisconsin to make their own arrangements as the
Chevron fuel was not sufficient to supply all requesting test vehicles.
2. All entrants will be identified by their common abbrieviated name
and vehicle number in this chapter. See Appendix A for complete
name.
-102-
-------
Table VI-2: FUEL CHARACTERISTICS
I
»-'
o
I
Gasoline-leaded & unleaded
(values for isooctane)
Liquefied Petroleum Gas
(propane)
Compressed Natural Gas
Liquefied Natural Gas
(methane)
Methyl Alcohol
(raethanol)
Diesel Oil
Kerosene
Aviation Fuel (JP4)
Specific
Gravity
(H20=l)
0.69
0.5
0.3
0.79
___
Heating
Value
(Btu/lb)
20,556
21,484
23,650
23,650
9,770
19,600*
18,300*
18,300*
Boiling Temp.
at 1 a tin.
(°F)
211
-44
-259
149
475*
_.w«l.
Storage
Pressure
(p.s.i)
Atm.
75-150
2,200
75-120
Atm.
Atm.
Atm.
Atm.
Storage
Temperature
(°F)
Ambient
Ambient
Ambient
-259 (approx.)
Ambient
Ambient
Ambient
Ambient
Approximate values: +. 10%
-------
At this time the committee, on behalf of the unleaded entrants,
approached a large midwestern oil company and requested that additional
unleaded gasoline be donated to the CACR. The company refused. However,
after being informed of the situation, Engelhard Industries3 offered to
purchase and ship the necessary additional fuel.
Unlike the commercially available leaded gasoline, the unleaded fuel
was stored on or near the impound area at each host campus. Upon arriving,
the entrant vehicle would proceed directly to the refueling area and tank
up for the following day's run. The trail vehicle crew would then fill
several standard 5-gal. containers with enough additional fuel to sustain
the test vehicle for the entire leg. This "piggy-back" method was used
by all unleaded-gasoline entrants, with refueling taking place at various
locations off the interstate highway.
C. Lead Sterile Gasoline
One entrant - Wayne State (36) - used lead sterile gasoline. Unlike
unleaded gasoline, lead sterile fuel has had all traces of lead removed^
and is available only as a testing fuel. For this particular entrant,
fuel for the entire route was carried in the trail vehicle before being
transferred to an 18-gal. polyethylene tank that had replaced the con-
ventional tank in the test vehicle.
D. Liquid Petroleum Gas (LPG)
As mentioned previously, the most commonly used fuel in the CACR was
LPG. The sixteen entrants using LPG included: San Jose State (10),
Stanford (11), UC Berkeley (12), USF (15), Evansville (16), Tufts (17),
WPI (18), Buffalo State (19), Villanova (20), SMU (21), Wisconsin (22),
St. Clair (23), Whitworth (24), Putnam City West (52), Toronto (75), and
UCSD (80). Fuel system modification procedure called for the entrants to
replace standard fuel tanks with ASME-approved pressure vessels to carry
the LPG (HD-5) under moderate pressure. The LPG can be handled and trans-
ferred from supply tank to vehicle fuel tank by means of pressure hoses
with quick-connect couplings. Putnam City West (52) also carried a pressure
vessel for CNG. This could be recharged overnight, and used as an alternative
to LPG for limited range travel.
When it became apparent that a large number of entrants would use LPG,
the committee contacted the National LP-Gas Association in Chicago and re-
3. This corporation had a strong interest in the CACR, as it had
donated catalytic reactors to many of the entrant teams.
4. The small amounts of lead present in the crude oil are not
removed from gasoline during the refining process.
-104-
-------
quested that it serve the CACR as a liaison in arranging refueling
facilities. The NLPGA subsequently contacted LP-gas dealers approximately
every 100 to 150 miles along the CACR route. In turn, the committee notified
all LPG entrants of the developments and called a general meeting for these
entrants during the pre-race week at MIT. During this session, an NLPGA
representative distributed a route guide describing the location and services
provided by some 62 cooperating LPG dealers.
Unfortunately, one major complication arose concerning the LPG provided
by many of the dealers. The CACR test vehicles required a clean form of
LPG to prevent regulator fouling. In many instances, impurities such as
compressor oil in the commerical LPG caused minor fuel system breakdowns.
E. Compressed Natural Gas (CNG)
Three of the entrants - Caltech (1), Caltech (2), and Georgia Tech (6) -
modified standard ICE's to run on compressed natural gas, which is almost
completely methane (CH4>. Each test vehicle's standard fuel tank was re-
placed by a series of high pressure vessels installed in the vehicle's
trunk, and the fuel system was adapted with a Pjieumetrics conversion kit to
accept natural gas.
Although CNG can be stored at ambient temperatures, high storage
pressure (over 2000 psi) is necessary for storage space considerations.
Even at these pressures, CNG requires over twice the volume of liquid
or liquefied gaseous fuel for the same amount of fuel (by weight).
For the these entrants the problem of obtaining a supplier was
critical, in that compressing the gas required both high-pressure storage
cylinders and a sophisticated compressor. The industrial sponsors for
these teams provided trucks in which an adequate supply of CNG for the
entire race route was transported, and refueling occurred at various exits
along the interstate highway.
F. Liquid Natural Gas (LNG)
The four entrant test vehicles running on liquefied methane (CH^) were
San Diego State (3), Lowell Tech (4), Northeastern (5), and Arizona
(51). With this fuel type, the standard gasoline tanks had to be replaced
by double-walled, vacuum insulated, stainless steel tanks to contain the
LNG (under moderate pressure). The conversion of the fuel supply system
in the vehicle required a different procedure than that used for CNG be-
cause the liquid natural gas had to be vaporized before being mixed with
engine intake air. The LNG is delivered to a carburetor (mixer) through
a series of valvas, pressure reducers, and a vaporizer.
The obvious advantage of storing the fuel in liquid form was trie
increased range of travel afforded by a single tank in the trunk. It
should be noted that pressure builds as the fuel absorbs heat from its
environment, and LNG cannot be stored for more than 24 hours without
venting to the atmosphere. A typical commuter vehicle using LNG would
probably use enough fuel daily to eliminate the necessity of venting.
-105-
-------
One entrant - Arizona (51) - had intended to use a hybrid fuel
of 90% methane (CH4) and 10% hydrogen (H2) by weight. Although this was
not done during the race, the hydrogen would have been carried in a press-
ure vessel, and mixed immediately before combustion. The advantage of this
plan is that methane-hydrogen mixtures can burn exceedingly lean and thus
substantially reduce emissions.
The problem of fuel supply was solved by the Lowell Gas Company (Lowell,
Massachusetts), which agreed to donate liquefied natural gas for the LNG-
fueled cars. The company, whl^e having the necessary license to transport
LNG in many northeastern states, found it necessary to secure permits for
all other states along the CACR route. The fuel was furnished from an
11,000 gallon tractor trailer which accompanied the race caravan. Vehicle
refueling was accomplished at each impound area.
G. Methanol
One entrant - Stanford (41) - used methyl alcohol (CH^OH), or methanol
as it is commonly called. A second entrant - Incline Village (50) - ran
on a half and half mixture of methanol and gasoline. Storage was by con-
ventional fuel tank, and as with unleaded gasoline, a master supply was
forwarded to each impound area where the entrant vehicle refueled at the
conclusion of a days run. The trail vehicle carried an excess supply
in the previously mentioned "piggy-back" method.
H. Diesel Oil
Although not common, automobiles are manufactured which run on
diesel fuel. One entrant, UCLA (42), using a Japanese-built diesel
engine (Diahatsu Co.), ran exclusively on this fuel type, which was
commercially available and easily stored in the vehicle's conventional
fuel tank.
I. Kerosene
One of the Rankine class entrants (class II), WPI (83), had planned
to use kerosene. While commercially available in many ordinary service
stations, the entrant did not go beyond the city limits of Boston.
J. Aviation Fuel
One entrant - the MIT turbine (90) - used JP4. However, the
engine itself was on loan from the U. S. Air Force, and as a result
was not intended to operate as an automotive power plant. Storage of
fuel on the vehicle itself was in an aluminum tank with baffles and
lined with reticulated foam. Refueling en route posed some problems,
as an airfield with fuel capabilities had to be located at each refueling
interval.
-106-
-------
K. Electric Power
The five entrant teams in the electric vehicle class included:
Georgia Tech (61), BU (62), lona (64), Cornell (65), and Stevens Institute
(66). Although the cross-country recharging station network was available
to all the electric entries, Georgia Tech and BU teams chose to demonstrate
the principle of "battery-pack switching." Each team employed two sets of
battery banks, one to operate the entrant vehicle while the other was being
recharged by a generator located in the trail vehicle. It should be
mentioned that the actual task of battery switching every hour was physically
demanding. The weight of a bank of the lead-acid batteries often approached
1500 Ibs. and required the services of all members of the driving team.
The other electric vehicle, entrants made use of recharging facilities
while the three electric hybrid carried optional connectors to these charg-
ing stations.
The problem of locating the new recharging facilities had been
reviewed by the participants in the 1968 Electric Car Race. In setting up
the final CACR cross-country route, the committee consulted with the part-
icipants in the 1968 Electric Car Race. With their recommendations, the
expanded plans called for a series of permanent "charging stations" every
50 to 70 miles along the route. Two members of the committee spent most
of the summer coordinating the placement of these charging stations while
the construction of the units was handled by Electric Fuel Propulsion,
Inc. of Detroit.
With assistance from the Edison Electric Institute and the National
Rural Electric Cooperative, the committee was successful in contacting
the individual utilities along the route and convincing them to purchase,
at cost of manufacture, the charging stations. Electrical power, while
accurately metered by these stations, would be provided at no cost to race
entrants. By late August, the nation's first "Transcontinental Electric
Expressway" had been completed from Boston to Pasadena.
A typical charging station (Fig. VI-1) consisted of weather-proof plastic
housing (61 x 2' 2" x 1'3"), reinforced with rectangual steel tubing,
and containing a Westinghouse 400-amp circuit breaker (LAB-3400 or equivalent).
The> connector was a Pyle-National 350-amp, 6-pin rectangular on ten feet of
4/0 insulated, flexible copper cable rated for 300 amps.
Sponsoring utilities were asked to purchase (@ $450 each), install,
connect, and maintain their respective stations. A list of these locations
is found in Table VI-3.
Actual recharging of the vehicles varied in length from 25 to 90 minutes.
Thus, it was apparent that the electric cars would take almost twice the
prescribed time to complete each leg, it not longer. Thus, those electric
cars which made it to California under their own power arrived two days later
than the race caravan. This emphasized the point that electric vehicles are
mainly proposed for transportation within urban areas and are not suitable
for transcontinental travel.
-107-
-------
.
Fig. VI-1: CACR Electric Charging Station
-108-
-------
Table VI-3
ELECTRIC CAR EXPRESSWAY
CHARGING STATIONS
LOCATIONS
Station Location
1. Cambridge, Massachusetts
2. Worcester, Massachusetts
3. Springfield, Massachusetts
4. Lee, Massachusetts
5. Albany, New York
6. Canajoharie, New York
7. Utica, New York
8. Syracuse, New York
9. Rochester, New York
10. Batavia, New York
11. Niagara Falls, New York
12. Hamilton, Ontario, Canada
13. Toronto, Ontario, Canada
14. Kitchener-Waterloo, Ontario, Canada
15. London, Ontario, Canada
16. Chatham, Ontario, Canada
17. Windsor, Ontario, Canada
18. Ann Arbor, Michigan
19. Jackson, Michigan
20. Kalamazoo, Michigan
21. Benton Harbor, Michigan
22. Gary, Indiana
23. Kankakee, Illinois
24. Rantoul, Illinois
25. Champaign-Urbana, Illinois
26. Mattoon, Illinois
27. Vandalia, Illinois
28. St. Louis, Missouri
29. Sullivan, Missouri
30. Rolla, Missouri
31. Lebanon, Missouri
32. Springfield, Missouri
33. Joplin, Missouri
Mileage to next station
45 miles
44 miles
50 miles
47 miles
53 miles
43 miles
53 miles
79 miles
37 miles
56 miles
42 miles
40 miles
64 miles
54 miles
69 miles
55 miles
50 miles
42 miles
64 miles
47 miles
68 miles
62 miles
62 miles
14 miles
49 miles
63 miles
68 miles
65 miles
40 miles
58 miles
48 miles
72 miles
45 miles
-109-
-------
Station Location
Mileage to next station
34. Vinita, Oklahoma
35. Tulsa, Oklahoma
36. Stroud, Oklahoma
37. Oklahoma City, Oklahoma
38. Weatherford, Oklahoma
39. Sayre, Oklahoma
40. McLean, Texas
41. Amarillo, Texas
42. Plainville, Texas
43. Lubbock, Texas
44. Seagraves, Texas
45. Andrews, Texas
46. Odessa, Texas
47. Monahans, Texas
48. Pecos, Texas
49. Kent, Texas
50. Sierra Blanca, Texas
51. Fort Hancock, Texas
52. El Paso, Texas
53. Las Cruces, New Mexico
54. Deming, New Mexico
55. Lordsburg, New Mexico
56. Wilcox, Arizona
57. Tuscon, Arizona
58. Casa Grande, Arizona
59. Gila Bend, Arizona
60. Tacna, Arizona
61. Yuma, Arizona
62. El Centre, California
63. Ocotillo, California
64. Boulevard, California
65. Alpine, California
66. Del Mar, California
67. San Onofre, California
68. Santa Ana, California
69. Pasadena, California
56 miles
53 miles
54 miles
70 miles
59 miles
61 miles
72 miles
75 miles
50 miles
57 miles
46 miles
35 miles
37 miles
40 miles
51 miles
70 miles
35 miles
49 miles
53 miles
59 miles
60 miles
74 miles
79 miles
71 miles
62 miles
74 miles
44 miles
57 miles
32 miles
22 miles
24 miles
45 miles
40 miles
40 miles
40 miles
-110-
-------
COMMENTS AND IMPLICATIONS
The CACR managed to display 43 entrant vehicles that operated on 14
different fuels or combinations thereof. While the major thesis was directed
toward the system producing the least atmospheric contamination, it is most
difficult to evaluate the effects of the various fuels on exhaust emissions
for two reasons:
1) Some representative fuels were used in several entrant vehicles
while other fuels were used in but one vehicle. Therefore, statistical
comparisons between exhaust emissions data based on fuel type would not
be reliable.
2) The various types of modifications on individual power plants are
numerous in regard to the engine size, and displacement, number of cylinders,
and exhaust configuration. Thus, a cross-comparison would again be difficult
since the systems have no common standard.
However, certain general clarifications can be made between the fuels
in discussing the economic availability and distribution systems. The
committee has not attempted to investigate those issues of interest to the
economist in natural resource allocation, but several more obvious arguments
may be brought forward and the reader allowed to form his own opinions.
E conomi c Aval1ab ili ty
Note that the fuel types used in the CACR may be divided into three
somewhat general categories:
a) By-products or distillates of petroleumgasoline, propane, diesel
oil, aviation fuel, kerosene.
b) Natural gas in either liquid (LNG) or gaseous (CNG) state.
c) Electrical power.
Note that the first two classifications are definitely derivatives
of what are referred to as fossil fuels. However, a complication arises
in that the production of electrical powerthe third categoryis still
almost completely dependent on electrical generating plants fired by fossil
fuels-*. Therefore, the first question appears to be which fuel do we wish
to produce from the natural resources we already have?
5. A small fraction of plants operate on hydro and nuclear sources.
-Ill-
-------
From a pollution standpoint, gaseous fuels (propane, natural gas)
appeared to contribute less to motor vehicle-contamination; however, no
attempt has been made to weight the industrial pollution caused by crude
cracking processes. Secondly, pollutants most critical in electrical power
production from a stationary source are the sulphur oxides, oxides of
nitrogen and particulates6. Thus, the issue of amounts emitted and comparative
toxicity arises. Are sulphur oxides more harmful to health and property
than carbon monoxide and hydrocarbons?
From a capital investment standpoint, the continuation of large-scale
production of conventional fuels would not require the retooling of existing
refinery facilities. Recognizing that the cracking process is quite complex,
a redefinition of product priorities available from crude would most assuredly
mean additional investments.
From a fuel modification standpoint, the most often discussed alternative
is the conversion from leaded premium to unleaded gasoline.
This raises the key issue of what octane rating must be maintained.
While no answer is quickly available, it should be remembered that a decrease
in the octane rating will lower thermal efficiency. Estimates have run from
six to ten per cent reduction from present values, and the cost to the
consumer due to this decreased efficiency would not be negligible.
Finally, from the viewpoint of natural resource reserves, it appears
that the presently discovered petroleum supplies will adequately support
America's accelerating consumption for several decades. A further economic
investigation would involved an assessment of the national oil import quota
policy.
Distribution Systems
While it was necessary for many of the entrants to "piggy-back" their
fuel supply each day, there is little doubt that the petroleum products
could be distributed in a service station facility network similar to those
that now exist for gasoline. Unleaded gasoline, diesel oil, kerosene,
aviation fuel, and methanol could use the existing distribution and storage
facilities with little or no revision.
The storage of compressed or liquid gases (LPG, LNG, CNG) presents a
critical investment, in that they require the installation of pressure vessels
in both the vehicle and the service locations. This raises an issue of safety.
Concerning vehicle storage vessels, the technical report of one CNG entrant
stated that his fuel system was constructed entirely with Underwriter's
6. See Chapter v for a analysis of electric vehicle emissions due to
electric generating plants.
-112-
-------
Laboratory and ASME approved components. In addition, a group of safety
engineers employed by an insurance underwriting firm adjudged that his
system "... should present no unusual operating problem or excessive
exposure to employees or guests."
In terms of distribution, it appears that electrical power shares the
same advantages as liquid petroleum by-products. A metered connector could
be installed at agent stations, and the power would be sold. Supporters
of the electrical vehicle concept are quick to point out that urban
commuters travel no more than 50-60 miles by car during the working day.
This is within the range of power storage requirements using today's
battery technology, and lends itself to the concept of recharging the
"urban" car overnight within the owner's garage or adjacent facilities.
Recharging timeS has been shown to be a handicap; however, the technique
employed by two entrants of switching battery packs is most interesting.
If battery configurations were standardized, then the vehicle carrying a
"spent" pack would simply "purchase" from the nearest agent a recharged
pack after pulling his pack and leaving it for a future consumer.
As a final point concerning electric vehicles, it was apparent that
stored energy electric cars were not a feasible solution for cross-country
(or intercity) travel. At present, it appears that the single most pressing
problem lies in the area of battery development'. The entrants ran on a
bank of conventional lead-acid batteries connected in series; these have
limited storage capacity and high weight.
The committee has attempted to correct the misconception that electric
vehicles did "poorly" in the 1970 CACR. The 3,600-mile trek was designed
to measure vehicle reliability, and was never intended that an electric,
car be compared with more conventional vehicles in Interstate highway
driving. They remain an interesting possibility for urban transportation.
In summary, the reader has seen that the issues surrounding fuel
selection are quite often the concern of the economist. When taken in con-
text with the remainder of this report, it is readily seen that picking the
"best" vehicle to operate on the "best" fuel is a problem of trade-offs
and requires more than just the skills of the engineer.
8. The CACR vehicles spent from 25 to 90 minutes per charge during
the race.
9. As of this writing, the automobile industry was experimenting with
a sodium-sulphur battery that would greatly improve the energy
density characteristics of a portable storage source.
-113-
-------
-------
VII. WHAT IT COST TO HAVE A CLEAN AIR CAR RACE
SUMMARY
The combination of planning for and staging the 1970 Clean Air
Car Race (CACR), as well as conducting a follov/-up documentation effort
has resulted in an accumulation of funds and services totaling on the
order of $.75 million. This figure is calculated on the basis of both
dollars and contributions of manpower and equipment which the committee
realized during its period of operationFebruary, 1970, to January, 1971.
Altogether, the teams involved in the CACR, including preliminary
entrants who never reached the starting line, numbered slightly over 100.
It is plausible to estimate that they spent between $.5 and $.75 million
in preparing their vehicle entries for the competition. The cost range
has been computed on the basis of estimates for hardware acquisition, use
of testing facilities, student-faculty manpower, and cross-country travel.
A cost estimate for the peripheral efforts of industrial and govern-
ment concerns has not been worked out. The figure could reasonably lie
anywhere between $.1 and $.5 million.
More than 1000 individuals from educational institutions participated
directly in either the design and construction of vehicle power plants or
the administration, public relations, and fund raising aspects of the
individual team efforts.
In summary, anywhere between $1.35 and $2.0 million is the total cost
estimate for the staging of the 1970 Clean Air Car Race. If as many as
1000 individuals from various educational institutions did in fact parti-
cipate in the CACR, then a reasonable cost per capita figure lies somewhere
between $1,350 and $2,000 for a year's worth of educational activity.
Interestingly enough, a year's worth of education at today's private
institutions, such as MIT, costs more than $2,000.
-116-
-------
SECTION A
A HISTORY OF THE CACR FUND RAISING CAMPAIGN
When the Clean Air Car Race was officially launched with a public
announcement in late November of 1969, financial support for the pro-
posed undertaking was practically non-existent. Dr. Milton Clauser of
the MIT Lincoln Laboratories had submitted a request to the General Motors
Corp. for a grant of $100,000 to cover the cost of organizing the compe-
tition and providing funds for distribution to some of the entrant teams.
Action had not been taken on Dr. Clauser's request at that time, and, as
matters turned out, a final decision would not be forthcoming until mid-
April of 1970.
Despite the lack of definite financial support, the organization com-
mittee was formed and the assistance of MIT's Corporation chairman,
Dr. James Killian. was immediately requested. Because the committee had
commenced its activities without any operating funds, Dr. Killian acted
quickly by seeking personal contributions from members of the MIT Corpora-
tion and Planning Committee. Convinced of the CACR's merits with respect
to engineering education in the university, Dr. Killian was able to secure
many pledges for support and several thousand dollars by early spring.
While these initial funds were being secured, the committee drew up a
preliminary budget to project the scope of CACR operations and assess the
corresponding financial need. The following major expense items added
up to roughly $125,000 as a reasonable first-cut estimate of what it
might cost to have a Clean Air Car Race:
1. Summer salaries for the organization committee members.
2. Salaries for other office personnel.
3. Office operations: materials, equipment, printing, xerox,
postage, and telephone.
4. Committee and observer travel expenses.
5. Pre-race activities at MIT: housing, seminars, banquets,
machine shop, etc.
6. Race operations: accommodations, meals, communications,
security, insurance, etc.
7. Post-race activities: seminars, awards, banquets, data analysis,
housing, and meals.
Please note that the above list had made no allowance for the
extensive performance and exhaust emissions testing to be conducted during
the competition. The expense involved had led the committee to hope that
the automotive industry would donate these servicesincluding the
necessary equipment, facilities, and manpowerwithout which the CACR would
have been truly crippled.
-117-
-------
The need for increased funds and services continued as the scope of
the CACR expanded and formerly unconsidered details received attention.
The General Motors Corp. provided a very strong shot in the arm to the
overall event by presenting the committee with twenty 1970 Chevelles
plus a $2,000 research and development grant per vehicle for distribution
to the entrant teams. In addition, two Chevelles and a $4,000 grant were
given to the committee for its summertime activities, which included
several coast-to-coast trips in preparation for the CACR cross-country
travel. The Ford Motor Co. paralleled the GM contribution by making
available its Mobile Emissions Laboratory for the week of pre-race testing
in Cambridge, as well as two station wagons and an Econoline van for
committee use. The required service functions for the CACR were being
knocked off one by one, but the cash-in-hand outlook had still not pro-
gressed satisfactorily.
The Federal government's National Air Pollution Control Administration
within the U.S. Department of Health, Education and Welfare (now the
Air Pollution Control Office within the Environmental Protection Agency)
agreed to foot the travel expenses for all committee members throughout
the period of organizational activity as well as the competition itself-
the cost estimate being on the order of $20,000. Additional funds to
cover the travel expenses of all CACR observers came from NAPCA just as
the race was about to begin. NAPCA officials also provided the necessary
manpower to coordinate the exhaust emissions testing program for all CACR
vehicles both prior to and during the competition. A final long-range
support function was provided by this agency when they suggested and then
financed the CACR documentation effort, which included several films and
a number of publications.
During this time, MIT had come to the committee's aid with as great a
support capability as could have been desired. The key to committee finan-
cial problems was without a doubt provided by Dr. Killian, who had now done
the necessary groundwork for the committee to make a request to the founda-
tions; mainly through his efforts grants totalling $33,000 were eventually
obtained from the Rockefeller, Cabot, and Mellon foundations. From the
outset, MIT had allowed the committee the use of its public relations
office to disseminate information to the media and the CACR entrant teams.
The other necessary services for pre-race activity at MIT were also
arranged for and contributed with the expectation that the committee
treasury would need every donation that it could get.
The cost of vehicle performance testing was eliminated when the
Cornell Aeronautical Laboratories loaned the committee the necessary
equipment to make the test measurements. Part of the Hanscom Field Air
Force facilities in Bedford, Massachusetts, provided the committee with
adequate space to conduct the testing.
During July and August, members of the committee worked with the
Edison Electric Company and the National Rural Electric Cooperative to
arrange for the electric vehicle charging stations. Thirty-six utility
companies altogether were approached with the request that they purchase
and set up a total of sixty charging stations. Similar refueling facili-
ties were established for vehicles powered by liquefied petroleum gas (LPG)
-118-
-------
Numerous contributions of dollars and services from many other
industrial firms helped the committee complete its financing. An
assessment of total funds and services accumulated in staging the
CACR is presented in Section B of this chapter, and a statement of
actual committee operating expenses follows in Section C.
In conclusion, one point should be remembered:
At no time during the fund raising effort did the committee grant
"special favors" in return for assistance. The committee dealt with
industries in as non-commercial a fashion as possible and required
that any permissible advertising be discreetly done.
-119-
-------
SECTION B
ESTIMATE OF FINANCIAL SUPPORT ACCUMULATED
Financial support received by the CACR committee can be divided into
two distinct categories: actual funds donated and goods and services
supplied.
Actual funds contributed totaled nearly $.3 million and may be broken
down as follows.
I. MIT Corporation $ 17,400
II. Foundations 33,000
III. Federal Government 230,1001
IV- Industry 8,100
Total $288,600
The second category of support, that of goods and services, is not
as easily determined. The committee has reviewed the assistance received
through its requests, and has subdivided the contributions as follows:
I. MIT $ 6,100
II. Federal Government 73,000
III. General Motors Corporation 98,000
IV. Ford Motor Company 53,500
V. Other Industries 189,700
VI. Emission and Performance Testing
Facilities 39,000
VII. Host Universities and Communities 16,800
Total $426,100
1. Documentation contract awarded by NAPCA to MIT.
-120-
-------
SECTION C
COMMITTEE OPERATING EXPENSES
The following page provides an estimate of all expenditures incurred
by the CACR Organization Committee in preparing for, staging, and documenting
the 1970 Clean Air Car Race.
The table gives a total breakdown of the expenditures incurred, the
time period during which they occurred, and the approximate amount. The
four major categories of expenses are: Salaries and Wages, Operating Ex-
penses, Race Activities, and Documentation. The Race Activities class-
ification covers all those costs incurred by or because of the period
August 17 to September 4. The Documentation figures are estimates as
the final charges are uncompleted.
