These are turning out to be creative times for automakers tasked with developing electrified ideas, and Audi’s unique Urban concept with wireless charging is no exception.
Unveiled Sunday at the Frankfurt Motor Show, the ultralight 1+1 city car – made in a coupe and spyder version – is the response to a no-holds-barred question asking for new thinking.
Audi asked: “How much car is necessary to deliver driving pleasure and urban mobility in an entirely new way?”
Less is more: Audi Urban concept.
The answer, the company says, resulted in the birth to the Urban concept, adding that designers kept a sailplane model in the development studio as an example of lightweight construction, efficiency and reduction – and as a reminder of the principle of “less is more.”
Audi says the 1,058-pound (480-kg) vehicle is not based on any previous automotive category or Audi concept and “combines elements of a racing car, a fun car and an urban car into one radical new concept.”
It uses two 20-horsepower (15-kw) e-tron electric motors paired between the rear single-ratio-driven wheels delivering about 35 pound-feet (47 Nm) of torque.
The 7.1 kWh li-ion battery is transversely mounted behind the seats and weighs 198.5 pounds (90 kg).
Step in, have a seat, and take off with the roof open, if you like.
Performance is said to be 0-62 mph (0-100 kph) in 16.9 seconds. It gets to 37 mph (60 kph) in 6.9 seconds. Its European drive cycle range is 45 miles (73 mph).
Recharge time from 230-volt European house current is about an hour, and this time can reportedly be cut to 20 minutes when 400-volt, three-phase current is applied.
What’s more, the concept uses Audi Wireless Charging (AWC), a form