-121-
-------
CLEAN AIR CAR RACE COST SUMMARY
March-July August Sept.-Feb. Totals
Salaries & Wages
MIT students & faculty 5,730 3,000 13,240 21,970
Hourly Personnel 420 420 850 1,690
Secretarial & Clerical 2,740 3,140 5,670 11,550
Operating Expenses
Xerox & Graphic Arts 1,090 790 760 2,640
Audio Visual 30 300 170 500
Office Supplies 130 130 400 660
Telephone 1,750 1,510 1,740 5,000
MIT Entrant Teams 6,000 6,000
Publications 4,310 4,310
Housing 90 90 180
Postage & Shipping 280 130 410
Trophies & Plaques 1,340 1,110 2,450
Travel 1,800 1,800
Miscellaneous & Petty Cash 710 1,030 620 2,360
Committee 310 310
Race Activities
Insurance for Observers 930 930
Security & Police 1,760 1,760
MIT Physical Plant 20 2,550 20 2,590
Banquets 3,460 3,460
Housing 90 90
Parades 2,210 2,210
Race Execution 6,120 6,120
Documentation
Film Contract 42,630 127,370 170,000
Film Prints 10,000 10,000
Report 3,500 3,500
Computation 3,000 3,000
TOTALS 12,620 82,090 169,780 265,490
-122-
-------
APPENDICES
-------
APPENDIX A
Number
1
2
3
4
5
6
10
11
12
15
16
17
18
19
20
CLEAN AIR CAR RACE ENTRANT TEAMS
School Engine/Fuel
California Institute of
Technology, Pasadena, Calif.
California Institute of
Technology, Pasadena, Calif.
San Diego State College
San Diego, Calif.
Lowell Technological
Institute, Lowell, Mass.
Northeastern University
Boston, Mass.
Georgia Institute of
Technology, Atlanta, Ga.
San Jose State College
San Jose, Calif.
Stanford University
Stanford, Calif.
University of California
Berkeley, Calif.
University of South Florida
Tampa, Florida
University of Evansville
Evansville, Ind.
Tufts University
Medford, Mass.
Worcester Polytechnic
Institute, Worcester, Mass.
Buffalo State University
Buffalo, N.Y.
Villanova University
ICE/CNG
ICE/CNG
ICE/LNG
ICE/LNG
ICE/LNG
ICE/CNG
ICE/LPG
ICE/LPG
ICE/LPG
ICE/LPG
ICE/LPG
ICE/LPG
ICE/LPG
ICE/LPG
ICE/LPG
Body
'70 Hornet
'70 Ford
Ranchero
'70 Ford
'70 Chevelle
'70 Fairlane
'70 Ford
sedan
'70 Toyota
'71 Mercury
Capri
'70 Plymouth
'70 El Camino
'69 Olds
Cutlass
'70 Chevelle
'70 Nova
'61 Sprite
'70 Mustang
Villanova, Pa.
A
-125-
-------
Number
21
22
23
24
30
31
32
School
Southern Methodist
University, Dallas, Tex.
University of Wisconsin
Madison, Wis.
St. Clair College
Windsor, Ont. , Canada
Whitworth College
Spokane, Wash.
University of California
Berkeley, Calif.
Louisiana State University
Baton Rouge, La.
Worcester Polytechnic
Engine/Fuel
ICE/LPG
ICE/LPG
ICE/LPG
ICE/LPG
ICE /unleaded
gas
ICE/ leaded gas
Boay
'70 Mustang
'69 Opel GT
'70 Dodge
Coronet
'70 Ford
Maverick
'70 Plymouth
'70 Pontiac
Lemans
Institute, Worcester, Mass,
33 Worcester Polytechnic
Institute, Worcester,
Mass.
34 University of Michigan
Ann Arbor, Mich.
35 University of Michigan
Ann Arbor, Mich.
36 Wayne State University
Detroit, Michigan
37 University of Wisconsin
Madison, Wis.
41 Stanford University
Stanford, Calif.
42 University of California
at Los Angeles, Calif.
50 Incline Village High Sch,
Incline Village, Nevada
51 University of Arizona
Tucson, Arizona
ICE/unleaded
gas '70 Saab
ICE/ leaded
gas '70 Mustang
ICE/unleaded
gas '70 Chevelle
ICE/unleaded
gas '70 Chevelle
ICE/lead-sterile,
gas
71 Mercury
Capri
Ice/unleaded
gas '70 Lotus
ICE/methanol '70 Gremlin
ICE/deisel oil '65 Mustang
ICE/methanol- '69 Dodge
gas wagon
ICE/ING and
hydrogen
'70 Plymouth
Duster
-126-
-------
Number
52
61
62
64
65
66
70
71
School
Putnam City West High School
Oklahoma City, Okla.
Georgia Institute of Tech-
nology, Atlanta, Ga.
Boston University
Boston, Mass.
lona College
New Roche lie, N.Y.
Cornell University
Ithaca, N.Y.
Stevens Institute of Tech-
nology, Hoboken, N.J.
Massachusetts Institute of
Technology, Cambridge, Mass.
Worcester Polytechnic
Institute, Worcester, Mass.
Engine /Fuel
ICE/LPG
or LNG
Electric
Electric
Electric
Electric
Electric
Electric-ICE
hybrid/unleaded
gas
Electric-ICE
hybrid/unleaded
gas
Body
'70 Opel
Fabricated
Fabricated
'62 VW
'70 EFP
sedan
Fabricated
'68 Corvai:
'70 Gremlii
75 University of Toronto
Toronto, Ont., Canada
80 University of California at
San Diego
La Jolla, California
83 Worcester Polytechnic
Institute, Worcester, Mass.
90 Massachusetts Institute of
Technology, Cambridge, Mass.
Electric-ICE
hybrid/LPG
S team/LPG
Gas turbine
Fabricated
'70 Javelin
Steam/kerosene '70 Chevelle
'70 Chevelle
C/10 pickup
-127-
-------
APPENDIX B
ENTRANT TEAM TECHNICAL REPORTS
This appendix includes, in outline form, the following information on
each entrant vehicle:
1. Vehicle technical description
2. Performance data
3. Emissions data
4. Fuel economy
The large numbers in the upper right hand corner are entrant numbers
and were inserted for easy reference.
Notes:
Hot Start tests; Minimum values used as cutoffs due to instrument
inaccuracy are very low concentrations were
CO 1000 ppm
HC 10 ppm
NOX 100 ppm
No reactivity factors were used for hydrocarbons.
Cold Start tests: Cutoffs were
CO 1.00 gm/mile
HC 0.12 gm/mile
NO 0.20 gm/mile
B
-129-
-------
1
CALIFORNIA INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY
Entrant: #1
Class: I.C.E. (Gaseous Fuel)
Team Captain: Michael Lineberry
Thomas Lab
California Institute of Technology
East California Blvd.
Pasadena, California 91109
Body and Chassis; 1970 American Motors Hornet
Vehicle Weight: 3840 Ibs.
Power Plant: I.C.E. - standard 6-cylinder, 232 C.I.D.
Fuel: Compressed Natural Gas
Fuel System:
CNG - Variable venturi mixer, diaphragm controlled, mounted on
carburetor intake. Fuel supplied from 12 scuba-type tanks in trunk.
Two-stage pressure reduction from 2265 p.s.i. to 50 p.s.i. to 2 inches
of water pressure.
Exhaust System:
Standard single-pipe
Emission Control;
25% excess air in air-fuel mixture results in:
1) More complete combustion,reduce CO.
2) Cooler flame temperature, reduce NOX.
Vacuum spark advance eliminated to effect retarded spark -
reduces N(
Modifications:
reduces NOX and HC.
1) Passenger compartment sealed from trunk to keep out gas in case
of a leak.
2) Radial tires installed.
3) Brake automatic adjustment device removed to reduce rolling
resistance.
-131-
-------
4) Installed shock absorbers with adjustable air inflation system
in rear to level car.
5) Installed adjustable shocks in front, anti-sway bars, and faster
ratio steering box to improve handling.
6) Installed constant speed control to improve economy.
7) Equipped car with citizen's band transmitter-receiver.
-132-
-------
Performance Data: #1
1) Acceleration
Speed range (mph)
0-30
0-45
20-50
2) Braking
Speed (mph)
30
51
3) Urban Driving Cycle
Driver #1
Driver #2
4) Noise Levels
Test Mode
30 WOT
30 Cruise
Idle
Microphone Distance
50'
50'
10'
Time (sec.)
7.7
13.2
11.4
Stopping distance (ft.)
66
138
Best time (sec.)
79.2
86.8
dB (A)
80.5
64.0
63.5
Emissions Data: #1
HC
CO
NO
Cold Start
Detroit
(gm/mile)
0.42
1.00
0.47
Hot Start
Cambridge
(ppm)
11
1000
128
Hot Start
Pasadena
(ppm)
52
1000
100
Part, (gm/mile): 0.09
Fuel Economy; #1
146.0 miles/million Btu
-133-
-------
2
CALIFORNIA INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY
Entrant #2
Class: I.C.E. (Gaseous Fuel)
Team Captain: Michael Lineberry
Thomas Lab
California Institute of Technology
East California Boulevard
Pasadena, California 91109
Body and Chassis; 1970 Ford Ranchero
Vehicle Weight: 4750 Ibs.
Power Plant; Internal Combustion Engine (I.C.E.), 351 C.I.D.
V-8 configuration
Transmission; 4-speed manual
Fuel: Compressed Natural Gas (or Gasoline, not used during CACR)
Fuel System;
1) CNG - Variable venturi mixer, mounted on carburetor intake.
Fuel supplied through pressure regulators and valves from
4 tanks in trunk.
2) Gasoline - Standard fuel tank, lines, and carburetor.
Exhaust System;
Standard Single-pipe.
Emission Control;
Excess air (25%) in air-fuel mixture -
1) More complete combustion, reduction of CO.
2) Cooler flame temperature, reduction of NOX.
Vacuum spark advance eliminated - retards spark (except at idle),
reduces NOX and HC emissions.
-135-
-------
Performance Data: #2
1) Acceleration
Speed range (mph)
0-30
0-45
20-50
2) Braking
Speed (mph)
27
50
3) Urban Driving Cycle
Driver #1
Driver #2
4) Noise Levels
Test Mode
30 WOT
30 Cruise
Idle
Microphone Distance
50'
50'
10'
Time (sec.)
6.3
10.0
7.6
Stopping distance (ft.)
36
120
Best Time (sec.)
79.0
82.4
dB (A)
80.5
63.0
59.5
Emissions Data: #2
EC
CO
NO
Cold Start
Detroit
(gin/mile)
3.02
2.76
0.74
Hot Start
Cambridge
(ppm)
40
1000
100
Hot Start
Pasadena
(ppm)
64
1000
192
Part, (gm/mile): 0.01
Fuel Economy;
104.4 miles/million Btu
-136-
-------
3
SAN DIEGO STATE COLLEGE
Entrant: #3
Class: I.C.E. (Gaseous Fuel)
Team Captain: Al Innis
c/o Dr. Robert Murphy
School of Engineering
San Diego State College
San Diego, California 92115
Body and Chassis; Ford Cortina
Vehicle Weight: 1825 Ibs.
Power Plant: I.C.E., 4 cylinder, 97.51 C.I.D.
Transmission: 4-speed manual, fully synchronized
Fuel: Liquefied Natural Gas
Fuel System;
Variable venturi (diaphragm) mixer, fed by vaporizer/pressure -
regulator from double-walled, vacuum-insulated fuel tank. Engine
water circulates through regulator to vaporize fuel. Fuel tank has
pressure-controlled vapor or liquid fuel feed.
Exhaust System:
Dual chamber catalytic reactor.
Emission Control:
1) Air/fuel ratio set at 19/1. Best balance to achieve low HC and
CO emissions without raising Nox-
2) Ignition timing retarded 4° from stock (8° to 10°) to control NO^
-137-
-------
Performance Data: #3
1) Acceleration
Speed range (mph)
0-30
0-45
20-50
Time (sec.)
6.5
14.6
12.0
2) Braking
Speed (mph)
28
50
Stopping distance (ft.)
42
138
3) Urban Driving Cycle
Driver #1
Driver #2
Best time (sec.)
78.0
77.0
4) Noise Levels
Test Mode
30 WOT
30 cruise
Idle
Microphone Distance dB (A)
50' 80.5
50' 69.0
10' 71.5
Emission Data://3
HG
CO
NO
Cold Start
Detroit
(gm/mile)
1.02
6.38
0.59
Hot Start
Cambridge
(ppm)
66
2100
132
Hot Start
Pasadena
(ppm)
94
3600
414
Part, (gm/mile): 0.03
Fuel Economy: #3
228.0 miles/million Btu
-138-
-------
4
LOWELL TECHNOLOGICAL INSTITUTE
Entrant: #4
Class; I.C.E. (Gaseous Fuel)
Team Captain; Victor Baur
Operations Center
Lowell Gas Co.
Willie & Dutton Sts.
Lowell, Mass. 08153
Body and Chassis: 1970 Chevelle, 4-door sedan
Vehicle Weight: 3800 Ibs.
Power Plant: I.C.E., 350 C.I.D. stock V-8
Transmission; 3-speed turbohydramatic
Fuel: Liquefied Natural Gas
Fuel System:
Impco model 425 natural gas carburetor mounted on original throttle
plate housing. Supplied by two Impco P.E. pressure converters (in parallel)
Pressure converters receive fuel from vacuum-insulated tank through a heat
exchanger heated by engine coolant. Vapor from converters passes through
a gas meter before going to mixer. Pressure-regulated vapor or liquid fuel
feed provided by pressure actuated solenoid valves.
Exhaust System:
Dual exhaust (no crossover) with an Engelhard PTX-4D235 platinum
catalytic reactor just downstream of each manifold.
Mpdifications:
1) Exhaust gas heat riser passage blocked off - methane needs no pre-
heating .
2) Heat riser valve removed
3) 195°F thermostat replaced by 160°F thermostat
4) Spark plug gap reduced to .025"
-139-
-------
5) Timing set at 0° BTDC, vacuum advance eliminated
6) Air conditioning system removed to make room for conversion system
7) Gasoline tank & fuel pump removed
8) A 2.56/1 ratio rear end installed
9) Michelin "X" 195-15 steel radial tires installed
-140-
-------
Performance Data: #4
1) Acceleration
Speed range (mph)
0-30
0-45
20-50
2) Braking
Speed (mph)
33
51
3) Urban Driving Cycle
Time (sec.)
6.8
13.1
12.2
Stopping Distance (ft.)
46
136
Best time (sec.)
Driver #1
Driver #2
4) Noise Levels
Test Mode
30 WOT
30 cruise
Idle
Emissions Data: #4
Cold Start
Detroit
(gm/mile)
EC 0.28
CO 9 . 21
NO 0.37
82.0
78.0
Microphone Distance dB (A)
50'
50'
10'
Hot Start
Cambridge
(ppm)
14
1000
100
75.5
63.0
61.5
Hot Start
Pasadena
(ppm)
34
1000
106
Part, (gm/mile): 0.02
Fuel Economy: #4
171.5 miles/million Btu
-141-
-------
NORTHEASTERN UNIVERSITY
Entrant; #5
Class; I.C. E. (Gaseous Fuel)
Team Captain: Gregory Travers
c/o Charles Buckley
Boston Gas Co.
144 McBride St.
Boston, Mass.
Body and Chassis; 1970 Ford Fairlane, 4-door sedan
Vehicle Weight; 3800 Ibs.
Power Plant; I.C.E., 250 C.I.D., 6-cylinder
Transmission; 3-speed automatic, factory stock
Fuel; Liquefied Natural Gas
Fuel System:
1) Storage - 20 gal. vacuum insulated tank mounted in trunk
2) Delivery - 1/2" copper tubes. Two tubes from tank, one for
liquid, one for vapor. Liquid or vapor feed controlled by
manually actuated solenoid valves. Driver reads tank pressure
gauge on dash and selects liquid or vapor feed.
3) Vaporization - liquid is passed through a vaporization coil
(warmed by forced air at ambient temperature).
4) Regulation and Metering - vapor delivered via 1/2" copper tubing
to primary regulator (Fisher type Y600). Pressure reduced from
150 P.S.I, max. to 12" of water column. Low-pressure vapor
passes through rubber tubing to a gas meter, then to an IMPCO
IT-11M pressure reduction valve, which reduces pressure to 5" of water
column. Vapor then is delivered to IMPCO CA125 air valve type down-
draft carburetor (mixer).
Exhaust System;
Single pipe conventional.
5
-143-
-------
Performance Data: #5
1) Acceleration
Speed range (mph) Time (sec.)
0-30 7.8
0-45 13.0
2) Braking
Speed (mph) Stopping distance (ft.)
27 32
46 104
3) Urban Driving Cycle
Best time (sec.)
4)
Emissions
HC
CO
NO
Driver #1
Driver //2
Noise Levels
Test mode
30 WOT
30 cruise
Idle
Data: #5
Cold Start
Detroit
(gra/mile)
0.82
1.00
0.78
86.0
85.2
Microphone distance dB (A)
50'
50'
10 f
Hot Start
Cambridge
(ppm)
12
1000
809
74.5
59.5
57.5
Hot Start
Pasadena
(ppm)
22
1000
1004
Part, (gm/mile): 0.01
Fuel Economy; #5
169.0 miles/million Btu
-144-
-------
6
GEORGIA INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY
Entrant; #6
Class; I.C.E. (Gaseous Fuel)
Team Captain; Dr. Sam V. Shelton
School of Mechanical Engineering
Georgia Institute of Technology
Atlanta, Georgia 30332
Body and Chassis:1970 Ford, 2-door sedan
Vehicle Weight; 4350 Ibs.
Power Plant; I.C.E.
Fuel; Compressed Natural Gas
Fuel System;
Dual-fuel natural gas conversion kit (MFD. by Pneumerics, Inc.),
retains gasoline fuel system. Fuel stored in three DOT 3AA 2265 cylin-
ders in trunk. Two stage pressure reduction, 2265 P.S.I, to 135 P.S.I.,
then 135 P.S.I, to about 1/2 inch of water column. Fuel then enters a
variable venturi mixer (diaphragm controlled), with an air metering valve
to control the amount of natural gas reaching the engine by sensing the air
demand of the engine.
Exhaust System; Conventional system with catalytic reactor added.
Emission Control;
1) Ignition timing set at 6° BTDC to reduce NOX and HC.
2) Excess air in mixture to reduce CO.
-145-
-------
Performance Data: #6
1) Acceleration
Speed range (mph)
0-30
0-45
20-50
Time (sec.)
7.4
13.5
11.8
2) Braking
Speed (mph)
31
52
Stopping distance (ft.)
56
150
3) Urban Driving Cycle
Driver #1
Driver #2
4) Noise Levels
Best time (sec.)
82.0
86.0
Test mode Microphone distance dB (A)
30 WOT
30 cruise
Idle
50'
50'
10'
68.0
61.0
76.0
Emissions Data: #6
HC
CO
NO
Cold Start
Detroit
(gm/mile)
2.26
1.66
0.49
Hot Start
Cambridge
(ppm)
82
1000
100
Hot Start
Pasadena
(ppm)
130
1000
166
Part (gm/mile): 0.02
Fuel Economy: #6
107.0 miles/million Btu
-146-
-------
10
SAN JOSE STATE COLLEGE
Entrant: #10
Class; I.C.E. (Gaseous Fuel)
Team Captain; Robin Saunders
982 South Second Street
San Jose, California 95112
Body and Chassis; 1970 Toyota Corolla
Vehicle Weight; 1942 Ibs.
Power Plant; I.C.E., 73.3 C.I.D., 4-cylinder
Fuel: Liquefied Petroleum Gas
Fuel System;
Storage in pressurized tank. Fuel passes through pressure regulator
(heated by engine coolant) where it is vaporized. Vapor passes through a
heat exchanger, where it cools incoming air for the carburetor. Vapor con-
tinues to carburetor, where it is mixed with pre-cooled air.
Exhaust System;
Exhaust manifold reactor, followed by platinum-catalytic reactor.
Emission Control;
1) Exhaust manifold reactor (EMR), with air injection into exhaust ports.
Maintains high temperature (1000°F) and increased residence time for
oxidation of HC and CO.
2) Platinum catalytic muffler installed approximately three feet down-
stream from EMR. Additional air introduced at outlet of EMR to
aid further reaction of HC and CO.
-147-
-------
Performance Data: #10
1) Acceleration
Speed range (mph)
0-30
0-45
20-50
2) Braking
Speed (mph)
28
52
3) Urban Driving Cycle
Time (sec.)
6.8
13.8
13.2
Stopping distance (ft.)
32
139
Best time (sec.)
4)
Driver #1
Driver #2
Noise Levels
Test mode
30 WOT
30 cruise
Idle
79.8
78.0
Microphone distance dB (A)
50'
50'
10'
69.5
62.5
56.5
Emissions Data: #10
HC
CO
NO
Cold Start
Detroit
(gm/mile)
0.44
20.48
0.71
Hot Start
Cambridge
(ppm)
23
1000
155
Hot Start
Pasadena
(ppm)
20
4800
100
Part, (gm/mile): 0.03
Fuel Economy; #10
205.0 miles/million Btu
-148-
-------
11
STANFORD UNIVERSITY
Entrant; #n
Class; I.C.E. (Gaseous Fuel)
Team Captain: Robert L. Byer
Hansen Labs
Stanford University
Stanford, California 94301
Body and Chassis; 1971 Lincoln-Mercury Capri
Vehicle Weight; 2438 Ibs.
Power Plant; I.C.E., 98 C.I.D., 4-cylinder
Fuel; Liquefied Petroleum Gas
Fuel System;
Storage in two 10-gallon LPG tanks at a pressure of 140 P.S.I.
Metered by IMPCO BJ liquid-to-vapor converter and carburetor.
Emission Control:
1) Water injection system - designed to reduce NO emissions. Intro-
duced water spray at 1/12 fuel rate at idle to 1/6 fuel rate at ,
60 mph. Injection rate controlled by venturi vacuum and controlling
needle valve. Water supplied to float bowl by gasoline fuel pump.
2) Thermal reactor installed to reduce HC emissions by oxidizing them
at high temperature. Operating temperature was 800°C to 950°C core
temperature.
3) Platinum catalytic reactor installed to control CO. Operating
temperature of about 750°C. Also helps further oxidation of HC.
4) Ignition timing set at 13° BTDC without vacuum advance to
control NOX .
5) Air/fuel ratio set at 17.5/1 to optimize emissions rather than
power.
-149-
-------
Performance Data: #11
1) Acceleration
Speed range (mph)
0-30
0-45
20-50
2) Braking
Speed (mph)
32
53
3) Urban Driving Cycle
Time (sec.)
5.1
10.7
10.0
Stopping distance (ft.)
47
139
Best time (sec.)
Driver #1
Driver #2
4) Noise Levels
75.
83.
0
2
Test mode Microphone distance dB (A)
30 WOT
30 cruise
Idle
50'
50'
10'
74.
62.
61.
5
0
0
Emissions Data: #11
HC
CO
NO
Cold Start
Detroit
(gin/mile)
0.41
1.00
1.17
Hot Start
Cambridge
(ppm)
10
1000
260
Hot Start
Pasadena
(ppm)
47
1000
471
Part, (gm/mile): 0.01
Fuel Economy; #11
224.0 miles/million Btu
-150-
-------
12
UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA AT BERKELEY
Entrant; #12
Class; I.C.E. (Gaseous Fuel)
Team Captain; Floyd Sam
University of California
Dept. of Mechanical Engineering
Berkeley, California 94720
Body and Chassis; 1970 Plymouth Belvedere, 4-door sedan
Vehicle Weight: 3980 Ibs.
Power Plant: I.C.E., 318 C.I.D., V-8 Configuration
Transmission; Stock automatic
Fuel; Liquefied Petroleum Gas (propane)
Fuel System;
Storage in pressure tanks of 34.6 gal. capacity at 100 to 120 P.S.I.
Fuel from tanks pass through fuel lock and then to liquid-to-vapor con-
verter and pressure regulator (IMPCO model E). Fuel exits at 1.5 inches
of water column through a hose to an IMPCO model 225 propane carburetor.
Exhaust System:
Two manifolds (one for each cylinder bank) followed by catalytic
reactors with balance line across pipes upstream of the reactors. Y-
connection into a regular muffler. Exhaust gas recirculation via 3/4"
copper tubing from below Y-connection.
Emission Control:
1) Exhaust gas recirculation - lowers peak combustion temperature,
reducing NOX emissions. Copper tubing (3/4") picks up exhaust below
catalytic reactors and delivers it to the carburetor. Butterfly valve
prevents flow during idle (prevents rough idle) and full throttle
(prevents power loss).
2) Englehard PTX-5 catalytic reactors - reduce hydrocarbon and CO
emissions by oxidation. Operating temperature of 800°F to 1400°F.
Installed about 2 feet downstream of exhaust manifolds.
Other Modifications;
1) Heat risers to intake manifold blocked to help reduce peak
combustion temperature.
2) Capacitive discharge ignition system installed to assure reliable
ignition at leaner fuel mixtures.
-151-
-------
Performance Data: #12
1) Acceleration
Speed range (mph)
0-30
0-45
20-50
2) Braking
Speed (mph)
28
49
3) Urban Driving Cycle
Time (sec.)
6.2
10.1
8.4
Stopping distance (ft.)
33
127
Best time (sec.)
4)
Driver #1
Driver #2
Noise Levels
Test mode
30 WOT
30 cruise
Idle
86.2
82.7
Microphone distance dB (A)
50' 77-0
50' 63.0
10' 60.5
Emissions Data: #12
HC
CO
NO
Cold Start
Detroit
(gm/mile)
0.12
1.00
0.70
Hot Start Hot Start
Cambridge Pasadena
(ppm) (ppm)
10 25
1000 1000
108 179
Part, (gm/mile): 0.01
Fuel Economy: #12
114.2 miles/million Btu
-152-
-------
15
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTH FLORIDA
Entrant; #15
Class; I.C.E. (Gaseous Fuel)
Team Captain; Vernon Krutsinger
College of Engineering
University of South Florida
Tampa, Florida 33620
Body and Chassis: 1970 Chevrolet El Camino
Vehicle Weight: 4200 Ibs.
Power Plant: I.C.E., 454 C.I.D. V-8
Transmission: 4-speed manual
Fuel: Liquefied Petroleum Gas (propane)
Fuel System;
Pressure tank in bed of vehicle. Fuel passes to filter-fuel
lock, then to converter-pressure regulator. Vapor then is fed to
a variable venturi 4-barrel carburetor.
Exhaust System; Standard
Modifications: Replaced 5.13:1 rear end with 2.56:1 to lower engine
rpm at a given speed.
-153-
-------
Performance Data: #15
1) Acceleration
Speed range (mph)
0-30
C-45
20-50
2) Braking
Speed (mph)
31
56
3) Urban Driving Cycle
Driver #1
Driver *2
4) Noise Levels
Test Mode
30 WOT
30 Cruise
Idle
Time (sec.
3.5"
7.2
4.5
Stopping distance
45 ~
134
Best time (sec.)
78.0
81.0
Microphone distance dB (A)
50' 77.3
50' 65.5
10' 63.0
Emissions Data: #
HC
CO
NO
Cold Start
Detroit
(gin/mile)
1.27
1.00
0.57
Hot Start
Cambridge
(ppm)
17
1000
155
Hot Start
Pasadena
(ppm)
113
1000
165
PART, (gin/mile): 0.09
Fuel Economy: #15
127.0 miles/million Btu
-154-
-------
UNIVERSITY OF EVANSVILLE
Entrant: #16
Class: I.C.E. (Gaseous Fuel)
Team Captain: Miss Cheryl Williams
P.O. Box 329
Evansville, Indiana 4770;
Body and Chassis; 1969 Oldsmobile Cutlass
Vehicle Weight: 4011 Ibs.
Power Plant: I.C.E., 350 C.I.D., V-8 configuration
Transmission: Factory Automatic
Fuel: Liquefied Petroleum Gas (propane)
Fuel System;
Storage in a double tank of about 35 gallons capacity. Fuel
conducted through 1/4" hose to a filter fuel lock (Century model
# STF-1614). Fuel then passes to Century model #M-5 converter, where
it is reduced to about atmospherie pressure and vaporized. Engine coolant
is used as a heat source for vaporization. Vapor passes to Century
model //3-C-705 DTLE duplex carburetor, where it is metered and mixed with
air.
Exhaust System; Single-pipe standard with catalytic converter added.
Modifications;
1) Gasoline tank removed.
2) Trunk sealed from passenger compartment.
3) Hot air risers in intake manifold blocked.
16
-155-
-------
Performance _Daita: #16
1) Acceleration
Speed range (mph)
0-30
0-45
20-50
2) Braking
Speed (mph)
27
47
3) Urban Driving Cycle
Driver #1
Driver #2
3) Noise Levels
Test Mode
30 WOT
30 Cruise
Idle
Time (sec.)
5.2
9.0
7.6
Stopping distance (ft.)
46
100
Best Time (sec.)
106.2
96.2
Microphone distance dB (A)
50' 69.5
50' 63.0
10' 57.0
Emissions Data: #16
Cold Start Hot Start
Detroit Cambridge
(gm/mile) (ppm)
HC 0.40 21
CO 10.02 2200
NO 1.47 299
Hot Start
Pasadena
(pptn)
37
2500
314
PART, (gm/mile): 0.01
Fuel Economy; #16
104.4 miles/million Btu
-156-
-------
17
TUFTS UNIVERSITY
Entrant: #17
Class; I.C.E. (Gaseous)
Team Captain: Peter Talmage
105 Anderson Hall
Tufts University
Body and Chassis: 1970 General Motors Chevelle four-door sedan
Vehicle Weight: 3300 Ibs.
Power Plant; I.C.E., 250 C.I.D., 6-cylinders
Fuel: Liquefied Petroleum Gas (propane)
Fuel System;
Storage tank in trunk. Fuel flows through LPG line to filter fuel
lock, then to a Beam 400A pressure regulator-vaporizer. Propane vapor
passes on to the Beam carburetor, where it is metered and mixed with air.
Following the carburetor is a Kenics Corp. static mixing tube to insure
good air-fuel mixing.
Exhaust System:
2 1/2" O.D. tubing used to replace original 1 3/4" pipe. Engelhard
catalytic reactor installed about 5 feet downstream from manifold. A
modified Kenics Corp. static mixing tube (4 ft. x 4 in. diameter) was
employed as a combination muffler-reactor.
Emission Control:
1) Pressure equalizing line installed between the mouth of the carburetor
and the regulator low-pressure diaphragm. To eliminate overly-rich
mixture from fuel surge.
2) Air injection into exhaust ports by standard G.M. system helps oxidize
HC and CO.
3) Platinum-catalytic exhaust reactor to aid oxidation of HC and CO.
4) Exhaust static mixing tube plated with CuO to act as second catalytic
reactor.
5) Exhaust system insulated to maintain high temperature for oxidation
reactions.
6) Exhaust gas recirculation system installed to reduce NOX.
-157-
-------
Other Modifications:
1) All moving parts balanced and engine brought up to blueprint
specifications.
2) Valves and seats ground to 45°, and seating area increased to
improve heat transfer to head.
3) Special bearings (Clevite 77's) installed.
4) High-efficiency Silko oil filter installed.
5) Capacitor discharge ignition system installed to improve
spark characteristics.
6) Radiator core size increased by 100%
7) Transmission oil cooler and engine oil cooler installed.
8) Intake and exhaust manifold ports were internally smoothed
to increase flow.
9) Rear doors, rear deck, and hood replaced with fiber glass replicas.
10) Gasoline tank removed.
11) Volkswagen seats installed.
12) Steel-belted radial tires and heavy duty shock absorbers installed.
13) Aerodynamic front end added.
-158-
-------
Performance Data; #17
1) Acceleration
Speed range (mph)
0-30
0-45
20-50
2) Braking
Speed (mph)
32
50
3) Urban Driving Cycle
Driver #1
Driver #2
4) Noise Levels
Time (sec.)
7.8
13.2
9.9
Stopping distance (ft.)
52
127
Best Time (sec.)
82.8
82.6
Test Mode Microphone distance dB (A)
30 WOT
30 Cruise
Idle
50'
50'
10'
74.0
64.0
62.5
Emissions Data: #17
HC
CO
NO
Cold Start
Detroit
0.28
1.00
0.61
Hot Start
Cambridge
(ppm)
24
1000
165
Hot Start
Pasadena
(ppm)
55
1000
154
PART, (gm/mile) 0.02
»
Fuel Economy; #17
162.5 miles/million Btu
-159-
-------
18
WINNER-CLASS I (Gaseous Fuel)
Worcester Polytechnic Institute
Entrant ; #18
Class: I.C.E. (Gaseous Fuel)
Team Captain; Edward W. Kaleskas
24 Brooks Street
Worcester, Massachusetts 01609
Body and Chassis: 1970 Chevy II Nova, 4-door sedan
Vehicle Weight: 2960 Ibs.
Power Plant; I.C.E., 350 C.I.D. Chevrolet propane engine,
factory equipped with high temperature valves
and seats, and impact extruded pistons.
Transmission: Chevrolet turbohydramatic with kickdown linkage
disconnected.
Fuel : Liquefied Petroleum Gas (propane)
Fuel System;
Storage in 35 gallon pressure tank located in trunk. Fuel flows
through high pressure hose to the converter. In the converter, fuel
is reduced in pressure and vaporized. Vapor then passes to Ensign
variable venturi carburetor.
Exhaust System:
Standard single exhaust system, but with two Engelhard catalytic
reactors at the exits of the exhaust manifolds.
Emission Control;
1) Catalytic exhaust reactors used to oxidize HC and CO.
2) Double head gaskets installed to lower compression ratio, thereby
lowering flame temperature and reducing NOX-
3) Ignition timing set at 6° BTDC and vacuum advance eliminated to
reduce
4) Lean air-fuel ratio (23/1) used to reduce NOX by lowering flame
temperature.
-161-
-------
Performance Data: #18
1) Acceleration
Speed range (mph)
0-30
0-45
2C-50
2) Braking
Speed (mph)
29
53
3) Urban Driving Cycle
Driver //I
Driver #2
4) Noise Levels
Test Mode
30 WOT
30 cruise
Idle
Time (sec.)
5.6
8.6
5.2
Stopping distance (ft.)
35
127
Best time (sec.)
75.0
76.8
Microphone Distance dB (A)
50' 78.0
50' 62.0
10' 67.5
Emissions Data:
Cold Start Hot Start
Detroit Cambridge
(gm/mile) (ppm)
HC 0.24 10
CO 1.00 1000
NO 0 . 55 100
Hot Start
Pasadena
(ppm)
20
1000
100
Part, (gm/mile): 0.02
Fuel Economy; #18
111.2 miles/million Btu
-162-
-------
19
BUFFALO STATE UNIVERSITY
Entrant; #19
Class; I.C.E. (Gaseous Fuel)
Team Captain: John Schifferle
Rm. 312 Upton Hall
Buffalo State University
1300 Elmwood Avenue
Buffalo, New York 14222
Body and Chassis: 1961 Austin-Healey Sprite, with modified body and
frame.
Vehicle Weight; 1900 Ibs.
Power Plant; I.C.E., 58 C.I.D., 4 cylinder Austin-Healey
Drive Train: 4-speed manual transmission, 3.7:1 rear end ratio
Fuel; Liquefied Petroleum Gas (propane)
Fuel System:
Storage in 8-gallon aluminum tank located in trunk. Fuel passes
through pressure regulator and vaporizer to two Beam propane carburetors.
Exhaust System; Standard single-pipe and muffler
Modifications;
1) Additional frame members installed; roll bar added.
2) Collapsible steering column installed.
3) Engine parts trued and balanced, new head installed, and
manifold ports polished.
4) 2 quart reservoir added to cooling system.
5) Body modified to increase trunk volume and improve appearance.
6) 2-ply radial tires installed.
-163-
-------
Performance Data; #19
1) Acceleration
Speed range (mph)
0-30
0-45
20-50
2) Braking
Speed (mph)
30
46
3) Urban Driving Cycle
Driver #1
Driver #2
4) Noise Levels
Test Mode
30 WOT
30 Cruise
Idle
Time_(sec_.
6.0
11.2
11.2
Stopping distance (ft.)
36
81
Best Time (sec.)
75.0
75.0
Microphone distance dB (A)
50' 84.5
50' 79.5
10' 76.5
Emissions Data: #19
HC
CO
NO
Cold Start
Detroit
(gin/mile)
0.33
9.24
0.80
Hot Start
Cambridge
(ppm)
20
1000
428
Hot Start
Pasadena
(ppm)
73
1600
1085
PART, (gm/mile) 0.10
Fuel Economy; #19
254.0 miles/million Btu
-164-
-------
20
VILLANOVA UNIVERSITY
Entrant: #20
Class: I.C.E. (Gaseous Fuel)
Team Captain; M.J. Cafarella
c/o Mr. Bert Abrams
Norristown Auto Company, Inc.
Cooper Road and Main Street
Norristown, Pennsylvania
Body and Chassis; 1970 Ford Mustang, 2-door hardtop
Vehicle Weight: 3100 Ibs.
Power Plant; I.C.E., 351 C.I.D., Ford V-8
Transmission; Ford cruisomatic
Fuel; Liquefied Petroleum Gas (propane)
Fuel System;
29.5 gallon storage tanks, IMPCO pressure regulator-vaporizer,
IMPCO 4-barrel propane carburetor.
Exhaust System: Two Engelhard PTX-4 catalytic reactors added to
standard system; one 12" below each manifold.
Emission Control:
1) Catalytic reactors added to oxidize HC and CO.
2) Exhaust gas recirculation system installed to reduce NOX.
-165-
-------
Performance Data: #20
1) Acceleration
Speed range (mph)
0-30
0-45
20-50
2) Braking
Speed (mph)
29
53
3) Urban Driving Cycle
Time (sec.)
5.0
12.4
No data
Stopping distance (ft.)
30
127
Best Time (sec.)
4)
Emisssions
HC
CO
NO
Driver #1
Driver #2
Noise Levels
Test Mode
30 WOT
30 Cruise
Idle
Data: #20
Cold Start
Detroit
(gm/mile)
0.93
2.72
1.39
81.7
78
Microphone distance dB
50' 74
50' 59
10' 58
Hot Start Hot Start
Cambridge Pasadena
(ppm) (ppm)
37 51
1000 1000
382 263
.8
(A)
.5
.5
.0
PART (gm/mile) 0.01
Fuel Economy; #20
136.2 miles/million Btu
-166-
-------
21
SOUTHERN METHODIST UNIVERSITY
Entrant; #21
Class; I.C.E. (Gaseous Fuel)
Team Captain: James Tolbert
c/o Carlos W. Coon, Jr.
Institute of Technology
Southern Methodist University
Dallas, Texas 75222
Body and Chassis; 1970 Ford Mustang
Vehicle Weight; 3434 Ibs.
Power Plant; I.C.E., 302 C.I.D., Ford V-8
Fuel; Liquefied Petroleum Gas
Fuel System;
Storage in pressurized tank located in trunk. Fuel passes to an
Algas pressure regulator-vaporizer, and then to the Algas carburetor.
Exhaust System:
Dual exhaust system, with an Engelhard PTX catalytic reactor
behind each manifold,
Emission Control:
1) Catalytic reactors aid oxidation of HC and CO.
2) Distributor Modulator System (manufactured by Ford) installed to
eliminate vacuum spark advance at low speeds, thereby reducing NO
emissions.
3) Ford thermactor exhaust system (air injection)installed to provide
air for better oxidation of HC and CO.
4) Exhaust gas recirculation system installed to help reduce N0x-
Recirculated gases cooled in heat exchanger before entering
carburetor.
Miscellaneous Modifications;
1) Rear end ratio changed from 3.03:1 to 2.76:1 for better fuel
economy.
2) Stellite coated valves and seats installed in engine.
-167-
-------
3) Air scoop provided for intake air,
4) Instruments installed: Propane Fuel Gauge
Water Temperature Gauge
Tachometer
Oil Pressure Gauge
-168-
-------
Performance Data; #21
1) Acceleration
Speed range (mph)
0-30
0-45
20-50
2) Braking
Speed (mph)
30
55
3) Urban Driving Cycle
Time (sec.)
5.2
8.2
6.7
Stopping distance (ft.)
38
158
Best Time (sec.)
Driver #1
Driver #2
4) Noise Levels
Test Mode
30 WOT
30 Cruise
Idle
77.4
73.4
Microphone distance dB (A)
50'
50'
10'
68.
64.
61.
0
0
0
Emissions Data: #21
EC
CO
NO
Cold Start
Detroit
(gm/mile)
0.62
4.42
2.56
Hot Start
Cambridge
(ppm)
16
1000
291
Hot Start
Pasadena
(ppm)
57
3300
339
PART, (gm/mile) 0.03
Fuel Economy; #21
147.2 miles/million Btu
-169-
-------
22
UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN
Entrant: #22
Class: I.C.E. (Gaseous Fuel)
Team Captain: Bruce Peters, Dept. of Mechanical Engineering
University of Wisconsin
Madison, Wisconsin 53706
Body and Chassis; Opel GT
Vehicle Weight; 2109 Ibs.
Power Plant: I.C.E.; 116 C.I.D., Opel 4-cylinder
Fuel: Liquefied Petroleum Gas (Propane)
Fuel System;
Storage in double tank located in rear or vehicle. Two-stage pressure
reduction takes place in Ensign regulator-vaporizer. Vapor then passes to
Ensign propane carburetor.
Exhaust System;
Standard Opel system with Engelhard PTX-5D catalytic reactor installed
18 inches below manifold.
Emission Control:
1) Catalytic reactor added to oxidize HC and CO.
2) Exhaust gas recirculation system installed to reduce NOX.
3) Air-fuel ratio set lean at 22/1 to reduce CO and NOX.
Miscellaneous Modifications:
1) Gasoline tank removed
2) Sheet metal bulkhead installed between passenger compartment
3) Heater fins milled off of intake manifold and radiation shield installed
to provide cooler air-fuel mixture.
4) Valves and seats reground for greater width to increase heat transfer
from valves to head.
-171-
-------
Performance Data: #22
1) Acceleration
Speed range (mph) Time (sec.)
0-30 6.1
0-45 12.3
20-50 H-5
2) Braking
Speed (mph) Stopping distance (ft.)
34 55
49 116
3) Urban Driving Cycle
Best Time (sec.)
Driver #1 79.0
Driver #2 79.5
4) Noise Levels
Test Mode Microphone distance dB (A)
30 WOT 50' 77.0
30 Cruise 50' 66.0
Idle 10' 58.0
Emissions Data: #22
HC
CO
NO
Cold Start
Detroit
(gm/mile)
0.62
1.00
1.39
Hot Start
Cambridge
(ppm)
369
1000
470
Hot Start
Pasadena
(ppm)
87
1000
657
PART, (gm/mile) 0.01
Fuel Economy: #22
269.0 miles/million Btu
-172-
-------
23
ST. GLAIR COLLEGE OF APPLIED ARTS AND TECHNOLOGY
Entrant;
Class
Team Captain;
#23
I.C.E. (Gaseous Fuel)
Gene Durocher
c/o Jerry Ducharme
St. Clair College
2000 Talbot Road
Windsor, Ontario 42
Canada
Body and Chassis: 1970 Dodge Coronet
Vehicle Weight; 3610 Ibs.
Power Plant; I.C.E.; 318 C.I.D. Chrysler V-8
Transmission: Chrysler 3-speed torqueflite automatic
Fuel; Liquefied Petroleum Gas (propane)
Fuel System; Century propane conversion kit. Fuel tanks (18.5
imperial gallons) located in rear in vehicle.
Fuel passes through fuelock to converter, where it
is reduced in pressure and vaporized. Vapor then
passes to propane carburetor.
Exhaust System: Standard system modified to accept catalytic reactors
Emission Control:
1) Special emission control device added to reduce HC output during
deceleration. Throttle plates held open during deceleration
above 18 mph.
2) Two Engelhard PTX-6D catalytic reactors added to exhaust system
(one below each manifold) to oxidize HC and CO.
3) Air injection system installed to provide oxygen for catalytic
reactors.
4) Ignition timing set at 0° T.D.C. and vacuum spark advance
eliminated. Centrifugal advance characteristic changed to
reduce NOX emissions.
5) Exhaust gas recirculation system installed to reduce NOX .
6) Compression ratio lowered by using double head gaskets. This
lowers peak temperature and, therefore, Nox .
Miscellaneous Modifications; Pistons polished, new rings and head installed.
-173-
-------
Performance Data; #23
1) Acceleration
Speed range (mph) Time (sec.)
0-30 4.9
0-45 8.4
20-50 7.6
2) Braking
Speed (mph) Stopping distance (ft.)
30 56
52 169
3) Urban Driving Cycle
Best Time (sec.)
Driver #1 81.6
Driver #2 88.6
4) Noise Levels
Test Mode Microphone distance dB (A)
30 WOT 50' 74.0
30 Cruise 50' 61.0
Idle 10' 59.5
Emissions Data: #23
HC
CO
NO
Cold Start
Detroit
(gm/mile)
0.12
3.19
1.00
Hot Start
Cambridge
(ppm)
24
1000
301
Hot Start
Pasadena
(ppm)
37
1000
299
PART, (gm/mile) 0.03
Fuel Economy: #23
132.3 miles/million Btu
-174-
-------
24
WHITWORTH COLLEGE
Entrant: #24
Class; I.C.E. (Gaseous Fuel)
Team Captain; George L. Borhauer
Whitworth College
Spokane, Washington 99218
Body and Chassis; Ford Maverick Grabber
Vehicle Weight; 2597 Ibs.
Power Plant I.C.E. ; 302 C.I.D., Ford V-8
Transmission: Standard Mustang manual 3-speed
Fuel: Liquefied Petroleum Gas (propane)
Fuel System:
Fuel stored in twin Manchester propane tanks with total capacity
of 34 gallons. Fuel passes through converter, where it is reduced in
pressure and vaporized. Vapor passes on to Century //3CG-705-DTLE car-
buretor where it is mixed with air.
Exhaust System: Dual exhaust, with catalytic reactor installed in each half,
Emission Control:
1) Engelhard PTX catalytic reactors installed to oxidize HD and CO.
2) Engine tuned on test stand for minimum NOX emissions. Parameters
not specified in original report.
Miscellaneous Modifications:
1) Gasoline pump removed.
2) Michelin radial-ply tires installed for lower rolling resistance.
3) Heavy-duty shock absorbers and extra leaf in rear springs installed.
-175-
-------
Performance Data: //24
1) Acceleration
Speed range (mph)
0-30
0-45
20-50
2) Braking
Speed (mph)
28
48
3) Urban Driving Cycle
Driver #1
Driver #2
4) Noise Levels
Test Mode
30 WOT
30 Cruise
Idle
Time (sec.)
3.8
7.0
6.0
Stopping distance (ft.)
37
116
Best Time (sec.)
79.2
77.3
Microphone distance dB (A)
50' 83.0
50' 62.0
10' 62.5
Emissions Data: #24
HC
CO
NO
Cold Start
Detroit
(gra/mile)
0.53
2.72
2.22
Hot Start
Cambridge
(ppm)
61
1000
288
Hot Start
Pasadena
(ppm)
43
1000
340
PART, (gm/mile) 0.02
Fuel Economy: #24
161.0 miles/million Btu
-176-
-------
UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA AT BERKELEY
30
Entrant:
Class:
Team Captain;
Body and Chassis;
Vehicle Weight;
Power Plant;
Drive Train:
Exhaust System;
#30
I.C.E. (liquid fuel)
Peter D. Venturini
Thermal Systems Division
College of Engineering
University of California
Berkeley, California 94720
1970 Plymouth Belvedere four-door sedan
3700 Ibs.
I.C.E.; 318 C.I.D. Chrysler V-8
Torqueflight 3-speed automatic transmission; 2.76:1
rear end ratio
Unleaded gasoline
Standard, except for carburetor modification to
permit exhaust gas recirculation
Exhaust thermal reactors fastened directly to the cylinder heads.
Dual pipe combines before entering catalytic reactor. Conventional
muffler and pipe follow catalytic reactor.
Emission Control:
1) Exhaust thermal reactor built and installed in conjunction with
air injection system to oxidize HC and CO. Reactor composed of
an external steel shell, a layer of ceramic fiber insulation, and
a steel core to protect insulation from erosion. Air injection
synchronized with exhaust valve opening to improve mixing.
2) Exhaust gas recirculation system installed to reduce NOX.
Log type manifold used to distribute gases directly into intake
manifold. Alternate entry provided in carburetor. Control pro-
vided to eliminate recycle during choked operation, idle, and
full throttle.
3) Engelhard PTX6 catalytic reactor installed to further oxidize HC
and CO. Reactor and lead-in pipe insulated to maintain high
operating temperature.
-177-
-------
Performance Data: #30
1) Acceleration
Speed range (mph) Time (sec.)
0-30 5.5
0-45 H.8
20-50 11.2
2) Braking
Speed (mph) Stopping distance (ft.)
29 34
51 116
3) Urban Driving Cycle
Best Time (sec.)
Driver #1 81.0
Driver #2 84.8
4) Noise Levels
Test Mode Microphone distance dB (A)
30 WOT 50' 71.0
30 Cruise 50' 61.5
Idle 10' 68.5
Emissions Data: #30
HC
CO
NO
Cold Start
Detroit
(gin/mile)
0.70
25.23
0.78
Hot Start
Cambridge
(ppm)
13
13,500
100
Hot Start
Pasadena
(ppm)
No data
No data
No data
PART, (gin/mile) 0.07
Fuel Economy; #30
99.8 miles/million Btu
-178-
-------
LOUISIANA STATE UNIVERSITY
Entrant: #31
Classt I.C.E. (Liquid Fuel)
Team Captain; Michael V.Wall
c/o Dean Pressburg
College of Engineering
Louisiana State University
Baton Rouge, Louisiana 70803
Body and Chassis; 1970 Pontiac Le Mans, 4-door sedan
Vehicle Weight; 4100 Ibs.
Power Plant; I.C.E.; 400 C.I.D. Pontiac V-8
Transmission: Factory stocV automatic
Fuel: Leaded gasoline
Fuel System;
Standard gasoline tank. Electric fuel pump located in gas
tank. Standard fuel line leads to special carburetor developed by
Ethyl Corporation. Carburetor employs a single high-velocity primary
venturi to achieve improved fuel atomization. Two secondary Venturis,
normally closed, provide extra capacity for increased power demands.
Fuel mixture automatically enriched during high engine load. Enrich-
ment also provided during deceleration by means of a throttle bypass
controlled by manifold vacuum.
Exhaust System;
Exhaust thermal reactors mounted on cylinder heads. Large
diameter (up to 4") insulated pipes lead from reactors to a Y-connection.
Downstream from the Y-connection, a particulate trap was installed.
Emission Control:
1) Special carburetor designed to improve air-fuel mixture preparation
for low emissions. Better atomization allows leaner air-fuel
to be used, which results in lower NO and CO-emissions.
X
2) Exhaust reactors employed to oxidize HC and CO. Large diameter
insulated pipes installed to increase exhaust residence time and
temperature for further oxidation of HC and CO.
3) Inertial particulate trap used to collect particles in exhaust
stream.
31
-179-
-------
4) Ignition timing retarded 10° from stock setting at idle. Modified
vacuum advance system provides two-stage advance as vacuum increases
to reduce NOX emissions.
5) Exhaust gas recirculation system installed to reduce NOX emissions.
Relatively cool gases taken from below Y-connection in exhaust system
and passed through jacketed cooler using engine coolant for further
temperature reduction. Recycle rate is controlled by intake manifold
vacuum and speed sensing switches to provide proper recycle during
various operating modes.
-180-
-------
Performance Data; #31
1) Acceleration
Speed range (mph) Time (sec.)
0-30 4.7
0-45 7.2
20-50 5.2
2) Braking
Speed (mph) Stopping distance (ft.)
29 44
50 119
3) Urban Driving Cycle
Best Time (sec.)
Driver #1 78.2
Driver #2 79.4
4) Noise Levels
Test Mode Microphone distance dB (A)
30 WOT 50' 87.0
30 Cruise 50' 66.0
Idle 10' 62.0
Emissions Data: #31
HC
CO
NO
Cold Start
Detroit
(gin/mile)
1.67
7.55
1.60
Hot Start
Cambridge
(ppm)
10
1100
185
Hot Start
Pasadena
(ppm)
32
1000
365
PART, (gm/mile) 0.09
Fuel Economy; #31
142.1 miles/million Btu
-181-
-------
32
WORCESTER POLYTECHNIC INSTITUTE
Entrant;
Class;
Team Captain;
#32
I.C.E. (liquid fuel)
Robert Guertin
c/o Mechanical Engineering Department
Worcester Polytechnic Institute
Worcester, Massachusetts 01609
Body and Chassis; 1970 Saab 99E
Vehicle Weight: 2500 Ibs.
Power Plant;
Fuel;
Fuel System;
Exhaust System;
I.C.E.; 113 C.I.D. modified Triumph 4-cylinder
engine
Unleaded gasoline
Standard Saab fuel system, except for modification of
the Bosch electronic fuel injection system.
Exhaust manifold thermal reactor mounted on cylinder
head. Exhaust pipe carries gases to a platinum
catalytic reactor, then out through a conventional
muffler.
Emission Control:
1) Engine displacement increased from 104 C.I. to 113 C.I.
Compression ratio lowered from 9:1 to 8:1 by installing
deep dish pistons. These modifications lowered peak
temperatures, thereby reducing NOX emission.
2) New injectors and a new computer installed in fuel injection
system to accomodate engine modifications and provide a richer
air-fuel ratio in an effort to reduce NOX.
3) Exhaust thermal reactor (designed by DuPont) installed in
conjunction with synchronized air injection system to oxidize
HC and CO.
4) Catalytic reactor employed to further oxidition of HC and CO.
5) Ignition timing retarded from standard to reduce NOX by lowering
peak combustion temperature.
-183-
-------
Performance Data: #32
1) Acceleration
Speed range (mph)
0-30
0-45
20-50
2) Braking
Speed (mph)
26.5
52.0
3) Urban Driving Cycle
Driver #1
Driver #2
4) Noise Levels
Test Mode
30 WOT
30 Cruise
Idle
Time (sec.)
5.0
10.0
8.2
Stopping distance (ft.)
32
126
Best Time (sec.)
76.3
82.4
Microphone distance dB (A)
50' 74.5
50' 69.0
10' 59.5
Emissions Data: #32
HC
CO
NO
Cold Start
Detroit
(gm/mile)
0.87
14.63
0.50
Hot Start
Cambridge
(ppm)
10
1000
491
Hot Start
Pasadena
(ppm)
36
2900
528
PART, (gm/mile) 0.11
Fuel Economy: #32
175.2 miles/million Btu
-184-
-------
33
WORCESTER POLYTECHNIC INSTITUTE
Entrant;
Class;
Team Captain;
#33
I.C.E. (Liquid Fuel)
Walter V. Thompson
c/o Prof. R.R. Borden
C.A.C.R. Committee
Worcester Polytechnic Institute
Worcester, Massachusetts 01609
Body and Chassis; 1970 Ford Mustang
Vehicle Weight; 3000 Ibs.
Power Plant;
Drive Train;
Fuel;
Fuel System;
Exhaust System;
I.C.E.; modified 302 C.I.D. Ford V-8
Ford C-4 three-speed automatic transmission, 3.08:1
rear axle ratio
Leaded Gasoline
Standard tank and lines. Carburetion replaced by
dual Volkswagen fuel injection system.
Standard manifolds. Poppet-type flow control valve
installed below Y-connection. Arvin slant-bed
catalytic reactor installed, followed by regular
muffler. Particle agglomerator and final filter added
below muffler.
Emission Control:
1) Fuel injection installed to allow very lean (18:1) air-fuel ratio
to be used. This helps reduce NOX, and provides excess oxygen
for reaction with HC and CO in the exhaust system.
2) Compression ratio lowered from 9.5:1 to 7.3:1 to lower peak
combustion temperature and reduce NOX.
3) Ignition timing retarded 5° from stock to help reduce NOX.
Timing set at 11° BTDC.
4) Vehicle weight reduced by 500 Ibs. to improve fuel economy and
lower total emissions. Steel-belted radial tires installed to
lower rolling resistance.
5) Catalytic reactor installed in exhaust system to oxidize HC and CO.
6) Particle agglomerator (inertial type) installed to increase particle
size, and a final filter added to remove the particles. Extra pipe
also added to cool exhaust before it reaches the agglomerator.
-185-
-------
7) Vapor collection dome added to gas tank, and charcoal filled
cannister installed to control evaporative HC emissions.
Cannister is purged by PCV and air into the air cleaner intake,
-186-
-------
Performance Data: #33
1) Acceleration
Speed range (mph)
0-30
0-45
20-50
2) Braking
Speed (mph)
30
54
3) Urban Driving Cycle
Time (sec.)
7.5
15.4
14.4
Stopping distance (ft.)
41
145
Best Time (sec.)
Driver til
Driver #2
4) Noise Levels
Test Mode
30 WOT
30 Cruise
Idle
78
77
Microphone distance dB
so-
so'
10'
71
62
59
.2
.2
(A)
.0
.0
.0
Emissions Data: #33
HC
CO
NO
Cold Start
Detroit
(gm/mile)
2.10
11.67
1.11
Hot Start
Cambridge
(ppm)
57
9600
326
Hot Start
Pasadena
(ppm)
58
1200
234
PART, (gm/mile) 0.04
Fuel Economy; #33
128.5 miles/million Btu
-187-
-------
UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN
Entrant: #34
34
Class;
Team Captain:
Body and Chassis:
Vehicle Weight:
Power Plant:
Exhaust System:
Emission Control:
I.C.E. (Liquid Fuel)
David A. Olds
321 Auto Lab
University of Michigan
Ann Arbor, Michigan 48105
1970 Volkswagen square back sedan
2500 Ibs.
I.C.E.: 97.6 C.I.D. Volkswagen, 4-cylinder engine
Unleaded gasoline
Factory stock, with Bosch electronic fuel injection
systera.
Standard manifold. Two Engelhard platinum catalytic
reactors installed in series, followed by a conventional
muffler.
1) Catalytic reactors installed to oxidize KG and CO.
2) Variable air-fuel ratio control accomplished by inserting a variable
resistance in the manifold pressure transducer circuit, which
controls the discharge duration of the fuel injectors. Slightly
lean ratio used.
3) Water injection into the air-fuel mixture employed to reduce
NO . Water injected on the inside of the air cleaner cowling
by two injectors which are activated separately at two throttle
openings. One is activated just above idle, the other at about
half throttle.
4) Air injection at the exhaust ports installed to provide oxygen
for reaction with EC and CO. Exhaust system wrapped with in-
sulating tape to maintain high temperature and aid the oxidation
process.
5) Temperature-sensitive vacuum advance shutoff valve provide additional
spark retardation during engine warm-up. This results in hotter
exhaust and faster reactor warm-up. One of the water injectors
is also shut off during warm-up for the same reason.
-189-
-------
Performance Data; #34
1) Acceleration
Speed range (mph)
0-30
0-45
20-50
2) Braking
Speed (mph)
30
52
3) Urban Driving Cycle
Time (sec.)
7.0
13.2
14.3
Stopping distance (ft.)
41
148
Best Time (sec.)
4)
Emissions
HC
CO
NO
Driver #1
Driver #2
Noise Levels
Test Mode
30 WOT
30 Cruise
Idle
Data: #34
Cold Start
Detroit
(gin/mile)
0.67
4.91
1.41
Microphone
50'
50'
10'
Hot Start
Cambridge
(ppm)
13
1000
406
76.6
76.4
distance dB (A)
77.0
67.0
63.5
Hot Start
Pasadena
(ppm)
24
1900
314
PART, (gm/mile) 0.22
Fuel Economy: #34
228.0 miles/million Btu
-190-
-------
UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN
35
Entrant:
Class;
Team Captain;
#35
I.C.E. (Liquid Fuel)
Richard Waggoner
321 Auto Lab
University of Michigan
Ann Arbor, Michigan 48105
Body and Chassis; 1970 General Motors Chevelle 4-door hardtop
Vehcile Weight; 3800 Ibs.
Power Plant;
Fuel;
Fuel System;
Exhaust System;
I.C.E.; 350 C.I.D. Chevrolet V-8
Unleaded gasoline
Conventional system for gasoline operation
Regular manifolds, One Engelhard platinum catalytic
reactor installed just downstream from each cylinder
bank. Pipe joins in Y-connection, where air is
injected, then continues to two more Engelhard reactors
connected in parallel. Conventional muffler follows
reactors.
Emission Control:
1) First set of catalytic reactors installed to reduce NOX by converting
NOX and CO to N2 and C02.
2) Second set of reactors, in conjunction with air injection, designed
to oxidize HC and CO.
-191-
-------
Performance Data: #35
1) Acceleration
Speed range (mph)
0-30
0-45
20-50
2) Braking
Speed (mph)
26
48
3) Urban Driving Cycle
Time (sec.)
4.6
8.1
6.7
Stopping distance (ft.)
32
127
Driver #1
Driver #2
4) Noise Levels
Test Mode
30 WOT
30 Cruise
Idle
Best Time (sec.)
78.1
80.3
Microphone distance dB (A)
50'
50'
10'
89.0
65.5
63.5
Emissions Data: #35
HC
CO
NO
PART
Cold Start
Detroit
(gm/mile)
1.38
25.70
1.06
. (gm/mile)
Hot Start
Cambridge
(ppm)
27
1000
233
0.15
Hot Start
Pasadena
(ppm)
48
1000
970
Fuel Economy: #35
126.4 miles/million Btu
-192-
-------
36
OVERALL WINNER
Wayne State University
Entrant; #36
Class; I.C.E. (Liquid Fuel)
Team Captain: Richard Jeryan
18261 Forrer
Detroit, Michigan 4P.235
Body and Chassis: 1971 Ford Capri
Vehicle Weight: 2300 Ibs. (approximately)
Power Plant: I.C.E.; 302 C.I.D. Ford V-8
Drive Train: Ford C-4 automatic transmission, 2.33:1 rear axle ratio
Fuel; Unleaded gasoline
Fuel System:
Polyethylene fuel tank (18 gal. capacity) with an in-tank electric
fuel pump installed. Insulated fuel lines led to modified carburetor.
Mechanical fuel pump retained for emergency use.
Exhaust System;
Conventional manifolds. Two Engelhard PTX-5 catalytic reactors
installed below each manifold. Air introduced below the first set (before
the second set) of reactors. Dual pipe combines, then enters conventional
muffler.
Emission Control:
1) Vehicle weight reduced to lower power demand, thereby lowering total
emissions, improving fuel economy and performance.
2) Low valve overlap(11°) camshaft installed to reduce hot residual gases
in cylinder «4 allow more cold exhaust gas recycle. This lowers
peak combustion temperature which reduces NOX emissions.
3) Combustion chambers contoured to reduce "dead" (non-burning) volumes,
which reduces HC emissions.
4) Projections on the head and piston were removed to eliminate hot spots,
thereby reducing NOX formation.
5) Time constant of Vacuum spark advance system increased to lower tran-
sient emissions.
-193-
-------
6) Exhaust gas recirculation system employed to lower NOx emissions.
Vacuum override system connected to spark advance line prevents
recycle when spark vacuum is below 4 or above 20 inches of mercury.
7) Air-fuel ratio stabilized between 14.5:1 and 15:1 by carburetor air
and fuel temperature control features. Air temperature controlled
by temperature-sensitive valve which mixes high and low temperature
inlet air. Fuel lines insulated, and carburetor insulated from
engine heat. Close air-fuel ratio control allows catalytic exhaust
reactors to function at maximum efficiency.
8) Dual power valve system added to carburetor to reduce bore-to-bore
imbalance, providing additional control of air-fuel ratio.
9) PCV valve replaced by .076 inch orifice to reduce effect of varying
crankcase flow rate on air-fuel ratio.
10) First set of catalytic reactors employed to reduce NOX.
11) Second set of reactors, in conjunction with air injection, installed
to oxidize HC and CO.
Miscellaneous Modifications
1) Hardened valve seats installed.
2) Oil pan and pump, front end belt drives modified to facilitate
engine installation.
3) Extra-capacity radiator installed, and extra air ports cut in front
sheet metal.
-194-
-------
Performance Data: #36
1) Acceleration
Speed range (mph)
0-30
0-45
20-50
2) Braking
Speed (mph)
35
53
3) Urban Driving Cycle
Time (sec.)
3.6
5.2
4.2
Stopping distance (ft.)
59
124
Best time (sec.)
4)
Emissions
Driver #1
Driver #2
Noise Levels
Test Mode
30 WOT
30 cruise
Idle
Data: #36
Cold Start
Detroit
(gm/mile)
HC 1.21
CO
NO
13.76
0.70
69.4
68.6
Microphone Distance dB (A)
50'
50'
10'
Hot Start
Cambridge
(ppm)
10
1000
100
73.0
63.0
59.0
Hot Start
Pasadena
(ppm)
16
1000
118
Part, (gm/mile): 0.04
Fuel Economy; #36
196.3 miles/million Btu
-195-
-------
37
UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN
Entrant; #37
Class: I.C.E. (Liquid Fuel)
Team Captain; Harrison Sigworth
c/o Mechanical Engineering Department
University of Wisconsin
Madison, Wisconsin 53706
Body and Chassis: 1970 Lotus Europa
Vehicle Weight; 1760 Ibs.
Power Plant; I.C.E.; Renault R-16 4-cylinder engine
Fuel Unleaded gasoline
Fuel System; Conventional Lotus System
Exhaust System;
Air injected at three of the four exhaust ports. Part of the exhaust
gas from the fourth port is recirculated to the intake manifold. Conventional
exhaust manifold is followed by an Engelhard platinum catalytic reactor, a
thermal reactor and a resonator, in that order.
Emission Control;
1) Factory emission control features include special retarded spark timing,
blowby emission control, special top piston rings to minimize quench
volume, and special carburetion and intake manifold for lean operation.
2) Exhaust port air injection installed to provide oxygen for reaction with
HC and CO in exhaust system. Antibackfire valve routes air to pipe just
above catalytic reactor during severe decaleration. Air injected at
three exhaust ports.
3) Exhaust gas recirculation employed to lower NO^ emissions. Exhaust from
port without air injection is routed through a control orifice and a
distribution manifold to the intake manifold. Recirculation rate up to
25% of intake charge.
4) Catalytic reactor installed to oxidize HC and CO.
5) Thermal reactor designed, built, and installed by entrant team to
further oxidize HC and CO. Reactor is an insulated can designed to give
increased residence time at high temperature.
6) Spark timing further retarded to reduce NOX . A vacuum switch shuts off
all vacuum advance at intake manifold pressures above 9 psia.
7) Evaporative emission control system from a Ford Maverick installed.
System consists of a charcoal cannister, gas tank air bleed valve, and
a vapor-liquid separator and expansion chamber. Fuel vapors are routed
from the cannister to the engine intake.
-197-
-------
Performance Data: #37
1) Acceleration
Speed range (mph)
0-30
0-45
20-44
2) Braking
Speed (mph)
34
55
3) Urban Driving Cycle
Driver #1
Driver #2
4) Noise Levels
Test Mode
30 WOT
30 Cruise
Idle
Time (sec.)
5.5
9-6
7.0
Stopping distance (ft.)
50
136
Best Time (sec.)
78.3
79.2
Microphone distance dB (A)
50' 72.5
50' 63.0
10' 60.5
Emissions Data: #37
HC
CO
NO
Cold Start
Detroit
(gm/mile)
1.56
3.84
0.84
Hot Start
Cambridge
(ppm)
13
2000
190
Hot Start
Pasadena
(ppm)
17
1000
396
PART, (gm/mile) 0.10
Fuel Economy; #37
288.0 miles/million Btu
-198-
-------
41
WINNER-CLASS I (Liquid Fuel)
Stanford University
Entrant; 41
Class: I.C.E. (liquid fuel)
Team Captain; Dana G. Andrews
c/o Robert Byer
Hansen Labs
Stanford University
Stanford, California 94301
Body and Chassis; 1970 American Motors Gremlin
Vehicle Weight; 2569 Ibs.
Power Plant; I.C.E.; 232 C.I.D. American Motors 6-cylinder engine.
Drive Train; Three-speed manual transmission, 3.08:1 rear axle ratio
Fuel; Methanol (Methyl Alcohol)
Fuel System;
Standard fuel tank retained. Conelec electric fuel pump installed,
but malfunction necessitated use of lover capacity stock fuel pump.
Zenith model 32 NDIX two-barrel carburetor, mixture heater, and water
heated intake manifold installed.
Exhaust System;
Standard system augmented with an Engelhard Diesel Exhaust Purifier
(catalytic reactor). Exhaust gas recirculation system installed.
Emission Control;
1) Lean air-fuel ratio (8.5:1 at low speeds to 7.5:1 at full throttle)
used to reduce HC, CO, and NOX. Stoichiometrlc ratio is 6.5:1.
2) Heat exchanger (heated by engine coolant) installed in adapter plate
between carburetor and intake manifold. In conjunction with water-
heated manifold, this provides better fuel vaporization and distribu-
tion, which results in lower HC, CO, and NOX.
3) Catalytic reactor employed to oxidize HC and CO with excess air provided
by lean operation.
4) Exhaust gas from exhaust manifold recirculated into intake manifold to
lower NOX. Hot gases also help vaporize fuel.
-199-
-------
Performance Data: #41
1) Acceleration
Speed range (mph) lime_ (sec.)
0-30 6.0
0-45 11. f>
20-50 10.2
2) Braking
Speed (mph) Stopping Distance (ft.)
29 40
50 122
3) Urban Driving Cycle
Best time (sec.)
Driver #1 83.8
Driver #2 81.0
4) Noise Levels
Test Mode Microphone Distance dB (A)
30 WOT50' 70,5
30 cruise 50' 59.0
Idle 10' 52.0
Emissions Data: #41
HC
CO
NO
Cold Start
Detroit
(gm/mile)
0.42
4.68
0.86
Hot Start
Cambridge
(ppm)
23
1000
279
Hot Start
Pasadena
(ppm)
44
2300
116
Part, (gm/mile): 0.02
Fuel Economy; #41
171.0 miles/million Btu
-200-
-------
42
UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA IN LOS ANGELES
Entrant:
Class:
Team Captain;
#42
I.C.E. (Liquid Fuel)
Roberta Nichols
1723 Hickory Avenue
Torrance, California 90503
Body and Chassis; 1965 Ford Mustang
Vehicle Weight: 2800 Ibs.
Power Plant:
Drive Train;
Fuel:
Fuel System:
Diesel-I.C-E.; 138 C.I.D. Daihatsu light truck engine
(imported from Japan). Four cylinders, in-line, with
swirl-type combustion chambers.
Ford 4-speed manual transmission, 3.23:1 rear axle ratio
Diesel Oil
Bosch "A" type solid fuel injection with throttle type nozzles in
individual precombustion chambers. Pneumatic governor system (stock with
engine) allows constant-speed operation, regardless of load.
Exhaust System:
Conventional muffler removed. Airesearch model TO-4 Turbocharger
(driven by exhaust pressure) installed. Remainder of conventional piping
retained.
Emission Control;
Turbocharger added to provide excess air for more complete combustion,
reducing HC and CO emissions. Pneumatic governor atmospheric balance line
modified to compensate for increased pressure in intake manifold.
-201-
-------
Performance Data: #42
1) Acceleration
Speed range (mph)
0-30
0-40
0-45
20-45
2) Braking
Speed (mph)
28
48
3) Urban Driving Cycle
Driver #1
Driver #2
4) Noise Levels
Test Mode
30 WOT
30 Cruise
Idle
Time (sec.)
10.1
17.1
21.8
16.0
Stopping distance (ft.)
47
136
Best Time (sec.)
94.0
86.2
Microphone distance dB (A)
50' 78.0
50' 66.0
10' 63.0
Emissions Data: #42
HC
CO
NO
Cold Start
Detroit
(gm/mile)
1.60
3.40
2.30
Hot Start
Cambridge
(ppm)
141
1000
472
Hot Start
Pasadena
(ppm)
66
1000
480
PART, (gm/mile) 0.16
Fuel Economy; #42
260.0 miles/million Btu
-202-
-------
UNIVERSITY OF ARIZONA
51
Entrant;
Class:
Team Captain;
#51
I.C.E. (Gaseous Fuel)
Mark Carnes
c/o Electrical Engineering Department
University of Arizona
Tucson, Arizona 85721
Body and Chassis: 1970 Plymouth Duster
Vehicle Weight; 3500 Ibs.
Power Plant;
Transmission;
Fuel;
Fuel System;
I.C.E.; 318 C.I.D. Plymouth V-8
Three-speed manual
"Fuel Gas," a mixture of methane (CH^) and hydrogen (H2).
A mixture of 90% methane and 10% hydrogen was used in the
race events.
Liquid methane stored in 19-gallon cryogenic tank. Compressed hydro-
gen stored in tank of 220 cubic feet capacity. Conventional regulators of
the type used on welding equipment were used to set the output pressure of
each tank. Each gas line then passed through an electrically - controlled
valve. The two lines combined in a T - connection, and a single line
carrying the methane-hydrogen mixture passed through another valve and
entered in IMPCO regulator. Vapor from the regulator entered the carbure-
tor at a pressure between 0" and 6" of water column.
Exhaust System: Single-pipe conventional system.
Emission Control:
1) Output pressure of second-stage fuel regulator empirically set at
optimum for lox^est combined HC and NO emissions. Optimum setting
at about 1/2" of water column.
2) Ignition timing set at 0° T.D.C. to provide optimum balance
betx^reen HC and NOX.
3) Electronic fuel cut-off provided during deceleration to lower
HC emissions.
-203-
-------
Performance Data: #51
1) Acceleration
Speed range (mph)
0-30
0-45
20-50
2) Braking
Speed (mph)
26
52
3) Urban Driving Cycle
Time (sec.)
4.3
7.4
6.0
Stopping distance (ft.)
32
155
4)
Emissions
HC
CO
NO
Driver #1
Driver #2
Noise Levels
Test Mode
30 WOT
30 Cruise
Idle
Data: #51
Cold Start
Detroit
(gin/mile)
0.94
1.43
0.84
Microphone
50'
50'
10'
Hot Start
Cambridge
(ppm)
28
1000
168
Best Time (sec.)
78.0
80.2
distance dB (A)
78.0
62.0
63.5
Hot Start
Pasadena
(ppm)
76
1000
347
PART, (gm/mile) 0.01
Fuel Economy; #51
165.0 miles/million Btu
-204-
-------
PUTNAM CITY WEST HIGH SCHOOL
Entrant: #52
Class: I.C.E. (Gaseous Fuel)
Team Captain: Alan T. Axworthy
Putnam City West High School
8000 N. W. 23rd Street
Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73127
Body and Chassis; Opel GT
Vehicle Weight: 2300 Ibs.
Power Plant: I.C.E.; 115 C.I.D. Opel 4-cylinder engine.
Transmission: Four-speed manual
Fuel; Compressed Natural Gas or Liquefied Petroleum Gas.
Vehicle can operate on either fuel.
Fuel System:
CNG stored in four 1500 cu.in. capacity tanks at 1000 p.s.i.
maximum pressure. Tank pressure reduced to 150 p.s.i. by single-stage
regulator, then further reduced to 2" of water column in a two-stage
regulator. Vapor from regulator passes to carburetor.
LNG stored in 14 water gallon capacity propane tank. Fuel passes
to a two-stage vaporizer-regulator, then to carburetor.
Solenoid valves control choice of fuel.
Exhaust System;
Conventional manifold followed by an Engelhard PTX catalytic
reactor and regular muffler.
Emission Control;
1) air-fuel ratios set very lean to reduce HC and CO emissions.
2) Catalytic reactor employed to oxidize HC and CO.
3) Air injection system installed to provide excess oxygen for
catalytic reactor.
4) Exhaust gas recirculation system installed to reduce NOX emissions.
5) Cold intake manifold used to reduce peak combustion temperature,
thus reducing NOX .
6) Vacuum spark advance eliminated to help reduce NOX formation.
Centrifugal advance retained.
-205-
52
-------
Performance Data: #52
1) Acceleration
Speed range (mph)
0-30
0-40
20-50
2) Braking
Speed (mph)
26
-50
3) Urban Driving Cycle
Time (sec.)
6.3
10.3
15.1
Stopping distance (ft.)
47
139
Best Time (sec.)
4)
Emissions
HC
CO
NO
Driver #1
Driver #2
Noise Levels
Test Mode
30 WOT
30 Cruise
Idle
Data: #52
Cold Start
Detroit
(gin/mile)
1.43
1.00
1.77
Microphone
50'
50'
10'
Hot Start
Cambridge
(ppm)
128
1000
780
81.4
82.4
distance dB (A)
74.0
65.5
57.0
Hot Start
Pasadena
(ppm)
727
1000
294
PART, (gin/mile) 0.02
Fuel Economy; #52
216.0 miles/million Btu
-206-
-------
GEORGIA INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY
61
Entrant:
Class:
Team Captain;
Body:
Chassis;
Vehicle Weight;
Power Plant:
Drive Train:
#61
Electric
Dave Robinson
c/o Dr. Ronald Larson
School of Electrical Engineering
Georgia Institute of Technology
Atlanta, Georgia 30332
Fabricated steel tubing roll cage, with sheet metal
panels.
1967 Volkswagen Fastback
2900 Ibs.
Series would D.C. electric motor - develops 25.7 H.P.
at 5000 RPM and 120 volts.
Motor mounted on cantilever construction above and forward of
standard VW bell housing. Power transmitted to the clutch assembly by
2:1 reduction timing belt drive. VW transaxle retained in drive train.
Energy Storage;
Replaceable battery pack - 24 six volt Prestolite golf cart
batteries with total energy storage capacity of about 26 Kilowatt-hours.
Batteries arranged in removable trays of 3 each to facilitate quick change-
over to fresh batteries. Recharging accomplished at off-board stationary
or mobile facilities.
Energy Control System;
Full battery voltage (144v) applied in pulses to drive motor.
Voltage pulses gated through dual SCR network by multivibrator circuit
controlling pulse width from zero to 100% of vibrator pulsing period.
Miscellaneous Features;
Accessory power supplies by two 6v Prestolite golf cart batteries
to operate lights, windshield wipers, etc.
Instrumentation provided to monitor:
1) Battery temperature
2) Motor temperature
3) Motor voltage
A) Motor current
5) Auxiliary battery voltage
6) Ampere hours
7) Battery electrolytic
resistivity
-207-
-------
Performance Data: #61
1) Acceleration
Speed range (mph)
0-25
2) Braking
Speed (mph)
30
3) Urban Driving Cycle
Driver #1
Driver #2
4) Noise Levels
Not tested
Time (sec.)
22.1
Stopping distance (ft.)
55
Best Time (sec.)
105.0
106.8
Emissions Data:
Fuel Economy:
N/A
No data
-208-
-------
IONA COLLEGE
Entrant:
Class:
Team Captain;
64
Body and Chassis:
Vehicle Weight:
Power Plant;
Drive Train:
Performance Data:
Emissions Data:
Fuel Economy:
#64
Electric
Carl Borello
c/o Paul LaRusso
lona College
North Avenue
New Rochelle, New York
1962 Volkswagen "Beetle"
2300 Ibs.
Eight 2 horsepower D.C. Electric motors, arranged such
that two or four motors at a time transmit power to the
driveshaft.
Three successive drive ratios employed to start
vehicle motion.
1) First set of two motors drive at an 8:1 ratio. Other
motors idle on the drive shaft.
2) First set mechanically disengages, second set
(four motors) drives at 4:1 ratio. Two remaining
motors idle on shaft.
3) Second set mechanically disengages, third set
(two motors) drives at 1.14:1 ratio for cruising.
Maximum motor speed for all motors is 4000 r.p.m.
Each motor powered by its own 24-volt battery.
Not tested
N/A
No data
-209-
-------
65
WINNER-CLASS IV
Cornell University
Entrant: #65
Class: Electric
Team Captain: Mark Hoffman
224 Phillips Hall
Cornell University
Ithaca, New York 14850
Body and Chassis; American Motors Hornet
Vehicle Weight; 5311 Ibs.
Power Plant; Electric motor, D.C. four pole configuration.
20 H.P. continuous rating, with overlaod capacity
to 120 H.P.
Drive Train: Standard Hornet 3-speed manual transmission, driveshaft
Energy Storage:
Battery pack consisting of 24 six-volt Electric Fuel Propulsion
lead-cobalt (variation of lead-acid) batteries. 34 kilowatt-hour
capacity.
Power Control;
"3 in 1" dual chopper: circuitry which pulses battery voltage to the
motor. Even harmonics of chopper frequency are cancelled, reducing A.C.
component and, therefore, heat losses in the motor. Pulse width and
frequency are modulated to control motor speed.
Chopper also functions as regenerative braking control. Motor acts as
a generator when accelerator is released. Pressing brake pedal brings
regenerative braking to its maximum, and actuates the hydraulic brakes.
Power generated by this process is returned to batteries.
Due to last-minute problems, the 3-in-l dual chopper was not used
during the Race. A ten-step series-paralled contactor controller was
used as a substitute. This controller provided levels of 12, 24, 36,
72, 108, and 144 volts to the motor, with a motor field weakening step
after each of the last four voltage levels.
Recharging Scheme:
On-board charger can accept 208 to 240 volts single-phase A.C.,
three-phase A.C., or D.C. and can supply up to 500 amps to the battery
pack. Charger regulation includes voltage, current, temperature, and
gassing controls.
-211-
-------
Performance Data: #65
1) Acceleration
Speed range (mph) Time (sec.)
0-30 8.5
0-45 18.4
20-40 14.0
2) Braking
Speed (mph) Stopping distance (ft.)
30 61
49 186
3) Urban Driving Cycle
Best time (sec.)
Driver #1 89.8
Driver #2 87.8
4) Noise Levels
Test Mode Microphone Distance dB (A)
30 WOT 50' 62.0
30 cruise 50' 61.0
Idle 10' Not applicable
Emissions Data; #65
Not applicable.
Fuel Economy; #65
189.8 miles/million Btu*
Electrical Efficiency! #65
1.85 milea/kllowatt-hour
*includes correction for power plant efficiency of 35*
-212-
-------
66
STEVENS INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY
Entrant: #66
Class; Electric
Team Captain; Henry Van Handle
c/o American Smelting & Refining
Central Research Laboratories
South Plainfield, New Jersey 07080
Body and Chassis; Built by the Kalmar Co. of Sweden as a delivery van
with gasoline engine. Modified by Electric Fuel
Propulsion, Inc. for battery power. Body of Fiberglass.
Vehicle Weight; 4200 Ibs.
Power Plant; D.C. electric motor, 15 H.P., four-pole, series traction
type.
Drive Train;
Power transmitted to two separate rear axles by belt drive system
with continuously variable ratio drive. Each of the two pulleys on motor
shaft coupled to a driven pulley on an axle. Pulley pitch diameter (drive
ratio) controlled by flyball governor.
Energy Storage;
Twenty 6 volt batteries, arranged in four banks of 30 volts each.
Batteries are tri-polar, lead-cobalt (a type of lead-acid) made by
Electric Fuel Propulsion, Inc. The battery pack can store 200 ampere
hours at the two hour rate, or 290 ampere hours at the twenty hour rate.
Total battery weight is about 2000 Ibs.
Power Control;
Hartman switching control which provides seven discrete power levels,
plus an "off" position. Control actuated by foot pedal.
1) All banks in parallel, 30 volts applied to motor through series
resistor to limit current surge to get vehicle started.
2) Same as above but without resistor.
3) Same as 2), but with shunt resistor on field winding for field
weakening.
4) 60 volts applied to motor, all resistance out of circuit.
5) Same as 4), but with field weakening.
6) 120 volts to motor, all resistance out.
7) Same as 6), but with field weakening.
-213-
-------
Recharging Scheme;
On-board charger uses 3-phase bridge network of 3 SCR's and 3 diodes,
Designed for power input of 240 volt, 3-phase, 150 amp service, but can
also accept 220 volt, single-phase service. Feedback loop in charger
control circuit limits voltage impressed on battery pack to 150 volts.
Batteries can be charged to 80% of capacity in 45 minutes, or 95% of
capacity in 90 minutes.
-214-
-------
Performance Data: #66
1) Acceleration
Speed range (tnph)
0-20
0-30
0-36
2) Braking
Speed (mph)
24
3) Urban Driving Cycle
Driver #1
Driver #2
4) Noise Levels
Time (sec.)
11.2
17.0
29.2
Stopping distance (ft.)
30
Best Time (sec.)
95.0
95.0
Test Mode Microphone distance dB (A)
30 WOT
30 Cruise
Idle
Emissions Data: N/A
50'
50'
10'
62.0
61.0
Background
Fuel Economy:
146.4 mile/million Btu*
Electrical Efficiency;
1.43 miles/kilowatt-hour
* includes correction for power plant efficiency of 35%.
-215-
-------
70
MASSACHUSETTS INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY
Entrant: #70
Class; Electric-I.C.E. Hybrid
Team Captain: William Carson
Room 13-3005
M.I.T.
Cambridge, Mass. 02139
Body and Chassis; 1968 Chevrolet Corvair
Power Plant; Shunt wound D.C. Electric traction motor. 20 H.P. rated,
100 H.P. peak output.
Drive Train; Corvair 4-speed manual transmission and axle assembly.
Batteries: Fourteen lead-acid batteries with total rated capacity
of 90 ampere-hours at 168 volts.
Power Control:
Power controller uses a 2 phase SCR chopper at low motor speeds and
shunt field control at high motor speeds. The chopper pulses battery
voltage through an inductor to the motor. Controller also allows motor
to be used as a generator for partial recharging of batteries during
deceleration or downhill rolling (regenerative braking). Controller
includes current limiting, voltage limiting, and motor speed limiting
circuits, as well as logic circuitry for automatic selection of operating
mode. Adjustable controller current and motor speed limits on dashboard.
Recharging Scheme;
Batteries can be recharged from an external power supply, or by the
on-board gasoline engine-alternator assembly. The power controller
functions as a battery charger to rectify alternating current. Voltage
and current limits for recharging may be set on the dashboard. External
power supply may be 208 volt or 240 volt, single phase or three phase
A.C. For on-board recharging, the gasoline engine is automatically
turned on and off by a controller which measures charge state of the
batteries, or by manual overrides. Engine may be left on to complete
charging cycle, even after removal of ignition key. Automatic turn off
and failure lights are provided in case of engine failure.
Engine; 4-cylinder Austin-Healey
Emission Control; Engine operates only at constant speed and full
throttleavoids high emissions during acceleration
and deceleration.
Lean fuel-air mixture to reduce CO and HC.
-217-
-------
Compression ratio lowered to 6.9:1 to lower flame
temperature and reduce NOX.
Water injection system installed to reduce NOX.
Miscellaneous Features:
Freon cooling of batteries when gasoline engine
is operating.
Battery pack electrically floated with respect to
car ground, with siren warning in case of acciden-
tal grounding.
Fluid cooling of electronic controls.
Performance Data: Not tested
Emissions Data: #70
HC
CO
NO
Cold Start
Detroit
(gm/mile)
3.82*
82.73*
6.28*
Hot Start
Cambridge
(ppm)
no data
no data
no data
Hot Start
Pasadena
(ppm)
no data
no data
no data
Part, (gm/mile): No data
Fuel Economy; #70
No data
* These values obtained for first six cycles out of a total of
nine. Engine automatically shut off after sixth cycle, and vehicle
completed test in pure electric mode.
-218-
-------
71
CO-WINNER-CLASS V
Worcester Polytechnic Institute
Entrant; #71
Class; Electric-I.C.E. Hybrid
Team Captain; Steven Clarke
Mechanical Engineering Department
Worcester Polytechnic Institute
Worcester, Mass. 01609
Body and Chassis: 1970 American Motors Gremlin
Vehicle Weight: 4740 Ibs.
Power Plant; General Electric type BY401, 25 H.P., series wound
direct current traction electric motor. Battery
pack rated at 200 amp-hours at 20 hour rate.
Drive Train; Jeep drive shaft, heavy duty 5:1 ratio differential
Batteries:
Twenty Exide type 3EC-19, 6 volt lead-acid batteries, connected
in series for 120-volt power. Battery pack rated at 200 amp-hours
at 20 hour rate.
Power Control;
Modified General Electric model 300 SCR controller. Full battery
voltage applied to motor in pulses. Speed and torque controlled by
varying pulse frequency through foot-pedal potentiometer. Pulsing
circuit by-pass provided for top speed operation.
Recharging Scheme;
Batteries charged with current supplied by a General Electric tri-
clad brushless synchronous generator. The generator is driven by an
internal combustion engine. Control curcuits allow the batteries to accept
charge during low-power vehicle operation, or deliver power at greater
loads. The generator can provide 25 KVA of 3-phase A.C. power, which is
rectified to provide D.C.
Engine;
Jeep Dauntless V-6 I.C.E.
Emission Control:
1) Englehard catalytic reactors installed just downstream of exhaust
manifolds to oxidize HC and CO.
-219-
-------
2) Air injection on exhaust manifolds to provide oxygen for reactors.
3) Exhaust gas recirculation to lower NOX emissions.
Vehicle Modifica tion:
1) Suspension stiffened by installing coil and leaf springs from an
A.M. ambassador, and adding Booster coils to the shock absorbers.
2) Goodyear 15 inch radial tires and wheels to match installed.
3) Rear seat removed to make room for battery pack.
4) Ten-inch brake drums installed.
5) Hood Modified (raised) to provide clearance for engine components.
6) Instruments include tachometer, speedoment, odometer, water tempera-
ture gauge, oil pressure gauge, alternator voltmeter and ammeter,
motor voltmeter and ammeter, and watt hour meter.
-220-
-------
Performance Data: #71
1) Acceleration
Speed range (mph)
0-30
2) Braking
Speed
46
3) Urban Driving Cycle
Driver #1
Driver #2
4) Noise Levels
Test Mode
30 WOT
30 cruise
Idle
Time (sec.)
17.2
Stopping distance (ft.)
153
Best time (sec.)
106.0
104.5
Microphone Distance dB (A)
50167.5
50' 59.5
10' 49.5
Emissions Data:
HC
CO
NO
Cold Start
Detroit
(gin/mile)
0.59
1.67
6.09
Hot Start
Cambridge
(ppm)
27
1000
1041
Hot Start
Pasadena
(ppm)
20
1500
1000
Part, (gm/mile): No data
Fuel Economy: #71
147.6 miles/million Btu
-221-
-------
75
CO-WINNER-CLASS V
University of Toronto
Entrant; #75
Class; Electric-I.C.E. Hybrid
Team Captain; Douglas Venn
Mechanical Building
University of Toronto
Toronto 5, Ontario
Canada
Body; Fabricated fiberglass
Chassis; Custom built-constructed from 1970 Chevelle front end
and 1967 Corvair transaxle and rear suspension.
Vehicle Weight; 4160 Ibs.
Power System;
Propane-fueled I.C.E. used as prime mover, transmitting power through
an electric power system, or mechanically through a drive shaft, or in
parallel with electric drive. Electric drive may also be used on battery
power with I.C.E. shut down.
Electric Drive - Two Delco 12 £W motor-generators. One (used as motor)
drives the main driveshaft by a belt drive, the other (used as a genera-
tor) is mounted forward and driven by the engine. Ten 90 amp-hour lead-
acid batteries used for electric energy storage.
Electric power controlled by an SCR chopper with automatic control
logic circuitry.
Engine:
302 C.I.D. Chevrolet V-8, modified to run on propane.
Transmission;
4-speed manual (Corvair transaxle)
Fuel System;
Propane tank in rear of vehicle. Two ALgas gaseous carburetors
feed into a split plenum chamber which is mounted on a Weber intake
manifold. Balance line between plenum chambers provides uniform vacuum
and better mixture distribution.
-223-
-------
Exhaust System:
Dual system with regular manifolds. A platinum catalytic reactor
and a conventional muffler followed each manifold, in the order given.
Emission Control:
1) Engine intake and exhaust ports were ported and polished. Larger,
high temperature, valves were installed. Displacement of each
upper combustion chambers rendered precisely the same. These modifi-
cations provide better and more uniform breathing characteristics.
2) Catalytic reactors installed to oxidize HC and CO.
Additional Modifications:
1) Compression ratio raised from 7.1:1 to 11:1 to achieve more complete
combustion in the cylinders and lower exhaust temperature.
2) 1965 truck hydraulic lifter camshaft with short duration (252°) and
later opening and closing times installed.
3) Scintilla vertex magneto ignition system installed.
4) Dual electric fans installed to assist regular belt-driven fan in
cooling the 1970 Buick radiator.
5) Aluminum wheels and Dunlop six-ply radial 185 x 15 tires installed.
-224-
-------
Performance Data: #75
1) Acceleration
Speed ranee (mph) Time (sec.)
. 0-30 O -
0-45 12.4
20-50 10.6
2) Braking
Speed (mph) Stopping distance (ft.)
27.0 35
49.5
3) Urban Driving Cycle
Best time (sec.)
4)
Emissions
HC
CO
NO
Driver #1
Driver #2
Noise Levels
Test Mode
30 WOT
30 cruise
Idle
Data: #75
Cold Start
Detroit
(gm/mile)
2.59
1.06
2.35
80.8
78.5
Microphone Distance dB (A)
50'
50'
10'
Hot Start
Cambridge
(ppm)
58
1000
336
82.0
72.0
66.5
Hot Start
Pasadena
(ppm)
46
1000
615
Part, (gm/mile): 0.01
Fuel Economy: #75
143.8 miles/million Btu
-225-
-------
80
UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA AT SAN DIEGO
Entrant: #80
Class; Rankine Cycle (steam)
Team Captain; Ray Salemme
c/o Dr. Stanley Miller
Chemistry Department
University of California, San Diego
La Jolla, California 92037
Body and Chassis: American Motors Javelin
Vehicle Weight; 3600 Ibs.
Power System: Steam engine (boiler, expander, and condenser) built
by entrant team.
Water supply - Original gas tank used as water tank. Feed water pump,
adapted from hydraulic oil pump, can supply water at 1000 P.S.I, to boiler.
Boiler - Recirculating type, consisting of 300 ft. of copper pre-heat
tubing (5/16 in. o.d.) connected to 100 ft. of chromemolybdenum steel, tub-
ing (3/8 in. o.d.), which connects to a header pipe of mild steel (3 in.
o.d., 1-3/4 in i.d.)
32 u~tubes (1/2 in o.d.) extend down from header into boiler. Water
circulates through u-tubes, and steam exits from ports at top of header
pipe.
Pressure switch in header turns flame on or off.
Expander - Modified Harley-Davidson 74 C.I.D. motorcycle engine.
2 cylinders made, push rods and valves removed, and front plate with
timing pulleys and alternators added. Steam inlet valve is cam actuated
piston type, preceded by a throttle valve for speed control.
Exhaust ports with check valves at the bottom of each cylinder
allow exit of steam.
Condenser - Specially made auto-radiator type with electric fan
for air flow. Water is returned to water tank.
Drive Train;
Engine drives a 1962 Cheverolet 3-speed manual transmission through
a clutch. This allows the engine to idle and drive alternators when car
is stopped. Drive shaft delivers power to 2.87;1 rear end and wheels.
Fuel; Propane
-227-
-------
Fuel System;
35 gallon liquid propane tank in trunk for fuel storage. Fuel passes
through pressure regulator, them to vaporizer-burner. Burner consists of
combustion can inserted through the boiler u-tubes with forced air supplied
by electric fan. Spark ignition operates whenever burner is on.
Performance Data: Not tested
Emissions Data: No data
Fuel Economy: No data
-228-
-------
83
WORCESTER POLYTECHNIC INSTITUTE
Entrant; #83
Class; Rankine Cycle (steam)
Team Captain: Allen Downs
Higgins Labs
Worcester Polytechnic Institute
Worcester, Mass. 01609
Body and Chassis; 1970 General Motors Chevelle
Vehicle Weight: 4000 Ibs. (approx.)
Power System;
Closed cycle steam engine built by entrant team consisting of a
steam generator, expander, condenser, and feed water tank.
Steam Generator - Three-stage monotubular design. Incoming feed-
water is heated to just below its boiling point in the first stage.
Vaporization takes place in the second stage. The combustion chamber
is located above the tubing package. Fuel (kerosene) is atomized, mixed
with air supplied by blower, and ignited by modified spark plug. Combus-
tion air is preheated in an outer jacker. Fuel is burned with excess air
present for more complete combustion.
Expander - 99 C.I.D., 6 cylinder, modified Kiekhaefer-Mercury
marine engine. Steam, distributed by chain driven rotary valve, is
fed into spark plug openings and exhausted through intake ports.
Original exhaust ports were plugged.
Condensing system - Feed heater extracts heat from exhaust steam to
preheat feedwater. Exhaust steam then enters a spray-condenser, where a
water spray removes remaining superheat. Saturated steam and water then
enter a set of helicopter oil coolers connected in series. Condensed
water then enters the feedwater tank.
Steam pressure and temperature are automatically regulated by a
feedback control system which turns fuel and/or water on or off. Main
feedwater pump is driven by expander. Auxiliary electric pump provided
for low speeds.
Operator Control;
Hand throttle wheel opens or closes plug valve in steam line.
A cutoff lever varies portion of expander stroke during which steam
is admitted to cylinder. Cutoff of 0°-120° available, forward and
reverse. Cutoff is controlled in rotary valve which distributes steam
to cylinders. Brakes, steering, and ignition switch are operated as
in a conventional car.
-229-
-------
Drive Train:
Direct drive from expander to differential of 2.73:1 ratio,
which drives rear wheels.
Miscellaneous Features:
1) Accessories are driven by a pair of roots - type motors which
operate on exhaust steam from two expander cylinders.
2) Electrical system operates at 24 volts. Load varies from 65
to 145 amps.
3) Instruments include:
Steam pressure
Steam temperature
Exhaust gas temperature
Expander tachometer
Exhaust steam pressure
Condenser pressure
Feedwater temperature
Feedwater level
Fuel level
Ammeter
System elapsed operating time
Steam generator firing elapsed time.
-230-
-------
Performance Data: #83
1) Acceleration
Speed range (mph) Time (sec.)
0-20 36.5
2) Braking
Speed (mph) Stopping distance (ft.)
20 44
21 33
3) Urban Driving Cycle
Not tested
4) Noise Levels
Test Mode Microphone distance dB (A)
30 WOT 50' 69.0
30 Cruise 50' 68.0
Idle 10' 62.0
Emissions Data: No data
Fuel Economy: No data
-231-
-------
90
WINNER-CLASS III
Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Entrant: #90
Class; Brayton Cycle (turbine)
Team Captain; Michael L. Bennett
12 Lawrence Road
Brookline, Massachusetts 02146
Body and Chassis; 1970 Chevrolet C.10 half-ton pickup truck
Vehicle Weight; 5200 Ibs.
Power System;
Turbine-Electric configuration. Gas turbine drives an alternator
which provides A.C. power to a rectifier system. D. C. power from the
rectifier is delivered to a D.C. motor, which drives the rear wheels
through the 4.11:1 differential.
1) Turbine - Airesearch GTP-70-52 gas turbine. 225 horsepower maximum
output, rated at 136 H.P. at sea-level atmospheric pressure and
80°F.
2) Alternator - General Electric model 2CM 357A1. Provides 150 KW,
400 c.p.s. A.C. at 6000 r.p.m.
3) Motor-Inland M-12004-A series wound D.C. Motor. Rated at 100 H.P.
continuous, 600 H.P. maximum output.
4) Rectifier - Designed and built by entrant team.
Turbine, alternator, and rectifier are mounted in truck bed. Electric
motor is mounted in engine compartment.
Control Features;
Constant motor torque or current control. Turbine and alternator
run at constant speed, with output controlled by excitation applied
to field windings.
Fuel;
JP-1 or JP-4 (aviation fuel)
Fuel control unit of the turbine is controlled by mechanical,
thermal, pneumatic, and electronic feedback units. Fuel tank mounted
in bed.
-233-
-------
Miscellaneous Features:
1) Heavy-Duty wheels and tires mounted.
2) Aluminum camper shell installed over truck bed to cover turbine, etc.
3) Acoustic intake and exhaust mufflers installed.
-234-
-------
Performance Data: #90
1) Acceleration
Speed range (mph) Time (sec.)
0-30 12.0
0-45 27.1
20-45 21.0
2) Braking
Speed (mph) Stopping distance (ft.)
28 44
47 133
3) Urban Driving Cycle
Best time (sec.)
4)
Emissions
HC
CO
NO
Driver #1
Driver #2
Noise Levels
Test Mode
30 WOT
30 cruise
Idle
Data: #90
Cold Start
Detroit
(gm/mile)
5.73
78.50
6.24
114.0
110.6
Microphone Distance dB (A)
50'
50'
10'
Hot Start
Cambridge
(ppm)
no data
no data
no data
89.5
89.5
105.0
Hot Start
Pasadena
(ppm)
no data
no data
no data
Part, (gm/mile): No data
Fuel Economy; #90
24.0 miles/million Btu
-235-
-------
APPENDIX C
A HISTORY OF ORGANIZATION COMMITTEE ACTIVITY
or
HOW NOT TO ORGANIZE A CLEAN AIR CAR RACE
The large number of factors which contributed to the success of
the 1970 Clean Air Car Race (CACR) makes a complete journal of the event
very difficult to write. A chronological summary of the development of
CACR will provide some insight into the total organization of the compe-
tition. The history of CACR, however, is not a distinct sequence of
events, but, rather, a hazy collection of many complementary and some-
times conflicting actions.
THE GREAT ELECTRIC CAR RACE OF 1968
The chain of events leading up to the CACR really began in the
summer of 1968 when Wally Rippel, an undergraduate at the California
Institute of Technology (CIT or Caltech for short), challenged the
Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) to a cross country electric
car race. Though the M.I.T. administration was doubtful about the value
of such an event, some enterprising students accepted Rippel's challenge.
Leon Loeb, David Saar, and William Carson, all mechanical engineering
(M.E.) undergraduates, took on the task of building an electric car with
faculty support from Professor Richard D, Thornton of the M.I.T. Elec-
trical Engineering (E.E.) Department.
After several delays, the race began on August 26th with the two
teams traveling in opposite directions over the same route between
Cambridge and Pasadena. Temporary electric charging stations had been
set up at more than 50 locations along the race route to provide the
electrical energy needed by the experimental vehicles' battery packs.
The M.I.T. car arrived at Caltech a little over a week later and the
Caltech entry at M.I.T. about 36 hours after that. Both vehicles had
experienced numerous mechanical and electrical failures en route, but
the penalty assessment for towing, which the Caltech team had managed
to avoid, ultimately cost the M.I.T. boys an apparent victory.
Eventually, this happening became known as the Great Electric Car
Race of 1968, but was considered by the media to have been more a college
stunt than a serious attempt to solve the automotive air pollution problem.
Although widespread public attention had not yet been drawn to the emis-
sions control problem of the internal combustion engine (ICE), the great
amount of publicity generated by this "stunt" was partially responsible
-237-
C
-------
for sowing the seeds of the Clean Air Car Race. Another major incentive
for pursuing a course of university involvement in the fields of auto-
motive propulsion and pollution emission control was the educational
experience which the student participants in the 1968 competition had
taken back with them to their respective schools.
EARLY DAYS OF THE CACR
The conceptual evolution of the Clean Air Car Race took place in
the fall of 1969- Correspondence between Professor Thornton at M.I.T.
and Professor Jerome Shapiro at Caltech speculated upon the possibility
for a more novel and practical type of automotive competition, not re-
stricted to electric cars but open to all forms of low-pollution vehi-
cles. Dr. Milton Clauser, then director of M.I.T.'s Lincoln Laboratory,
had followed the Great Electric Car Race closely and had talked frequen-
tly with Professor Thornton about the prospects for a sequel to the 1968
competition. In turn, Milton Clauser and his twin brother, Dr. Francis
Clauser, Dean of the Engineering School at Caltech, became prime movers
in laying groundwork for the new race by initiating contact with the
General Motors Corporation to determine whether significant industrial
support could be mustered.
By late fall (the end of November, 1969) , a public announcement
concerning the rules for participation in the CACR and a proposed struc-
ture for the recently formulated competition had been issued. The event
would be divided into three parts: vehicle performance testing in
Cambridge, a cross-country rally from Cambridge to Pasadena, and exhaust
emissions testing in Pasadena - all to take place in the late summer of
1970. Test vehicle entries could be designed and built by any group
of individuals, including commercial companies, but could be driven only
by college students. Early speculation projected that as many as 15 to
20 teams might eventually participate in the CACR.
No one had expected the unusually overwhelming enthusiasm which
greeted the proposed intercollegiate competition in engineering. By
mid-January, over 15 teams had already indicated intentions of partici-
pating and the faculty group could no longer effectively handle the
administrative load required to organize the CACR. It was decided to
make the organization of the race the responsibility of a student com-
mittee, composed of equal numbers of students at M.I.T. and Caltech,
with overlapping responsibilities. Robert G. McGregor, a master's
degree candidate in M.E., was soon chosen as the M.I.T. student chairman
through the screening efforts of the persistent Milton Clauser. Caltech
would not appoint its student chairman for a month and a half to come.
-238-
-------
THE EMERGENCE OF A STUDENT ORGANIZATION COMMITTEE
It soon became clear that the M.I.T. committee would play a
dominant role in organizing the CACR, largely because of a much larger
source of manpower and a greater initial commitment to the concept. By
early February, Bob McGregor had established a preliminary committee
structure which then consisted of an assistant to the chairman (Steve
McGregor, a junior majoring in history at Boston University), a direc-
tor of finances (Dick Holthaus from the M.I.T. Sloan School of Manage-
ment), a director of public relations (Ty Rabe, a sophomore in mechani-
cal engineering and business management at M.I.T.), and a director of
communications (Jason Zielonka, a senior in electrical engineering at
M.I.T.). Though titles and committee personnel would change between
then and the running of the race, each position with its associated
responsibilities was clearly defined from the outset to reduce confusion
when the juggling actually began.
Steve McGregor's initial role was to keep the chairman informed of
ongoing activities during the early planning stages of the race. In May
of 1970, he would become race director and, together with a to-be-
appointed race coordinator, would make all final arrangements connected
with cross-country travel of the CACR participants. These included over-
night accomodations for the entrant teams, impound areas for the vehicles,
storage areas for the wide variety of fuels used by the cars, and coordi-
nation with state and municipal officials to insure that all laws and
motor vehicle regulations were understood and adhered to.
The responsibilities of the finance director included raising the
necessary funding for the race, allocating the resources appropriately,
and serving as a liason between contributors and the race organization
committee. The original budget for Organization Committee activity and
staging the 17 day competition was estimated at $100,000 but the final
budget would be several times that much.
The mission of the public relations director was, as might be
supposed, to arouse public interest in the problem of automotive air
pollution and the potential afforded by the CACR in providing some of
the available solutions. A major consideration from the outset in con-
ducting an effective public relations effort was the establishment of a
Race Information Center which would compile and disseminate daily infor-
mation to the media during the cross-country rally.
The communications director, in addition to being the office
manager, was in charge of handling correspondence between race partici-
pants and the organization committee. At organization committee meetings,
Jason reported on all entrant team questions regarding qualification,
testing procedures, and general interpretation of race rules.
-239-
-------
THE FIRST MIT - CALTECH ENCOUNTER
On March 17, 1970, a meeting held at MIT in Cambridge brought
together for the first time the joint MIT-Caltech Committee to draw up
a detailed set of preliminary rules for the regulation of the CACR.
Prior to the meeting, Dr. Francis Clauser at GIT had succeeded in locat-
ing an interested student willing to assume responsibility for Caltechfs
role in organizing the event. And so Blair Folsom, a Ph.D. candidate
in mechanical engineering, became the first Caltech student to involve
himself in the already hectic task of preparing for the fast approaching
summer competition.
As a result of the March 17 meeting, final qualification require-
ments for official entry into the race were established. A schedule of
events for the competition was presented which included performance and
exhaust emissions testing of all the entrant vehicles during a week of
pre-race activity at M.I.T. The week of August 17-23 was set aside for
this purpose and would also include the presentation of technical papers
on the respective vehicle power plants by each competing team. Caltech
agreed to host a four-day symposium on its campus following the race to
assess CACR results and to review the state-of-the-art concerning the
control of ICE emissions and the future prospects of alternate automotive
propulsion systems. During this period, the test vehicles would undergo
final exhaust emissions testing to determine whether the various emission
control systems had deteriorated over the course of the race. Concurren-
tly, a panel of experts in the automotive field would subjectively select
an overall winner of the competition. The final event at Caltech would
be an awards banquet to be held the night of Wednesday, September 2nd.
The March meeting also established five categories of entrant
vehicle power plants for competition purposes: internal combustion
engines, steam engines, pure battery-powered vehicles (electrics),
electric-hybrid systems (see Chapter III for definition), and power
plants using either liquefied natural gas (LNG) or liquefied petroleum
gas (LPG - commonly possessing propane as the dominant constituent) for
fuel. An entry slot was later made available to turbine powered
vehicles employing a Brayton cycle of operation. In the competition,
a class winner would be selected for each vehicle power plant category
on the basis of a scoring formula devised at a later date by the
organization committee.
Wally Rippel, the instigator of the 1968 race, also attended the
March meeting. He had continued his work on electric vehicles at Cornell
University and believed that electrics would be at a disadvantage in a
race which included other types of power plants. He had organized an all-
electric competition which drew 10 to 15 entrants during the course of the
spring and was asked to consider merging his race with the CACR. Although
he refused in March, later difficulties in raising funds would force him
to disband the Cornell group. In mid-summer, some of those electric teams
were absorbed into the CACR.
-240-
-------
SPRING TIME ACTIVITY AT MIT
The tempo of organization committee activity accelerated
dramatically following the March meeting. Mike Martin (an M.I.T.
junior in E.E.) began the task of devising a suitable emissions scoring
formula and planning for the exhaust emissions testing to be done in con-
junction with the race. Craig Lentz (an M.I.T. graduate student in the
Sloan School of Management), who had originally joined the Committee as
an assistant to the Finance Director, was now appointed by Bob McGregor
to the key post of coordinator, where he became the chairman's equal in prac-
tically all matters. Two more M.I.T. students, Alberto Darna (a
junior in business management) and Ron Francis (a junior in civil engin-
eering) , were appointed to select the race route and set up the electric
charging stations respectively. In addition Dieter Herrmann (also a
junior in management) began to design the vehicle performance test
procedure.
Jason Zielonka, the communications director, had been literally
inundated with mail and questions. There was no doubt that CACR had
struct a responsive chord among university groups and private industry
across the nation. To speed up communications, a preliminary registration
form was drawn up and mailed to all who had expressed an interest in
participating as an entrant team in the competition. A steady flow of
press releases, not only from M.I.T., but also from universities which
planned to enter the race, kept a generally receptive public thoroughly
informed of progress.
During this time, Ty Rabe, with the help of the assistant direc-
tor of M.I.T.'s Office of Public Relations, Robert M. Byers, was focus-
sing his attention on the establishment of a Race Information Center -
(RIG). With more than 30 entrant teams already registered, there could
be up to 1,000 miles separating the first and last cars during cross-
country travel, thereby making it extremely difficult to provide the
media with a comprehensive view of what was happening on a daily basis.
A Race Information Center could certainly be used to collect data phoned
in daily by each of the entrant teams to be relayed in a solid chunk
form to the media, principally the wire services. Because national news
must compete with international news at the coastal headquarters of the
wire services, the Chicago outlet became the favored location for the
RIG. Attempts to draw funding from the media failed to succeed, and
consequently, RIC remained only a concept until about a month before the
August 24 starting data.
Another critical activity of the spring months was raising finan-
cial aid and securing industrial services for the CACR itself. A pro-
posal for funding the organization committee had been made by Milton
Clauser to the General Motors Corp., but had remained deadlocked for
several months. The M.I.T. administration recognized CACR as a student
activity but feared a budget policy conflict if GM were to make a direct
grant to the M.I.T. supported student committee. In April, a compromise
was reached whereby GM agreed to give twenty 1970 Chevelles with a
$2,000 cash grant per vehicle to the committee for distribution to race
participants.
-241-
-------
By submitting an application form drawn up by the organization
committee, student groups with sound engineering ideas but limited
finances could request one of the GM vehicle grants. The committee
screened 33 such applications and had awarded 15 grants by the end of
May, at which time the remainder were returned to GM. Aside from the
immediate assistance provided by this grant, the committee continued
to benefit from the interest and support of many people at the General
Motors Technical Center and Office of Education.
Though the GM grant was significant in promoting increased
participation in the race, it did not contribute to financing committee
activities, which were still in need of major support. For the time
being, the committee had to exist leading a rather hand-to-mouth life,
relying on personal contributions of $500 to $5,000 which were secured
through the personal efforts of the M.I.T. Corporation Chairman,
Dr. James R. Killian. In April however, CACR drew the interest of the
National Air Pollution Control Administration (NAPCA) which eventually
proved to be its largest source of monetary support. (NAPCA at the
time was an agency of the Department of Health, Education and Welfare
(DREW) and has since become the Air Pollution Control Office (APCO) of
the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).)
NAPCA's original commitment consisted of an agreement to fund the
travel expenses of committee members and a guarantee of individual
$5,000 cash prizes to be presented to class winners and the overall
winner of the competition at the awards banquet in Pasadena. But the
agency's interest in the outcome of the race went beyond money. Various
people in NAPCA displayed a continuing willingness to help the committee
develop appropriate emissions testing procedures and devise a scoring
formula for rating the exhaust emissions data fairly.
Throughout the spring, the committee had also been in contact
with the Ford Motor Company requesting financial assistance. While
direct monetary support did not meet with their approval, Ford did
indicate a willingness to discuss other types of assistance, including
vehicles and the use of their Mobile Emissions Laboratory. This last
possibility provided the committee with the first real breakthrough in
the problem of how to conduct emissions testing in the Cambridge area
during pre-race activity.
The 1968 electric car race had illustrated that a better network
of charging stations would be necessary if electric vehicles were to be
at all successful in the 1970 CACR. Calculations revealed that as many
as 75 of these units, separated by distances varying from 40 to 80
miles, would be needed along the route. The help of the Electric Fuel
Propulsion Company of Detroit and the Edison Electric Institute of
New York was sought in laying plans for this elaborate network. Through
the efforts of Dave Saar and Ron Francis, both M.I.T. undergraduates,
a charging station was designed consisting of a circuit breaker, a
watt-hour meter, and a six-foot connector cable, all enclosed within a
metal container. The committee believed that the industries involved
would construct, sell, and install these units now that the design work
had been completed, but it later turned out that the committee had to
assume responsibility for the selling task - certainly not an easy
-242-
-------
undertaking with over 35 electric utility companies to be contacted.
Beginning in May, the pace of the CACR organization committee's
activities quickened despite the student strike and the postponement or
cancellation of classes and examinations at many Boston area colleges
and universities. From mid-May until the awards banquet in September,
the committee would continue to function as an almost round-the-clock
operation.
NAPCA's interest in the race also continued to increase during
May, for it felt that the CACR could contribute to its Clean Car Incen-
tive Program, designed to encourage the development of low-pollution
vehicle power plants capable of meeting the 1975 Federal exhaust
emissions standards. NAPCA indicated its willingness to support both a
professional publicity campaign for CACR and a thorough documentation
effort of race activities. The organization committee decided that
professional publicity was inconsistent with a competition that was to
be student-oriented and declined funding for such a campaign. The
offer to document the race, however, was greeted enthusiastically.
Documentation would include both written and filmed accounts of the race
and its participants. There would be three major films produced: two
for general audiences in 50 and 30-minute versions, a 30-minute techni-
cal film, and a 10-minute theatrical release for use as a selected short
in neighborhood theaters. Contracts for the general audience films were
awarded in July to Fournier and Pytka of New York and for the technical
film to the Tech Films Corp. of Watertown, Massachusetts. The organiza-
tion committee accepted the task of providing written documentation, the
result being this entire report which you are now reading.
By exam time in late May, the committee was still actively seeking
support in the nature of both funding and in-kind contributions, such as
the unconventional fuels being used by some of the entrants teams and
equipment capable of measuring vehicle exhaust emission levels accurately.
Negotiations had been opened with many industrial concerns, many of which
would eventually prove useful in preparing for the race.
SUMMERTIME ACTIVITY
The summer months absorbed the committee in carrying out original
plans and making new arrangements to cope with an ever changing set of
situations. The committee was expanded as new tasks arose with every
attempt being made to do the best possible job despite a severely short
timetable and practically no prior experience in an undertaking of this
magnitude.
In June, the committee's full-time staff began receiving salaries
of $500 per month and working 12 to 16 hours a day just trying to keep
up with the mountains of paper work. More than fifty preliminary entrant
teams had registered, and the end was not yet in sight. A bi-weekly
newsletter was now being published in an attempt to keep competitors,
-243-
-------
donors, and other interested people informed of the current status of
the race.
As its first summer task, the committee moved into a larger office
to accommodate the ever-growing file system and staff of personnel. The
new organization committee domain was a vacated classroom. Since hardly
any equipment was available from M.I.T., the necessary desks, tables, and
chairs were removed from nearby classrooms during midnight raids.
The burden of trying to coordinate a dual-committee separated by
3,600 miles was eased somewhat in the summer by M.I.T.'s assumption of
responsibility for almost all pre-race activity. The activities of the
Caltech organization committee were still at a low level at the beginn-
ing of June. Because Caltech is a much smaller and more specialized
institute than M.I.T., it was difficult for Blair Folsom to arouse
enthusiastic support in either the administration or the student body.
In mid-July, Blair was forced to step down as chairman of the Caltech
group in order to meet his own project commitments as a student
research assistant. He was replaced by Hal Gordon,who then organized a
small committee to make arrangements for the post-race activities in
Pasadena.
By mid-June, Dick Holthaus had stepped down from his post as
finance director to accept an outside summer job. Bob McGregor
appointed Ron Francis to fill the vacated position in addition to continu-
ing with his former task of coordinating the arrangements for the construc-
tion,purchase, and installation of the charging stations. Soon thereafter,
Mary McNulty (a junior majoring in Health Dynamics at Boston University)
joined the committee to serve as general office manager, thereby giving
the communications director, Jason Zielonka, more time for the daily
phone calls requesting information, the mounting piles of unanswered
correspondence.
Mustering $$$ and Services
During the first weeks of the summer, agreement with NAPCA con-
cerning the details of the documentation contract consumed long hours
of negotiation between the legal staffs of M.I.T. and NAPCA. The
$220,000 contract was finally signed in a down to the wire effort on the
last day of the fiscal year, June 30th.
Early committee contact with local New England industrial firms
began to pay off during the summer as public interest grew. The Boston
Edison Company donated $3,000 to be used for organization committee
student salaries and the Automotive Division of the Fram Corporation of
Providence, Rhode Island, supplied $1,100 to purchase trophies for race
winners. The Lowell Gas Company of Lowell, Massachusetts, agreed to
send along an 11,000 gallon tanker during the race to supply liquefied
natural gas (LNG). Engelhard Minerals and Chemical Corporation of
Newark, New Jersey, whose catalytic reactors were used on many CACR en-
trant vehicles, purchased the unleaded gasoline required by a number of
the ICE test vehicles and shipped the fuel to predesignated locations
along the cross-country route. In addition, several smaller donations
-244-
-------
of equipment, manpower, and other services were offered to the committee
as the summer progressed.
While these gifts did much to improve the overall situation, a
lack of cash on hand still plagued the committee. In July, Bob McGregor
traveled to New York City at the request of M.I.T. Corporation chairman,
Dr. James Killian, with a prepared outline of plans and needs which he
would use in soliciting funds. He returned with an officer authoriza-
tion grant of $25,000 from the Rockefeller Foundation, thereby allevi-
ating the financial crisis for the time being.
COMMITTEE PROBLEMS
Communications activity crescendoes! as the number of preliminary
entrants soared to a peak of 93 in late June. With Mary McNulty manag-
ing the office, Jason Zielonka spent many work hours a day both answer-
ing questions from the entrant teams, and on the telephone in response
to queries for general information on the CACR. Although the bi-weekly
newsletters were lengthened in an attempt to clarify details on rules
and procedures, vast quantities of mail still poured into the office,
with each letter being handled individually.
By far, the most time consuming problem and one which continued
right through the running of the race was to arbitrate disputes and
give sound definitions of the often-ambiguous rules. The committee as a
whole sat in review on these matters, but consistently suffered from the
lack of a clearly formulated policy for rule interpretation. Conse-
quently, nearly all differences of opinion had to be settled on an indivi-
dual basis.
In addition, as the activities of the committee members increas-
ingly diverged into separate areas of responsibility, intra-committee
communications broke down. At the end of July, daily committee meetings
beginning at 6 p.m. were instituted to review all activities of the day
as well as to discuss upcoming plans. These meetings were often long
and tiring, but they did much to remedy th problem and were continued
until the entrant teams arrived in mid-August.
The CACR Public Relations Program
Public interest in the event rose steadily during the summer due
to a concerted effort by the M.I.T. Office of Public Relations to publi-
cize the event. In June Mike Martin and Ty Rabe departed on an eighteen
day, cross-country, publicity trip, beginning in Los Angeles and passing
through 19 major cities along the proposed CACR race route, en route to
Cambridge. Altogether, they visited more than 50 local and regional news
media stations as well as some 15 entrant teams during their travels.
News releases explaining different aspects of the competition were perio-
dically mailed to over 700 interested journalists. Lapel buttons, bumper
stickers, and posters depicting the CACR logo were ordered and distributed.
During late July and early August, a plan of operation for the
-245-
-------
Race Information Center (RIC) was formulated. Entrant vehicles would
call the RIC at least twice daily during cross-country travel on
Wide Area Telephone Service lines and report their progress. These
reports would be compiled and sent to the Associated Press and United
Press International bureaus in Chicago. The RIC would also display an
exhibit containing a large map of the U .S. to mark the race's progress
and color photographs of each entrant team and vehicle. A location for
the RIC was finally established when the Chicago Museum of Science and
Industry acknowledged the committee's request for assistance by supply-
ing both space and equipment. The Xerox Corporation donated a telecopier
system for relaying information from the RIC to the wire services.
The final major task of the public relations group prior to the
entrants' arrival at M.I.T. was to assemble press kits containing com-
plete information for distribution to the media. The kits, which
included a set of news releases, final race rules, buttons, stickers and
posters, were mailed in early August.
The Exhaust Emissions Test Procedures
While Mike Martin was accompanying Ty Rabe on the public relations
trip, Bob McGregor met with representatives from NAPCA, GM, and Ford to
establish the emissions testing procedures for the CACR vehicles. At
that time, more than 50 entrant vehicles were expected to compete in the
CACR, all of which had to be tested prior to arrival in Boston in order
to qualify for the competition and then three more times during the race
for scoring purposes. McGregor accepted NAPCA's offer to coordinate the
qualification testing program at 12 industrial laboratories across the
country. Because not all of these laboratories had the necessary
equipment to test vehicles according th the prescribed 1972 Federal test
cycle procedure and because this joint group had doubts about the entrants'
ability to meet the then-proposed 1975 Federal standards, it was agreed
to use a hot start, closed, seven-mode cycle (see Chapter IV, Section A)
and to evaluate these results as acceptable grounds for qualification in
lieu of the former entrance requirements. When these tests were run in
July and August, only a few teams were summarily disqualified.
The problem of pollution emission testing for race scores was a
bit more difficult to resolve. The best solution would have been to
conduct either two or three cold start tests using constant volume
sampling equipment as prescribed in the 1972 Federal procedure. However,
this would have meant a 12-hour "cold soak" for each car before each
test; in addition, the only location in the U.S. where the necessary
equipment could be found in sufficient quantity was Detroit. These
constraints forced a compromise solution whereby the CACR vehicles would
be given hot start tests in Cambridge and Pasadena using the continuous
sampling technique. The Ford Motor Co. agreed to donate the use of its
mobile emissions laboratory for the tests in Cambridge, while both the
Olson Laboratories and the California Air Resources Board would supply
the necessary mobile test equipment in Pasadena. The only cold start
CVS test for each team would be done in the Detroit area, where the
entrants would make a 24-hour layover; because of the limited time
available for such testing during cross-country travel, a 4-hour cold
-246-
-------
soak would be used rather than the specified 12-hour test. NAPCA, Ford,
GM, Ethyl Corporation, and Chrysler all donated their laboratories and
personnel to run these tests.
The addition of the two hot start tests considerably complicated
the emissions scoring formula (See Chapter IV, Section C); a new
formula had to be devised to incorporate the hot start test results.
After a long and occasionally heated three-way debate between the committee,
the entrants, and NAPCA advisors, it was decided that Pasadena and Cambridge
results would be compared against one another to show deterioration of the
vehicle emission control systems during the race, while the Detroit measure-
ments would constitute the most pertinent data in assessing vehicle potential.
Preparations for Cross-Country Travel
Meanwhile, Steve McGregor and Craig Lentz worked on the details
of accommodating 300 to 400 people (the CACR caravan) at six different
stopover locations for the period of cross-country travel. Early in the
summer, introductory letters were mailed to potential hosts and local
governments of these cities. Eventually, Steve and Craig established
contacts within a college or university at all the cities except Odessa,
Texas, where hotels turned out to be the only feasible housing facilities.
In July, they embarked on a two week drive along the CACR route to com-
plete arrangements and check driving times and mileage distances between
the stopover locations. The Universities of Toronto, Michigan, Illinois
and Arizona, as well as Central State College in Oklahoma, agreed to
provide low-cost dormitory rooms for race personnel. In Odessa, the Inn
of the Golden West, the Holiday Inn, and the Ramada Inn provided specially
reduced prices on rooms. In all cities, either the educational institution
or the Chamber of Commerce would also provide secured impound areas for
the 150 race and trail vehicles. In addition, many of the cities decided
to host banquets or barbeques for the entire race group. These arrange-
ments weregiven a final check in early August when McGregor and Lentz
each flew to three of the cities.
Ron Francis and a new member to the committee, Bill Charles (an MIT
electrical engineering senior), also made a cross-country trip in July.
Their job was to sell the electric charging stations to local and regional
utilities along the race route. During their three weeks on the road, they
sold more than 60 such stations, leaving only a few gaps in what was to
become the first permanent transcontinental electric vehicle highway.
Committee Membership on the Rise Again
In late July, two new members joined the M.I.T. work force. Professor
John B. Heywood from the M.I.T. mechanical engineering department became
the committee's faculty advisor upon Dr. Milton Clauser's departure to
assume his new position as academic dean of the Naval Post-Graduate School
in Monterey, California. Al Harger, an administrative assistant in M.I.T.'s
Division of Sponsored Research, was assigned to aid the committee full time
on any and all CACR-related projects. Professor Heywood had done prior
research work on automotive air pollution and consequently afforded im-
-247-
-------
measurable help to Mike Martin in understanding the technical aspects of
the problem. Al Karger at the same time proved himself invaluable in
arranging facilities for the committee and entrants in preparation for the
week of pre-race activity at M.I.T.
With the addition of Heywood and Harger, the work load momentarily
decreased. However, new jobs were constantly arising and often the
committee had to rely upon friends and even family to help out. Beth
McGregor and Mary Jane Lentz, the wives of the Chairman and Coordinator,
pitched in by typing a large part of the committee's correspondence
while Diane Lentz, Craig's sister, worked in a full time position as
committee secretary. Rob Rabe, Ty's twin brother, joined the committee
as a full time liaison with the two film companies, and Chris Exton, a
Tufts University senior and long time friend of the McGregor brothers,
handled all irregular jobs which did not clearly fall into any one area
of responsibility.
M.I.T. to the Committee's Aid
In order to begin the arrangements for pre-race activity at M.I.T.,
Bob McGregor called for a meeting of administrative representatives from
the various branches of M.I.T. in mid-July. The principal needs, as
defined at the meeting, were, rooms, dining facilities, parking space and
garage facilities, a location for the emissions testing lab, an information
center, a press room, and rooms for seminars. With Al Harger handling
most of the details, housing for the entrants was made available at both
M.I.T. and Northeastern University in Boston. One of M.I.T.'s multi-level
parking garages was reserved for CACR entrant team parking, and all other
needed space and facilities were located on campus.
Preparation for CACR Vehicle Performance Testing
The performance testing of the CACR vehicles during the pre-race week
had to be located off-campus, due to the great space requirement demanded
by this event. After a great deal of discussion in early spring, the
organization committee had decided to keep the performance tests as simple
in nature as possible since the CACR entrants were, in fact, competing
against the typical car on today's highways rather than designing a car for
the Indianapolis Speedway. Basic tests for braking, acceleration, and
road handling were established with maximum scores being awarded for per-
formance characteristics that were comparable to a slightly better than
average conventional automobile. Noise testing was to be done by the firm
of Bolt, Beranek, and Newman, Inc. under contract from the Department of
Transportation.
Bill Charles was placed in charge of the performance testing which
would undoubtedly constitute a full time schedule of activity during the
pre-race week. After a long search, he located the necessary space for
conducting the performance testing at the Hanscom Field Air Force Base
in Bedford, Massachusetts. He also secured test equipment which included
a "fifth wheel", an accelerometer, and a strip chart recorder from the
Cornell Aeronautical Laboratories in Buffalo, New York.
-248-
-------
Last Minute Arrangements
The final major tasks confronting the committee prior co the arrival
of the entrants at M.I.T. were the compilation of all CACR rules into a
single publication, the formulation of a plan for race command and control
during cross-country travel, and the selection of observers who would ride
with the entrant teams to record data, traffic violations, and other
pertinent information. A weekend effort in late July, headed by Craig Lentz
and Jason Zielonka, managed to consolidate all rules and ragulations published
to date into a single document; but despite a deliberate attempt to cover
all loopholes, last minute additions and changes still had to be made after
the final copy had gone to print. Command and control required a well
thought out plan for positioning the organization committee vehicles in
the CACR caravan. A remote computer console would be installed in an
econoline van, loaned to the committee by the Ford Motor Co. to be the
lead vehicle or "Mobile Headquarters Van" (MHV) as it came to be known; the
computer facilities would facilitate the computation of entrant team
scores while en the road. Coordination of all activities would be done
by telephone from the Race Information Center located in Chicago. Finally,
volunteer student observers were selected by the committee from the Cambridge
and Pasadena areas for the aforementioned purposes, as well as to provide
the needed manpower for various activities during the pre-race week.
As the race entrants converged upon Cambridge from across the country,
the committee re-evaluated its position. Charging stations still had to be
set up in more than 60 locations along the route due to delays in construction.
All arrangements at the stopover cities were tentatively complete. The
budget had been more or less balanced and the only remaining major expense,
observer travel costs, had been picked up by NAPCA. Fund raising efforts
had been discontinued and attention was redirected to the vast amount of;
accounting involved in securing travel advances for the 60 committee members
and observers. The pre-race schedule had been drawn up. Only a few other
minor details remained to be taken care of, or so it seemed.
PRE-RACE ACTIVITY AT MIT
On the weekend of August 15, the CACR entrant teams arrived at M.I.T.
to begin the most grueling 20 days of the summer. Despite previous attempts
to complete all necessary arrangements, committee members found a seem-
ingly never ending list of new and last-minute jobs. The daily schedule
had its share of crises, with work often continuing into the early morning
hours. Unexpected and sometimes uncontrollable problems had to be solved
at a moment's notice as mistakes in planning became evident. Despite the
mounting pressure, race activities went on.
The schedule for the pre-race week was an extremely busy one, sand-
wiched between a welcoming banquet which began the week's activities, and a
kick-off banquet which completed them, and a barbeque inbetween. In addition
to the performance and emissions testing scheduled to last the entire week,
-249-
-------
there were evening meetings for the team captains to vote on rule modifi-
cations, nightly meetings for observers to discuss their responsibilities,
and midnight hour committee meetings to review the planned activities for
the following day. Two days were devoted to a round of seminars in which
the entrant teams presented technical papers on their vehicle power plants.
There were two public showings of the CACR test vehicles during the week,
one for M.I.T. and Caltech alumni at M.I.T. and one for the general public
at the Museum of Science in Boston. On Saturday, August 22, a parade
with bands, drum and bugle corps, and the CACR test vehicles made its
way from the Prudential Center in Boston to M.I.T.'s Briggs Field in
Cambridge. Throughout these activities committee members were constantly
trying to find time for last minute details.
The hectic locus of activities during this week was the CACR Infor-
mation Center located in M.I.T.'s Student Union. There the entrants
received special picture identification badges for security purposes,
completed registration, paid for their pre-race housing, received a
detailed schedule of events, and picked up all messages and mail. The
center was manned by a full time staff of committee members and observers,
but extra help was often needed to answer phones or relay information.
Three large bulletin boards were constantly filled with news: changing
the messages on these boards created an almost full time job for one
observer. In short, the Information Center provided the only regular
means of communication between the committee and the entrants.
Throughout the week public relations was handled in a specially
arranged press room, staffed by Ty Rabe, Bob Byers and a secretary from
the M.I.T. Public Relations Office. Visiting press representatives
received identification badges and several phones were made available
for their use as well as comprehensive information packages on the CACR.
Emissions testing started on Monday, August 17, and continued
smoothly to its scheduled completion on Friday, August 21. The actual
testing was handled entirely by Ford's staff of engineers assigned to the
Mobile Emissions Laboratory- The only difficulty encountered was that
many experimental cars, especially the unconventionals, were not prepared
in time for the testing due either to late arrival at M.I.T. or unforeseen
breakdowns while on campus. Mike Martin spent the entire week scheduling
the emissions tests and helping a staff of NAPCA engineers analyze the
results.
Bill Charles did not have as much luck in coordinating the vehicle
performance testing. Heavy rains on two separate occasions during the
week created impossible conditions on those particular days for all phases
of the performance testing except the noise measurement. Because of
Monday's rainstorm, it wasn't until Tuesday when he discovered that all
the tests, especially the noise measurement, were taking longer than had
been anticipated. In addition, the fifth wheel used for monitoring
vehicle acceleration and speed broke when it slipped from one of the
vehicles during a trial run. It took half a day before testing could
be resumed to secure a portable radar rig to replace the fifth wheel
measurement system. Only by eliminating some of the noise tests and
working thereafter from dawn until dusk were he and his staff of observers
able to complete the testing on time.
-250-
-------
In the evenings, the race captains met with Bob McGregor and Craig
Lentz to vote on rule changes, discuss general complaints, and file protests,
The major item of debate throughout the week was whether or not to include
a fuel economy run as part of the CAGE competition. After several pro-
posals had been advanced and reviewed, the recommendation to measure
vehicle fuel consumption between Ann Arbor, Michigan and Oklahoma City,
Oklahoma, was voted on and passed at the Tuesday evening meeting.
At the observer meetings, Craig Lentz reviewed the CACR rules and
outlined the methods of command and control. Observers were to record
driving times, fuel consumption, and infractions of the traffic laws as
well as calling the RIG at least twice daily to report the location
and condition of their test vehicle. Craig Lentz and Ty Rabe compiled
written instructions and observer report forms containing all pertinent
information to be recorded and phoned in. At the same time, Steve
McGregor was completing the route guide document which contained detailed
maps of the race route and the locations of refueling stations for use
by the entrants. Ron Francis had already prepared similar guides pertain-
ing to the charging stations for the electric vehicle entrants. These
documents were finally completed distributed to tne entrants at the
command and control meeting held the day before departure from M.I.T.
The only major crisis of the pre-race week was the press's charge
of commercialism leveled at the CACR competition. As early as June,
Bob Byers had warned the committee about this possibility, but because
the original concept for a Clean Air Car Race had included both university
and industrial involvement, the problem was almost unavoidable. Entrants
were warned that their industrial backers could not use the test vehicle
as a public relations gimmick, but there was no way to stop companies
and advertising agencies from bombarding the media with press kits, re-
leases, and PR men.
When commentary occurred during the pre-race week, every attempt was
made to point out the worthwhile aspects of the event. The fact that the
race would have been impossible without industrial support and that only
a few of the multitude of industries supporting it had sought publicity
for themselves was clearly stated.
On the night before the start of the race, the committee held its
longest meeting. Committee vehicles and entrant test vehicles were assigned
starting time, observers were assigned to the various entrants teams,
and a few last-minute details concerning command and control were dis-
cussed. When the meeting broke up, the starting time of the race was
only three hours away.
-251-
-------
THE CROSS-COUNTRY RALLY
Thus, at 3 a.m. on August 24 the Clean Air Car Race became the mobile
exposition that it was intended to be. Forty-three vehicles had qualified
for the cross-country competition, having passed the rigorous testing of
the previous week. Starting line activity, despite the earliness of the
hour, revealed a high degree of entrant team enthusiasm and eagerness to
set out on the trans-continental journey.
To facilitate control of the race, the organization committee made
use of five special vehicles donated by Ford and General Motors. Pacing
the entrant teams was the committee's Mobile Headquarters Van (MHV) which
customarily departed two to three hours earlier then the main race body.
Its primary mission was to arrive at the daily destination with sufficient
lead time to ensure that arrangements had been made for the arrival of the
CACR cavalcade. Two other committee vehicles were dispersed among the
race pack for the purpose of establishing the normalized driving time for
each leg. Another committee car, keeping pace with the electric vehicles,
was used to finalize the installment of electric charging stations; con-
sequently, it lagged about twelve hours in general behind the CACR pack.
The fifth committee vehicle trailed the race by 24 to 36 hours. The
purpose of this backup car was to switch observers stationed with struggl-
ing entrants and to act as a liason with those teams forced to lag behind.
Race control while on the road was augmented by the Chicago-based
Race Information Center (discussed earlier in this appendix) which main-
tained a master chart listing of all CACR vehicle locations. A computer
console located in the MHV further aided the committee in updating race
results by tabulating entrant team rally scores for each leg. The afore*
mentioned observers were an extension of the committee in that they recorded
entrant team driving times and noted rule infractions. Observers were
assigned one to a car and were rotated daily. No entrant team received
the same observer more than once during cross-country travel and no
observer was assigned to a team which originated from the observer's
academic institution.
At the end of each leg, the committee set up an information and re-
porting center adjacent to the MHV. This area also constituted the impound
location for the CACR test vehicles and were of primary importance for two
reasons: they provided display areas where the cars could be inspected
by interested members of the public and they afforded the necessary security
for the overnight stopovers. Teams checked in with the committee upon
arrival at the impound area each evening while observers turned in their
reports for tabulation of the leg scores.
Race control, essential as it was, comprised only one major facet of
the cross-country jaunt, as there is much to be said about the actual
passage of the CACR caravan. The first vehicles to leave M.I.T. in the
early morning hours of August 24th were the electrics. The reason for this
early embarkment stemmed from the fact that 30 miles per hour (mph), in-
cluding time for recharging the battery packs, was an optimal average
speed for these entries. Thus, early starting times had been assigned to
-252-
-------
electric vehicles for the entirety of the race schedule in the hope that
they could keep up with the main race body. As the race progressed, this
effort proved fruitless as the electrics trailed further behind with each
ensuing leg.
Indicative of the plight of the electrics were the Stevens Institute
of Technology and the Cornell entries, the only electric cars to successfully
complete cross-country travel in the allotted time. Both endured multiple
charging problems due to reverse phase rotation at many of the charging
stations and spent over 24 hours travelling time on five of the seven legs.
It was not surprising when the Cornell team stopped in St. Louis for 12 hours
of enforced recuperation due to physical fatigue. Mechanical malfunctions
continually hampered the progress of the two cars: Cornell suffered an
engine burnout in San Deigo; S.I.T. underwent a similar burnout in Buffalo
and suffered from bent tie rods in California; in addition, both teams
sustained several flat tires during the race passage. Consequently, both
cars arrived in Pasadena more than forty-eight hours behind the main race
body.
Except for the electric entries, the CACR test vehicles departed from
M.I.T. between 5:30 and 7:00 a.m. on the morning of the 24th. This first
leg of the race was 541 miles and terminated in Toronto where the Canadians
received the CACR with open arms. An exhibition lasted from 8 to 10 p.m.
at the city hall complex and all CACR affiliated personnel became guests
at a cocktail mixer held at the display area. In addition, meals were
provided at no cost by the Ontario Department of Tourism. Overnight
accomodations were located on the University of Toronto campus while
the race vehicles were impounded until the next morning at the U. of
Toronto stadium.
The distance for the second leg was comparatively short: 243 miles.
The leg consisted of passage through Canada to the Detroit-Ann Arbor area.
As has been already stated, this was the sight of the cold start emissions
testing for all CACR vehicles. Arrangements had been made to conduct testing
at five seperate locations where adequate lab facilities had been established;
the test facilities were provided by General Motors, Ford, Chrysler, Ethyl
Corporation, and NAPCA. Each vehicle was required to undergo a four hour
soak period prior to testing, while the test itself required almost another
hour. Cars were displayed at the University of Michigan campus that same
evening and race participants were presented with a buffet dinner sponsored
by the Ford Motor Co. Dorm facilities for the night were also located at
the University of Michigan.
The 400 mile third leg from Ann Arbor, Michigan, to Champaign, Illinois.
began the CACR two-day fuel economy run. This testing constituted a dis-
tinct factor in overall scoring, and has been discussed thoroughly in
Chapter IV. Race vehicles were displayed at the University of Illinois
campus that evening where the race cavalcade bedded down for the night.
August 27 marked the longest leg of race passage. The more than
650 miles to Oklahoma City proved a rugged test for all vehicles still
in the competition. A reception provided by the Oklahoma City Chamber
of Commerce at the impressive Cowboy Hall of Fame greeted the CACR entrants
-253-
-------
at the end of that long day. Garage facilities for making minor vehicle
repairs were made available at Classic Motors Incorporated. After feasting
on buffalo meat and being entertained at the Hall of Fame, teams spent
the night at Central State College located ten miles away in Edraond,
Oklahoma.
The fifth leg of the race, 526 miles in length, terminated in Odessa,
Texas. Heat was becoming a critial factor as seasonal temperatures soared
above 100°. The Odessa Chuck Wagon Gang, in conjunction with the local
Chamber of Commerce, hosted the CACR to a hospitable evening full of
entertainment and relaxation. The race vehicles attracted many spectators
to the Odessa City Hall where the cars were displayed. Overnight accomodations
were in area motels due to a lack of college dormatory facilities.
On August 29th, the race pack departed Odessa bound for Tucson,
Arizona. A Clean Air Car Race day had been declared when the majority
of vehicles arrived in Tucson. Large crowds and a tasty barbeque offered
by the Tucson Chamber of Commerce helped to lift the spirits of the
exhausted CACR teams. Race cars were exhibited at the University of
Arizona campus where sleeping accomodations had also been arranged.
The final leg of the race extended 537 miles through the Arizona
and California deserts, over the California coastal mountains, and finally
up the coast from San Diego to Pasadena, the home of the Caltech campus.
Entrants were greeted at the finish line by a crowd of television and
newspaper reporters in addition to the Rose Bowl Queen. The media had
covered the race on both national and local networks for the entirety
of the 3600 mile route with the end of the race climaxing the news
coverage activity. Film crews from two different firms had recorded
the seven day journey on over one hundred twenty-five thousand feet of
film to be used in producing special documentaries on the event. Need-
less to say, all race participants were pleased with the national attention
they had drawn in their crusade for cleaner air.
To present the race as a smooth-functioning event for all entrants
would be misleading. No one team was free of difficulty; problems en-
countered were human as well as mechanical. Fatigue was a major problem
as the majority of cross-country legs took twelve to fifteen hours to
complete. Navigational errors often extended this time as did vehicular
malfunctions. The high degree of cooperation among all parties involved
helped to resolve many of the difficulties incurred.
Many examples of these problems can easily be recounted. The
University of Toronto entry lost a tailpipe and muffler while backing up
over debris on the ground in the University of Toronto stadium. In
addition, the Toronto team threw a connecting rod just outside of St. Louis
and had to rebuild half the engine. The University of Berkeley entry
discovered a loss of compression in its engine due to ring seizure when
attempting to leave Ann Arbor on the morning of the third leg. This
necessitated the installation of an entirely rebuilt engine. The
Worcester Polytechnic hybrid-electric experienced over-heating problems
and had to devise a makeshift air scoop scheme to cool the electric
motor. The M.I.T. turbine continually suffered from clogged fuel line
filters. The M.I.T. hybrid-electric sustained a burned out alternator
on the first leg and a burned out motor on the fourth leg due to mech-
_254-
-------
anical component failures, and were utimatley forced to withdraw from
the competition. All teams using LPG fuel discovered that compressor
oil had infiltrated many of the refueling tanks. In addition, some of
the designated LPG refueling facilities contained butane instead of
propane which caused extreme difficulties due to inherent pressure
storage differences. In retrospect, it is amazing that 85% of all
vehicles which started the race arrived, intact,in California.
ACTIVITIES AT CALTECH
Post-race activities at Caltech extended from August 31st to September
3d. For exhibition purposes, all entrants as they arrived in Pasadena
were parked along Caltech's rustic Olive Walk. A Clean Air Car Race
parade was held on September 2d which toured through Pasadena and was greeted
by the city mayor.
While at Caltech the entrant teams underwent a final hot-start emissions
test. The results of this test were combined with the earlier M.I.T. hot
start test to provide a deterioration factor for overall vehicular emissions.
Teams were also given a chance to discuss complaints or protests with the
organization committee and at the same time penalties for rule infractions
were dealt out. Other committee activities included the final tabulation
of race scores.
A final awards banquet was held on the evening of September 2d for
all CACR participants and trophies were presented to the five class winners
and the overall winner. The overall winner was selected by an impartial
board of judges chaired by Dr. David Ragone, Dean of tfte Thayer School
of Engineering. Other members included: William Gouse, a member of the
President's Office of Science and Technology; John Brogan, Director,
Division of Motor Vehicle Research and Development, NAPCA; Harry Barr,
President, Society of Automotive Engineers, and John Maga, Executive
Secretary, California Air Resources Board. A final seminar was conducted
on September 3d and was chaired by Dr. Haagen-Schmidt of the California
Mr Resources Board. The seminar, held at the Caltech Jet Propulsion
Laboratory, offered a platform for the judging panel to present their
reasons for choosing the Wayne State University ICE-powered Capri as the
overall winner.
WINDING UP COMMITTEE ACTIVITY
Following the post-race seminar at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory in
Pasadena, committee members returned to the Boston area via a number of
routes. While some flew back for the start of school activities, others
vacationed in California before starting the journey home. By late
September, the committee had reconvened at M.I.T. to begin its final
work.
-255-
-------
Three self-assigned tasks remained for the committee's attention.
The NAPCA documentation contract had to be fulfilled. A presentation
format had to be devised for the purpose of disseminating general public
information. Finally, an overall evaluation of the event had to be made.
Since all of the committee except for Bob McGregor, Bill Charles, and
Diane Lentz had returned to academic curricula, work was assigned
principally on a part-time basis.
The written documentation containing a summary report of the event
was to be prepared by the committee. Bob McGregor assigned separate
segments of the report to various committeemen with the deadline for
completion being mid December. Editing would then require another month
before publishing the document.
The committee's job with regard to the films was to serve in an
advisory capacity. The most difficult aspect of this task proved to be
educating the film producers on the subject of automotive air pollution.
After long delays and several editing sessions, both the technical and
general films were completed in late January of 1971.
Craig Lentz took it upon himself to both design a suitable pre-
sentation on CACR activity and stimulate widespread national interest
in what the CACR had accomplished. With Steve McGregor's help, he put
together a general information slide show and devised a format for the
presentations, which were then offered at no cost to schools, civic
groups, and other associations. During the following six months, more
than fifty such presentations were made in all parts of the country.
Evaluating the results of the race proved to be a difficult job.
The committee, the judges, industry and government representatives, as
well as interested race participants all took part in the process. As
a result,several major criticisms regarding the organization of the
event were brought forth.
The most frequent comment centered upon the ambiguity of the test
data, particularly the exhaust emission measurements. Although seven
of the race vehicles had bettered the proposed 1975 Federal standards
using the CACR test procedure, a definite conclusion as to whether or
not these vehicles could meet the standards using the appropriate Federal
test cycle procedure was impossible using available test data. Any
public misconceptions were practically unavoidable since at least some
knowledge of the field would have been necessary to understand the difference
in test procedures.
The entrants made only one major criticism of the committee. They
felt that the failure to compile a final set of rules at an early date caused
innumerable problems in building and modifying the test vehicles. Once
again, the principal cause of this problem was lack of time. The committee
had been as ambitious as possible despite limitations of available funds
and facilities. Most of the late rule changes were due to the committee's
realization that earlier plans would be impossible to carry out. In addition,
the committee constantly tried to avoid an authoritarian structure by in-
corporating all useful feedback from entrants into general CACR activities.
-256-
-------
From within, the committee's organizational structure often seemed
chaotic. Many administrative tasks did not fall into any one area of
responsibility, often resulting in dual efforts or a delay of any positive
action. A pyramidal structure of clearly defined areas of responsibility
might have been more efficient, but it would have lacked a certain element
of cooperation among committee members. The lateral organizational structure
employed, in which everyone had an almost equal voice in planning, was at
times inefficient, but it avoided the authoritarianism which can stifle
a highly-motivated student effort.
In spite of these and other criticisms, the Clean Air Car Race must
be termed a success from an organizational point of view. It started with
two professors who had an idea and ended with 300 people and 150 vehicles
travelling a 3600 mile transcontinental route in seven days. The
phenomenal growth which it experienced and which caused so many problems
is a testimony to the importance of the problem which it attacked.
-257-
-------
OFFICIAL RULES
1970 CLEAN AIR CAR RACE
This publication shall be the official and sole source of
rules for the 1970 Clean Air Car Race. Any revision, modification,
or delineation of the rules contained herein, will be announced in
writing by the Clean Air Car Race Organization Committee.
It is the responsibility of each participant in the CACR
to become familiar with the Official Rules.
The exact course to be followed covers 3,562 miles and is
described in the CACR publication ROUTE GUIDE. One copy of the
ROUTE GUIDE will be distributed to all entrant teams prior to
departure.
CLEAN AIR CAR RACE ORGANIZATION COMMITTEE
Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT)
California Institute of Technology (Caltech)
1970
D
-259-
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
I. Objectives 5
A. Assess Vehicle Technology 5
B. Determine Emission Characteristics 5
C. Publish Technical Reports 5
D. Create Public Awareness 5
II. Scope £
A. Consistency 6
B. Responsibilities 6
1. Pre-Race 6
2. Race-Execution 6
3. Post-Race 6
C. Waiver Requests 7
D. Request Procedure ^ 7
E. Further Requests f 7
F, Liability 7
G. Class Winner 7
H. Overall Winner 7
III. Qualification Requirements 8
A. Classification 8
1. Class 8
2. Categories 8
B. Vehicle Qualification 8
1. Structural Standards 8
2. Pollution Emission Standards 9
3. Performance Standards 9
U. Safety Standards 9
5. Identification Standards 9
6. Appearance Standards 10
C. Participant Qualification 10
1. Team Affiliation 10
2. Individual Affiliation 10
3. Entrant Team Division 11
k. Driving Team 11
5. Technical Team 11
6. Team Captain 11
D. Technical Paper Requirement 12
E. Acceptance 12
IV. Race Control 13
A. Objectives.. 13
1. Driving Time 13
2. Energy Consumption 13
3. Vehicle Location 13
U. Rule Enforcement 13
B. Race Route 13
C. Drivers 13
D. Observers 13
1. Assignment 13
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS (cont'd)
2. Disinterested Party 13
3. Single Leg 13
k. Changes 13
E. Observer Responsibilities 13
F. Impounds 15
1. Check-In Point 15
2. Parking 15
3. Public Display 15
U. Security 15
5. Scores 15
6. Departure Time 15
7. Bulletins 15
8. Departure 15
G. Protests 15
H. Repairs 16
1. "On The Road" 16
2. "Repair Station" l6
I. Elapsed Driving Time l6
1. Definition l6
2. Procedure 16
J. Time Outs 17
1. Refueling 17
2. Emergency 17
3. Personal Injury 17
H. Property Damage 17
5. Observer Command 17
K. Traffic Regulations 17
L. Driving Formation 17
M. Withdrawal 18
V. Measurements 19
A. Scope 19
B. Exhaust Emission Testing 19
1. ICE, Steam, and Gas Turbine Vehicle Test Procedure 19
2. Hybrid-Electrics 22
C. Vehicle Performance Testing 23
1. Braking 23
2. Acceleration 23
3. Noise 23
U. Urban Driving Cycle 23
D. Entrant Qualification Test 2k
E. Vehicle Endurance Test 2k
F. Other Measurements 2k
VI. Scoring 25
A. Scoring Formula 25
B. Responsibility 25
C. Emissions Score 25
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Cont'd)
1. Formula 25
2. Range 25
3. Bonus 25
D. Performance Score 26
1. Score Division 26
2. Range 26
E. Race Score 2?
1. Normalized Driving Time. 27
2. Scoring Curve 28
3. Penalty 28
U. Towing 28
5. Range 28
6. Disqualification 28
-------
OFFICIAL RULES
I. OBJECTIVES
A. ASSESS VEHICLE TECHNOLOGY To assess the state of vehicle tech-
nology; specifically, research, and development efforts in educational
institutions, industry, and government must be ascertained and pub-
licized.
B. DETERMINE EMISSION CHARACTERISTICS ~ To determine pollution emission
characteristics for modified conventional and evolutionary propul-
sion systems.
C. PUBLISH TECHNICAL REPORTS To publish technical reports and data
on vehicle technology and pollution emission characteristics respect-
ively in a compact document which delineates the present status of
automotive technology.
D. CREATE PUBLIC AWARENESS To create public awareness of current prog-
ress in vehicle propulsion plant development and dispel any public
misconception of present engineering capabilities.
-------
I. SCOPE
A. CONSISTENCY All events connected with the CACR, and all pre-race
qualificiation and other activities, and all activities connected with
the dissemination of information about the Race and Race entrants,
shall occur only in a manner consistent with the rules stated herein.
B, RESPONSIBILITIES Prior to the CACR, all administrative and judicial
authority shall be vested totally in a committee, to be known as the
CACR Organization Committee ("the Committee")* The responsibilities
and duties of the Committee shall include the following:
1. PRS-RACE
a. The Committee shall be the sole authority responsible
for the modification, promulgation, and interpretation
of these rules.
b. The Committee shall be sole source of waivers for en-
trants, subject to the restrictions in Section II. C.
c. The Committee shall provide properly trained and qua-
lified observers for the CACR; these observers shall
act on behalf of the Committee during the Race, pro-
vided, however, that all such decisions may be subject
to review by the Committee upon request by the entrant
teams (ref: Section IV. G.).
d. The Committee shall have full and final responsibility
for handling any and all such matters which may, in
the normal course of events, arise and have a bearing
on the CACR.
2. RACE-EXECUTION
a. The Committee shall be the sole authority responsible
for assuring continued compliance with these rules and
adjudicating any disputes arising under them.
b. The Committee shall collect and verify any data compiled
concerning CACR vehicles and participants.
c. The Committee shall provide for and operate the Race
Information Center (RIC).
d. The Commitee shall continue to have full and final
responsibility for handling any and all such matters
which may, in the normal course of events, arise and have
a bearing on the CACR.
3. POST-RACE
a. The Committee shall select, using the criteria defined
6
-------
and discussed in Section V[,a winner in each vehicle
class, as defined in Section III. A.
b. The Committee will summarize all the data collected and
bear sole authority for publishing or making available
in some other graphic form the official reports of the
CACR.
c. The Committee shall serve as the base organization for
the administration of any future CACR event.
C. WAIVER REQUESTS The Committee has final jurisdiction in accepting
or rejecting any entry. Groups who discover that their vehicle does
not meet the CACR requirements listed in Sections II. B. and II. C
should write to the Committee for special consideration. The Committee
is empowered to waive minor discrepancies from these rules, provided:
1) the entrant provides satisfactory evidence that a substantial effort
was made to comply with the rule in question; and 2) no such waiver
may be granted which would adversely affect compliance with the follow-
ing Sections: II. B. 2 - II. B, 4.
D. REQUEST PROCEDURE Any group wishing the Committee to consider a re-
quest for special consideration should notify the Committee in writing
of the particular ruling involved and the full details of efforts made
to comply with the ruling. The group should then indicate the reasons
why compliance is not possible. The Committee, upon receipt of such
a request, shall determine the action to be taken, and notify the
group involved in writing.
E. FURTHER REQUESTS While the decision of the Committee is final, the
availability of new and pertinent information regarding a situation,
may be considered sufficient reason for a further request for special
consideration. No more than three such requests concerning the same
point may be brought to the Committee by a single entrant group.
F. LIABILITY The Committee cannot be held liable for any incidents
which befall an entry group participating voluntarily in the CACR.
G. CLASS WINNER In each competitive class (described in Section III. A)
a winner will be determined using the scoring system described in
Section VI. Suitable trophies will be awarded by the Committee at
termination point.
H. OVERALL WINNER The Committee will select a panel of five individuals
generally recognized to be experts in the area of automotive pollution
and technology. This panel will, using the information gathered by the
Committee and their own personal experience, select one entrant felt
to be outstanding in all vital characteristics ,and to be designated
as the overall winner.
-------
III. QUALIFICATION REQUIREMENTS
A. CLASSIFICATION Each vehicle participating in the race will be class-
ified by class and category, as follows:
1. CLASS The Committee shall place each entry in one of the
following classes, Placement is based on fuel and power plant
description as provided by the entrant in his final registration.
Class I; Internal Combustion Engine (ICE) - includes all
types of fuels such as gasoline, LNG, LPG, etc.
Class II; Rankine Cycle - external combustion with heat trans-
fer taking place to the working fluid; examples include steam
piston and Stirling engines.
Class III; Brayton Cycle - gas turbine which includes a
variety of possible working fluids.
Class IV: Electric - battery is the primary energy source;
recharging occurs through off-board facilities such as
charging stations.
Class V; Hybrid Electric - battery is coupled to a separate
on-board energy source (such as a piston engine) which accom-
plishes the recharging function.
Class VIt Miscellaneous - novel power plants which do not fall
into any of the first five categories. This class contains
any vehicle which cannot be reasonably placed in one of the
other classes.
2. CATEGORIES Vehicles participating in this Race will be
considered in three categories:
a. Committee vehicles, consisting of those vehicles being
operated by members of the Committee.
b. Entrant vehicles, consisting of those vehicles which
are entered in the Race, and upon which all measure-
ments will be made and tests performed.
c. Trail vehicles, consisting of those vehicles which are
entered in the Race for the purpose of carrying additional
personnel , equipment, fuel, etc. and acting in a sup-
port capacity for the entrant vehicles.
B. VEHICLE QUALIFICATION Each vehicle must meet the following stand-
ards in order to participate as an entry in the CACR:
1. STRUCTURAL STANDARDS Each vehicle must satisfy the
following:
-------
a. Must have a minimum of four wheels.
b. Must have a fully-enclosed passanger compartment with
minimum capacity of two adult passengers.
c. Must satisfy all inspection and registration require-
ments prescribed by the state in which the vehicle has
been developed and tested and present documentary
evidence of this to the Committee. Entrants other
than U.S. entrants must meet the Massachusetts State
Standards.
d. Must satisfy any additional requirements imposed by
the Federal Government, since cross-country travel
will take place on the Interstate Highway System.
No such requirements have been stipulated at present.
2. POLLUTION EMISSION STANDARDS Documentary evidence must be
submitted to the Committee by 16 August 1970, which certifies
that the vehicle's exhaust complies with the 1975 Federal
Standards for acceptable levels of pollution emission. If
propulsion is such that there is no exhaust (e.g. vehicle
is in Class IV), then the vehicle will be deemed to have met
this requirement for registration purposes.
3. PERFORMANCE STANDARDS Each entrant vehicle must meet the
following performance standards:
a. Acceleration: from 0 to 45 mph within 15 seconds.
b. Range: Travel 60 miles within 90 min. on a level
road without refueling or recharging.
4. SAFETY STANDARDS Each entrant vehicle must meet the fol-
lowing performance standards:
a. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 49, Chapter 3, Part
371, Subpart b. Any additional safety standards req-
uired by the state in which the vehicle is registered
and inspected must also be met.
b. All vehicles are expected to meet any additional req-
uirements imposed by the Federal Government, since
travel will occur on the Interstate Highway System.
Such requirements include special permits and standards
for transporting hazardous fuels.
5. IDENTIFICATION STANDARDS On every vehicle entered in the
CACR, the following areas are designated for the exclusive
use of the Committee:
a. On the front side panel of both sides of each vehicle,
an area approximately nine inches square shall be res-
erved for an entrant number to be assigned.
-------
b. The front door, on both sides of the vehicle, In Its
entirety shall be reserved for vehicle identification
and indication of Race participation. Such material
shall be specified and provided by the Committee.
c. A portion of the rear side panel, on both sides of the
vehicle, shall have placed upon it the name of the educat-
ional institution affiliated with the vehicle. This
name should be displayed in block letters; size and
coloring of lettering shall be at the discretion of the
entrant.
6. APPEARANCE STANDARDS The Committee will require that
any other decorations, painting, or commercial messages
follow these guidelines:
a. Said decoration, painting, or message should occupy a
limited area, must be in good taste, and cannot inter-
fere with the areas described in Section III.B.5.
b. Any lettering used in the non-reserved areas must be
smaller in size that the lettering used in placing
the name of the educational institution on the rear
side panels.
c. Vehicles not meeting these standards may not partici-
pate in the CACR unless they can show, to the satisfaction
of the Committee, that the vehicle identification and
painting was done prior to the promulgation of a def-
inite ruling in this area (i.e., prior to 24 June 1970);
and the cost of correcting the situation is prohibitive
and would necessitate the withdrawal of the vehicle
from the Race. The Committee is hereby empowered to
adjudge vehicles under this regulation and execute its
provision.
C. PARTICIPANT QUALIFICATION Entrant team members must meet the
following standards in order to participate in the CACR:
1. TEAM AFFILIATION All entry groups must be registered
with the Committee under the name of an educational
institution. A letter certifying this relationship between
the entry and the school must come from the respective
school's Dean of Engineering or President (one for each
entrant). In the case of high schools, this letter should
come from the administrative head or principal of the school.
2. INDIVIDUAL AFFILIATION All participants must affiliate
with an educational institution to the extent that the
conditions stated in Section III.C are satisfied. Should
this prove difficult or impossible, immediately contact
10
-------
the Committee so that they may give special consid-
eration to the situation,
3. ENTRANT TEAM DIVISION All personnel officially affiliated
with a team must be designated as either part of the driv-
ing team or the techanical team. These will be the only
people authorized to operate within or on the vehicle in
any official capacity or to represent the team in any actions
or decision which may be necessary.
4. DRIVING TEAM ~ The driving team, containg not more than
four nor less than two members, each of whom:
a. Must be registered full time students.
b. Must have been registered for and completed the 1970
Spring semester at their respective school, which
must be accredited with the Department of Health, Ed-
ucation and Welfare.
c. Must draw up and present the technical paper concern-
ing their vehicle to the Committee and represent their
respective vehicle entry group at the seminar prior
to the Race.
5. TECHNICAL TEAM The technical team is optional and con-
tains no limit on the number of personnel. The technical
team members:
a. May be passengers in the entrant vehicle.
b. May give advice, but not physical assistance, to the
driving team in making repairs on the road.
c. May give advice and physical assistance to the driving
team in making repairs at a designated repair station
(ref: Section IV.H.2).
6. TEAM CAPTAIN The team captain shall be an individual
designated by the entrant team from either the driving or
technical team who shall:
a. Formally represent the entrant team in any communica-
tions with the Committee.
b. Assume responsibility for the operation of the vehicle
during the CACR.
c. Assume responsibility for the conduct of the members
of the entrant team during all phases of the CACR.
11
-------
d. Assume responsibility for providing the Committee
with all documentation requested.
D, TECHNICAL PAPER REQUIREMENT Each entrant must submit a technical
paper describing, in complete detail, the vehicle's total operating
system. Particular emphasis should be placed on the usual aspects
of the vehicle. The paper should be written in a manner appropriate
for a paper to be published; the paper should describe, in suffici-
ent detail, the vehicle power plant so that a person unfamiliar with
the vehicle could understand its operating characteristics. The
style and quality of photos, and other graphic materials should be
those recommended by the major scientific and engineering socities.
E. ACCEPTANCE Upon receipt of documentation which substantiates
that all of the above requirements have been met, the Committee will
notify the entrant of his acceptance.
12
-------
IV. RACE CONTROL
A. OBJECTIVES - The objectives of Race Control shall be:
1. DRIVING TIME Compile the accurate elapsed driving time
for each entrant for each leg of the Race (reft Section IV.I).
2' ENERGY CONSUMPTION Compile data from each entrant concerning
total energy consumed during each leg of the Race.
3- VEHICLE LOCATION Locate the approximate position of each
vehicle at anytime during the Race.
4- RULE ENFORCEMENT Assure that each entrant abides by the
Official Rules set forth by the Committee and stated herein
with any subsequent modifications.
B. RACE ROUTE ~ A detailed description of the Race Route will be
be given all entrants prior to the Race. This publication shall
be entitled the ROUTE GUIDE and will include maps, itineraries,
and general impound information for each leg of the Race.
C' DRIVERS Only those persons on the entrant team who have pre-
viously been designated as members of the driving team (ref:
Section III. C.4) will be allowed to operate the vehicle during
the Race leg. Upon completion of the leg, any member of the
entrant team may operate the vehicle.
D. OBSERVERS The Committee will select and instruct a group of
qualified observers. Committee control shall operate as follows:
1. ASSIGNMENTS An observer is to be assigned to an entrant
by the Committee during the evening prior to that leg in
which he will be observing.
2. DISINTERESTED PARTY An observer must be a disinterested
party to the entrant to which he is assigned.
3. SINGLE LEG An observer will not be assigned to the same
entrant for more than one leg of the Race.
4. CHANGES An observer's assignment may be changed by the
Committee at any time.
E. OBSERVER RESPONSIBILITIES The observers are responsible for
diligently observing at all times the actions and conditions under
which the vehicle to which they are assigned is operating and for
accurately recording all required data on the Observer's Report.
The responsibility of the observer during the time in which he is
assigned to an entrant vehicle includes the following:
13
-------
1. The observer must sit in the entrant vehicle to which
he has been assigned.
2. The observer must remain with the vehicle to which he has
been assigned until he has been relieved or replaced.
3. The observer must have a reliable watch with a sweep second
hand.
4. The observer may not assist drivers in any way except in
an emergency (i.e. an accident).
5. The observer must record all data in detail on the Observer's
Report and must supply all pertinent information requested
including reports on any traffic violations. Whenever an
an entry is made, the time and odometer reading must be
recorded.
6. The observer must submit the Observer's Report to a designa-
ted Committeeman at the impound (ref: Section IV.F.I).
7. The observer must not interpret rules for participants, and
cannot say what work may or may not be done on entrant
vehicles, their duties being only to record required data
and to notify drivers of violations of traffic laws and
regulations (ref: Section IV.K.).
8. The observer must not attempt to interpret the ROUTE GUIDE
nor in any way comment on the navigation of the entrant
vehicle.
9. The observer must telephone the Race Information Center
and report the location and status of the entrant to which
he has been assigned, according to a call-in schedule to
be determined and posted by the Committee.
10. In addition to the surveillance of the cars in which they
are riding, observers shall be expected, insofar as possible
to make note of any other entrant vehicle which may be laid
up alongside the road and to note the extent of the work
being done upon it. Reports should show time, entrant
number of the car involved, and the odometer reading of
the car in which the observer is riding.
11. The observer must report to his assigned vehicle 20 minutes
prior to scheduled departure time. At this time, he must
make appropriate entries on the Observer's Report. These
entries will include entrant number, driver's names, odo-
meter reading and other facts that can be determined at
at this time.
-------
F. IMPOUNDS All entrant vehicles are required to be parked in the
Official CACR Impounds during the period August 16 thru September
2, 1970. The Impounds for the evenings of August 24-29 shall be
designated Route Impounds. The following conditions will exist
at the Route Impounds:
1. CHECK-IN POINT The Mobile Headquarters Van (MHV) will
be the official Impound Check-In Point. Observers will
turn in their Observer's Report to a designated Committee-
man at the MHV upon their arrival at the Impound.
2* PARKING A Committeeman will direct the entrant vehicle
to a suitable parking location upon its arrival.
3. PUBLIC DISPLAY The vehicles will be open for public display
at the Impound during the evening. Specific hours will be
posted by the Committee. Each entrant team is required to
have a minimum of one team member present at the vehicle
for the purposes of publicity and information.
4. SECURITY The Committee will provide night security for
all entrant vehicles at the Impounds.
5. SCORES Legs and cumulative scores for each entrant will
be posted at the Impound.
6. DEPARTURE TIMES Departure times and observer assignments
will be posted for the next leg at the Impound.
7. BULLETINS ~ Bulletins and official rules modifications will
be posted at the Impound. It will be the responsibility of
the entrant or his representative to read and comply with
same.
8. DEPARTURE Departure of all entrant vehicles will occur
from the Impound area and be under the direction of a
designated Committeeman.
G. PROTESTS At any convenient time enroute, the Observer's Report
may be inspected by the Team Captain. Should any objection to the
Observer's Report arise, the observer must report such objection
to a designated Committeeman at the Impound Check-In point. In
the event of a dispute as to facts, the Committeeman may require
such persons to state their objections in writing.
Immediately following each leg, a panel from the Committee will meet.
At that time the Team Captain or his representative must register
any protest pertaining to that leg and submit proof in support
thereof.
The Committee will hear only protests registered on the leg just
completed.
15
-------
H. REPAIRS Repairs to the entrant vehicle will occur at either
of the following locations:
1. "ON THE ROAD" Should the vehicle become disabled while
on the race route, only those members designated previously
as on the driving team (ref: Section II.C.4) may physically
repair the vehicle. Repair "On the Road" will mean any
repair which can be made by the driving team alone at the
point where the vehicle disabled.
2. "REPAIR STATION" ~ Should the vehicle become disabled to
the extent that a repair "On the Road" is not possible, it
may be towed or otherwise moved to the nearest "Repair
Station". The "Repair Station" must be approved by the
observer as a facility in which major repairs may be per-
formed on automobiles. Any members of the entrant team
may perform repairs at the approved "Repair Station".
I. ELAPSED DRIVING TIME (EOT) -- The score for each leg of the Race
will be determined by the "Elapsed Driving Time." The "Elapsed
Driving Time" will be defined as the time taken by the vehicle
in completing the leg. This time includes all refueling, repair,
and all other time which was used to maintain the vehicle during
that leg.
1. DEFINITION -- The "Elapsed Driving Time" will be calculated
as follows:
EOT = TDT - MIN (ABT, NBT) - TO
Where: TDT * Total Driving Time, defined as the straight
difference between departure and arrival times
without corrections.
ABT = Actual Break Time, defined as the meal and
break time total as recorded by the observer.
NBT « Normalized Break Time. A calculation based
on 45 minutes per meal and 8 minutes for every
hour or fraction thereof taken in the total
driving time.
TO = Time Outs. Defined in Section IV.J.
2. PROCEDURE All time will be noted from the observer's
watch (as required in Section IV.E.3). The observer will
synchronize his watch with the Committeeman responsible
for departure. The observer will in no way reset his
watch following this synchronization. This rule includes
time zone crossings.
16
-------
J. TIME OUTS Only under extenuating circumstances will a "Time
Out" be called and noted by the observer. In such an instance,
the time so taken will not be charged against the EDT of the
entrant vehicle.
During a "Time Out" the vehicle must be completely stopped. No
maintainance or repair work may be performed on the vehicle during
the "Time Out".
"Time Outs" will only be granted for the following reasons:
1. REFUELING A delay at the refueling station or facility.
The "Time Out" will be from the time the car comes to a
complete stop until the time the refueling facilities
become available. During the actual refueling, the time
is credited towards the EDT.
2. EMERGENCY A necessary delay at a point on route caused
by a condition beyond the control of the entrant. Specif-
ically this does not include traffic congestion on the Race
route.
3. PERSONAL INJURY A delay caused by personal injury to a
member of the entrant team, or to a third party as a result
of the entrant's personnel or vehicles. Such injury and
circumstances will be noted in the Observer's Report.
A. PROPERTY DAMAGE A delay caused by damage to an entrant
vehicle by a third party, or to a third party by an entrant
vehicle. This includes damage that may occur between entrant
vehicles on the same team. Such damage and circumstances
will be noted on the Observer's Report.
5. OBSERVER COMMAND The observer may demand the entrant
vehicle to be stopped at any time if, in his opinion, the
continuation of the vehicle would be unsafe for other than
mechanical reasons. This shall include the areas of driver
fatigue and adverse weather conditions.
K. TRAFFIC REGULATIONS The Committee requires strict adherence to
all traffic laws and regulations in all states, cities and towns.
Observers must report length of time, distance, place and road
conditions when and if any flagrant infraction of this rule occurs.
An entrant violating this rule will be penalized if, in the opin-
ion of the Committee, the law was flagrantly violated.
L. DRIVING FORMATION The entrant's test vehicle must precede all
other vehicles on the team. At no time or place during the route
may any car be used as a pace car, be lettered or painted similar
to an entrant vehicle or be so driven as to interfere with the
operation of any other vehicle.
17
-------
M. WITHDRAWAL It shall be the duty of the observer under all
conditions to remain with the entrant vehicle (ref; Section IV.E.2)
or until the Team Captain officially announces withdrawal from
the CACR. In such a case, the Team Captain must sign the Observer's
Report at the designated location.
18
-------
V.
MEASUREMENTS
A. SCOPE Several tests pertaining to a determination of each
entrant vehicle's operating characteristics include the follow-
ing:
1.) Exhaust emissions tests
2.) Vehicle performance tests
3.) Entrant qualification test
U.) Vehicle endurance test
5.) Other requirements
This section defines measurement techniques to be employed
in conducting the above-stated tests.
B. EXHAUST EMISSIONS TESTING This part outlines the cold start
test cycle procedure to be used for vehicles entered in Class
I, II, III, and IV.
1. ICE, Steam, and Gas Turbine Vehicle Test Procedure
a. SETUP To the empty weight of the fully fueled
vehicle will be added a 300 pound allowance for
passenger weight. The resulting weight will be used
to set the dynamometer inertia wheel and power ab-
sorption unit via the following tables:
Loaded Vehicle Equivalent Inertia
Weight (pounds) Weight (pounds)
Up to 1625 !500
1626 to 1875 1750
1876 to 2125 2000
2126 to 2375 2250
2376 to 2625 2500
2626 to 2875 2750
2876 to 3250 3000
3251 to 3750 3500
3751 to 1*250 ^000
1*251 to U750 *»500
1+751 to 5250 5000
5251 to 6000 5500
Loaded Vehicle Power Absorption
Weight (pounds) Unit Setting (hp)
Up to 2750 j*
2751 to 1*250 b
1*251 to 6000 10
19
-------
In order that no tire damage occur during the test,
tires will be inflated to ^5 psig. The vehicle, which
must have been in a power-down state for the pre-
vious four hours, will then be pushed onto the dyna-
mometer ; and the exhaust sample line will be attach-
ed. A fan will be positioned at the front of the
vehicle to maintain engine cooling.
b. OPERATING PROCEDURE ~ The vehicle will be started
on the dynamometer according to the entrants rec-
ommended starting procedure. It will then be driven
nine times through the following driving cycle:
Sequence Mode Acceleration Time In Cumulative
Number (mph/sec) Mode (sec) Time (sec)
1 Idle 0 20 20
2 0-25 2.2 11.5 31.5
3 25-30 2.2 2.5 3^
k 30 0 15 *+9
5 30-15 -i.U 11 60
6 15 0 15 75
7 15-30 1.2 12.5 87-5
8 30-50 1.2 16.5 101+
9 50-20 -1.2 25 129
10 20-0 -2.5 8 137
Vehicles with automatic transmissions will be driven
in "drive". Other vehicles will be shifted at speeds
recommended by the entrant. If no such speeds are
supplied, shifting will be at 15mph, 25mph, and (if
applicable) ItOmph.
c. HANDLING OF EXCEPTIONAL CIRCUMSTANCES
(i) If the vehicle cannot accelerate at the specified
rates, then it will be run at wide open throttle
until vehicle speed reaches the speed it would be
during the time of the test. Whenever vehicle
acceleration lags more than 3 seconds behind the
trace, the trace will be stopped until the vehicle
has a chance to catch up. Vehicles not capable
of meeting the 50mph maximum speed will be
accelerated to ^5mph and continued for 9 seconds
at wide open throttle before the trace is restarted.
(ii) If the vehicle will not start within a "reason-
able" time (10 seconds unless otherwise specified
by the competitor) the test will be shut down.
If the failure to start was an operational error,
the vehicle will be rescheduled for testing from
a cold start. If the failure was caused by
vehicle malfunction, corrective action of less
than 30 minutes duration may be taken, and the
20
-------
test continued. If corrective action is un-
successful, the test will be aborted. Other-
vise, sampling systems will be reactivated at
the same time the start up sequence is initiated.
(iii) If the engine false starts, the operator will
repeat recommended starting procedure. If the
engine stalls during an idle period, the engine
will be restarted soon enough to allow the
vehicle to follow the next acceleration, the
driving schedule indicator will be stopped;
when the vehicle restarts the driving schedule
indicator will be reactivated. If the engine
stalls during some mode other than idle, the
driving schedule indicator will be stopped; the
vehicle restarted, accelerated to the required
speed; and the test continued. If the vehicle
will not restart within one minute, the test will
be aborted.
d. SAMPLING SYSTEM
(i) Internal Combustion Engines Constant Volume
Sampling (CVS) will be used for vehicles with
ICE's. In this system, all of the exhaust is
collected and diluted with enough air so that a
constant volume flow rate is maintained. A
portion of the dilute mixture will be drawn off
at a constant flow rate and collected in a bag.
Dilution air will be sampled similarly. The
pollutants in the bag will be analyzed within
10 minutes after the completion of the test. In
addition, the raw exhaust may be continuously
sampled, with the exhaust of the continuous
analysis cart fed into the inlet of the constant
volume sampler.
(ii) Steam and Gas Turbine Vehicles If the exhaust
volume flow is low enough, constant volume sampling
will be employed. Otherwise raw exhaust will
be monitored continuously, including temper-
ature. In both cases, fuel flow rate will be con-
tinuously monitored.
e. CALCULATIONS
(i) CVS Total exhaust volume (Vmix) will be determined
from the number of revolutions of the positive
displacement pump. This will be corrected to
528 degreesR and 760mm Hg. The final grams-per-mile
figure for each pollutant will be determined through
the following formulae:
21
-------
Where: P is density
C is concentration in ppm
K is concentration in per cent
E is emission in grams per mile
d is the distance driven in nine repititions
of the driving cycle
EHC " VMIX PHC CHC . 10-6
d
Eco = VMIX - PCO Kco 10~2
%0 = VMIX PNO CNO 10~
(ii) Continuous Sampling For each mode, an average
fuel flow rate will be measured, and converted
to an average carbon atom flow rate (in moles
per second). The average HC, CO, and CC^ reading
for each mole will be converted to mole percent,
and added. The average flow rate for each mode
is then R»tj- where F is the fuel flow rate in
moles carbon/seconds and S is the sum mole percent of
HC, CO, and C02« For each mole R is then con-
verted to Ry, a volume flow rate by l) converting
to 528 degrees R and j60 mm Hg; 2) multiplying
by a constant to convert from moles/sec, to
cubic feet/ sec.. Pollutant mass M for mole i
and pollutant K is then:
MK,i RVi ' *i CK - PK
Where t^ is the time spent in mode i, and P^ is the
density of pollutant K. The Mjf j are summed over
the 10 modes and nine repititions of the driving
cycle divided by the distance traveled over nine
cycles. This gives the final grams per mile
figure for each pollutant.
2. HYBRID - ELECTRICS
a. SETUP The setup will be identical to that described
in Section V.B.I.a.
b. OPERATING PROCEDURE The vehicle will be run at a con-
stant speed of 50mph for 10 minutes. The on-board
charging source will remain on throughout this period.
c. SAMPLING Constant Volume Sampling will be employed.
d. CALCULATIONS Test values will be converted to grams
22
-------
of pollutant per unit of fuel. Fuel consumption will be
taken over the length of the race. The final grams
per mile figure vill be found by multiplying fuel
consumption by the grams of pollutant per unit of fuel
and dividing by the total miles traveled.
C. VEHICLE PERFORMANCE TESTING Four specific tests will be con-
ducted by the Committee to determine the entrant vehicle's per-
formance characteristics for scoring purposes.
1. BRAKING The entrant vehicle braking time and distance will
be measured and recorded for two controlled stop situations:
a) SOmph to full stop; and
b) 60mph to full stop
The test will be conducted by running each entrant vehicle
in a 12 foot wide lane demarcated by pylons on a level
roadway. The test must be run a minimum of two times for
each controlled stop situation. If any pylons are knocked
over during the controlled stop, brakes may be adjusted
and the test must be repeated. If the entrant vehicle
fails to complete the test on more than two runs, the
vehicle's brakes must be repared and the entire braking test
must be repeated on the following day.
2. ACCELERATION The entrant vehicle acceleration time and
distance will be measured and recorded for three speed range
situations:
a) Omph to 30mph
b) Omph to U5mph
c) 20mph to 50mph
A minimum of two separate test runs will be conducted for
each speed range.
3. NOISE Noise measurements in units of dB(A) will be made
on each entrant vehicle according to the test procedure
specified in SAE J986a for the following driving situations:
a) 30mph open throttle,
b) 30mph cruising,
c) 60mph cruising, and
d) idle
k. URBAN DRIVING CYCLE This consists of a driving course lay-
out on a paved flat surface with the route demarcated by pylons
so that memory will not be necessary to remain on course. This
route is designed to test entrant vehicle generalized per-
formance and manuverability by simulating an urban driving
cycle trip. Included in the course layout are straight
sections, corners, connecting turns, a back-up situation, and
a lane change. At least three members of each entrant team
are required to drive the vehicle in this event. The time
each team member takes to negotiate the route will be measured
and recorded by a Committee official. A vehicle safety
check will be conducted by Committee officials prior to
the entrant vehicle's first run on the urban driving cycle
course.
23
-------
D. ENTRANT QUALIFICATION TEST The requirements for entrant vehicle
performance characteristics have been defined in Section III.
Measurements will be made of the pertinent parameters associated
with each requirement, and the information will be recorded in
the entrant's file. The specific tests to be conducted on each
entrant vehicle include the following:
1) Acceleration time and distance from 0 to k5mphi
2) Time to travel a 60 mile distance on a level roadway with-
out refueling; highway speed limits must be obeyed during the
test.
E. VEHICLE ENDURANCE TEST CAGE cross-country travel will be
considered a measure of entrant vehicle endurance and reliability.
Specific parameters to be measured and recorded are the obser-
ver's responsibility and include the following:
1) Entrant vehicle fuel consumption: type of fuel and quantity
thereof;
2) Entrant elapsed driving time for each leg of the CACR route;
3) Repairs, adjustments, and modifications of any type to the
entrant vehicle.
This information will be recorded in the "Observer's Report" and
kept in the respective entrant's file which will be maintained
by the Committee. This procedure has been described in detail in
Section IV.E
F. OTHER MEASUREMENTS Other information which will be recorded
by the Committee includes the following measurements:
l) Vehicle weight
2) Vehicle passenger capacity
3) Tires: make, dimensions, and pressures
It) Traveling range without refueling or recharging
-------
VI. SCORING
A« SCORING FORMULA Each vehicle shall have a score derived from
the following formula:
S E(P+R)
where:
E a emissions score
P = performance score
R = race score
The entrant obtaining the highest score in each class using the
above formula shall be declared the class winner. (Ref: Section
I.G.)
B. RESPONSIBILITY The Committee will be responsible for determin-
ing the score for each entrant, and all scores so determined will
be considered final.
C. EMISSIONS SCORE The emissions score shall be based entirely
on values obtained from the cold start test cycle procedure.
1. FORMULA Each vehicle in classes I, II, III, V, and VI
shall have an emissions score as determined by the follow-
ing formula (all variable values will be recorded in grams
per mile):
1/3 f HC + CO + NOJ
L-5 11 .9 J
where:
HC - max [ncmeasured, 0.25J
CO - max [C0measured, 4.7 J
NOX - max[NOx measured, 0.4J
2. RANGE The emissions score, E, shall have a maximum
formula value of 2.2.
3. BONUS If the vehicle tested exceeds all the proposed
1980 Federal standards on pollution emissions
[HC 0.25; CO 4.7; and NOX 0.4], the Committee shall
award the entrant an emissions score value of 2.5.
25
-------
D. PERFORMANCE SCORE -- The performance shall consist of the
unweighted sums of four tests.
1.
SCORE
SCORE DIVISION ~ Scoring shall be divided into the
following:
a* BRAKING TEST Braking distances will be measured
for two controlled stop situations. Two distance
measurements for each situation will be converted
to respective net deceleration rates. Points will
be awarded according to the following scoring curve:
250
6g .85g
Average Net
Deceleration Rate
b.
ACCELERATION TEST An average acceleration rate
measurement will be made for each of the three speed
ranges specified in Section V.C.2 . The three values
will be averaged in an unweighted sum to compute a net
average acceleration rate. Points will be awarded
using the following scoring curve:
250
SCORE
.35g
Average Net
Acceleration Rate
c.
NOISE MEASUREMENT TEST -- The dB(A) readings recorded
in the four noise measurement tests specified in Section
V.C.3 will be arithmetically averaged and the final
value rounded to the nearest dB(A). Points will be
awarded using the scoring curve illustrated below.
250
SCORE
r
r i
i
i i i ! i
i i i i r i ^
0 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 90
26
Average
dB(A) Reading
-------
SCORE
URBAN DRIVING CYCLE EVENT An average driving cycle
time will be computed for each entrant by determining
the unweighted average of the best recorded times for
each of three team members. Points will be awarded
usiftg the following scoring curve:
250
Average Driving
Cycle Time (seconds)
The constants c^ and 02 will respectively determine
the minimum and maximum average driving cycle times
and will be established by the Committee when the
final driving cycle course has been set up.
RANGE The highest possible performance score value
is 1000 points. The max score value for the scoring
curves illustrated in the preceding section is 250.
Each test, then, has a range of 0 to 250 points for
scoring purposes.
B. RACE SCORE The race score shall be based on a comparison of
the entrant elapsed driving time (Ref: Section IV.I.I) and
the normalized driving time.
1. NORMALIZED DRIVING TIME The NDT is an unweighted
average of elapsed driving times compiled by a minimum
of three official Committee cars during the day in which
that particular leg is driven. The determination of
NDT will be as follows:
a. When the posted speed limit is 45mph or lower, the
official Committee cars will travel at the speed
limit.
b. When the posted speed limit is SOmph or higher, the
official Committee cars will travel at a speed of
5mph below the speed limit.
c. When the speed limit is not posted, the official
cars will travel at a speed of 65 mph.
d. The official Committee cars will follow the traffic
laws and regulations of all states, cities, and
towns.
27
-------
e. NOT shall include all time taken by the vehicle in
completing the leg. This time includes all refuel-
ing; however, it will not include time taken, if
any, for road repairs made on the official Committee
cars.
2. SCORING CURVE ~ Each entrant vehicle shall have its
leg score determined by the following curve:
I
.95NDT
1.05NDT
SCORE
.75NDT
l.ONDT
1.5NDT
Entrant Elapsed
Driving Time
3. PENALTY Should the observer report a violation of
either traffic laws and regulations or the CACR Official
Rules, the entrant shall be penalized a percentage of
his score for that leg. Penalties shall not exceed
fifteen (15) percent for each violation. The penalty
shall be determined by the panel hearing protests at
the impound.
4. TOWING Should the vehicle become disabled to the ex-
tent that it must be towed (Ref. Section IV.H.2), the
observer will note the actual length of time the entrant
is under tow. The tow time shall be doubled for pur-
poses of deriving the total driving time.
Upon repair, the vehicle will not be required to
return to the point of breakdown, but rather may con-
tinue from the "repair station."
5' RANGE The highest possible race score value is 1000
points. The points will be distributed for each leg
according to the percentage of total official miles in
that leg.
6. DISQUALIFICATION The entrant is expected to complete
a leg within 24 hours of his assigned departure time.
(Time-outs will not be counted.) Any entrant vehicle
not completing the leg in this period must be dropped
from the race.
END OF OFFICIAL RULES
28
-------
ADDENDA TO THE OFFICIAL RULES
The following should be added to the section of the rules as in-
dicated:
III.B.4.C. All entrant vehicles are expected to have a portable fire
extinguisher with the following capabilities:
(1) it must be easily accessible for a person sitting
in the driver seat position;
(2) it must be held securely in place during periods
of vehicle travel; and
(3) a dry chemical powder as recommended by Fire
Departments in suggested by the Committee.
V.B.l.e.(ii) Second and third sentences should read: "The average HC,
CO, and C0£ reading for each mode will be converted to mole
percent carbon atoms and added. The average flow rate for
each mode is them R » F/S where F is the fuel flow rate in
moles of carbon/sec, and S is the sum concentration of HC,
CO, and COp in terms of mole percent carbon atoms."
VI. A. Overall scoring formula should read:
S - E (P + R + FE)
where: FE = fuel economy score
VI. C.I Should be entitled: EMISSIONS SCORE FOR VEHICLES IN ALL
CLASSES EXCEPT CLASS IV.
VI. C. 2 EMISSIONS SCORE FOR VEHICLES IN CLASS IV For vehicles in
class IV, the value of E shall be determined by the total
power consumed over the length of the Race, i.e. ,
(0.5) (3562)
where P total is the power consumed recharging the vehicle on
the Race, as measured in kwh by the observer.
VI.E.l.f. In addition to the NDT, the Committee will post an Announced
Driving Time (ADT) for all legs prior to the Race start.
29
-------
VI.E.2 Correct the scoring curve to read:
Leg Score
.95 min(NDTf ADT)
1.05 tnax(NDT, ADT)
I
,75 min(NDT,ADT)
NDT
1.50 max(NDT,ADT)
Entrant
Elapsed
Driving
Notes: The emissions score (Rule VI.C.) was modified to account
for system degragation by inserting deterioration factors. A
description of the final emissions scoring procedure is found
in Chapter V of this document.
A discussion of the fuel economy score after its inclusion into
the overall scoring formula is found in Chapter IV of this
document.
30
-------
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
-------
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The Clean Air Car Race Organization Committee gratefully thanks
the following sponsors and contributors, without whose assistance our
task would have been impossible.
Ann Arbor Chamber of Commerce
American Institute of Mineral, Metallurgical, and Petroleum Engineering
Atlantic Richfield Company, Tulsa, Oklahoma
Automotive Research Association, San Antonio, Texas
Bolt, Beranek and Newman, Cambridge, Massachusetts
Boston Edison Company, Boston, Massachusetts
Cabot Corporation, Boston, Massachusetts
Call-A-Computer, Minneapolis, Minnesota
The California Institute of Technology
Central State College, Edmond, Oklahoma
The Chrysler Corporation
The City of Odessa
The City of Toronto
Classic Motors, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma
Copper Development Association, New York, New York
Cornell Aeronautical Laboratories, Buffalo, New York
Country Gas Company, Danvers, Massachusetts
Department of Transportation
Dresser Industries, Dallas, Texas
E. I. DuPont Corporation, Wilmington, Delaware
Edison Electric Institute, New York, New York
Electric Energy Conversion Corporation, New York, New York
Electric Fuel Propulsion, Ferndale, Michigan
Electric Vehicle Council, New York, New York
Engelhard Minerals and Chemicals Corporation, Newark, New Jersey
Esso Research, Linden, New Jersey
Ethyl Corporation Research Laboratories, Ferndale, Michigan
Fairbanks Morse Scales Division of Colt Industries
The Ford Motor Company
Fram Corporation, Providence, Rhode Island
General Motors Corporation
Goodyear Tire and Rubber Company
Greater Oklahoma City Motor Car Dealers Association
Los Angeles Air Pollution Control District
Lowell Gas Company, Lowell, Massachusetts
The Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Members of the M.I.T. Corporation
M.I.T. Club of Southern California
Murchison Brothers, Dallas, Texas
The Museum of Science, Boston, Massachusetts
The Museum of Science and Industry, Chicago, Illinois
The National Air Pollution Control Administration (APCO)
National Cowboy Hall of Fame, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma
National LP Gas Association, Chicago, Illinois
National Rural Electric Cooperative Association, Washington, D. C.
-------
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS (continued)
Odessa Butane Company, Odessa, Texas
Oklahoma City Chamber of Commerce
Olson Laboratories, Dearborn, Michigan
Ontario Department of Tourism and Information
Peter Fuller Cadillac-Olds, Boston, Massachusetts
Polaroid Corporation
Pyle National Company, Chicago, Illinois
Richard Mellon Foundation
Rockefeller Foundation
Scott Research, Plumsteadville, Pennsylvania
Southwest Research Institute, San Antonio, Texas
Standard Oil of California
Standard Oil of New Jersey
Suburban Propance Company, Brockton, Massachusetts
Sun Electric Corporation, Chicago Illinois
Texaco Research and Technical Department, Becicon, New Jersey
Texas Liquid Petroleum Gas Association
Tucson Chamber of Commerce
The University of Arizona
The University of Illinois
The University of Michigan
The University of Toronto
Vernitron Corporation, Maiden, Massachusetts
Westinghouse Electric Corporation
Xerox Corporation
The Organization Committee also wishes to thank the following
utility companies for their efforts in constructing the Transcontinental
Electric Expressway.
Arizona Public Service Company, Tucson, Arizona
Boston Edison Company, Boston, Massachusetts
Cambridge Electric Light, Cambridge, Massachusetts
Central Illinois Public, Mattoon, Illinois
Commonwealth Edison Company, Decatur, Illinois
Community Public Service Company, Fort Worth, Texas
Consumers Power, Jackson, Michigan
Detroit Edision Company, Detroit, Michigan
El Paso Electric Company, El Paso, Texas
Empire District Electric Company, Joplin, Missouri
Illinois Power Company, Decatur, Illionis
Imperial Irrigation District, Imperial, California
Indiana and Michigan Electric, Benton Harbor, Michigan
Lebanon Municipal Light Department, Lebanon, Missouri
Massachusetts Electric Company, Worcester, Massachusetts
Niagara Mohawk Power, Syracuse, New York
Northern Indiana Public Service, Gary, Indiana
Oklahoma Gas and Electric Company, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma
Ontario-Hydro,Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Pasadena Municipal Light and Power Company, Pasadena, California
Public Service Company of Oklahoma, Tulsa, Oklahoma
-------
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS (continued)
Public Service of New Mexico, Albequerque, New Mexico
Rantoul Light and Power Department, Rantoul, Illinois
Rio Grande Electric Cooperative, Marfa, Texas
Rochester Gas & Electric, Rochester, New York
Rolla Municipal Utilities, Rolla, Missouri
San Diego Gas and Electric Company, San Diego, California
Southern California Edison Company, Los Angeles, California
Southwestern Public Service, Amarillo, Texas
Springfield City Utilities, Springfield, Missouri
Sullivan Municipal Light Department, Sullivan Missouri
Sulphur Springs Valley Electric Cooperative, Inc., Wilcox, Arizona
Texas Electric Service Company, Fort Worth, Texas
Tucson Gas and Electric Company, Tucson, Arizona
Union Electric Company, St. Louis, Missouri
Wellton-Mohawk Irrigation, Wellton, Arizona
Western Massachusetts Electric Company, West Springfield, Massachusetts
------- |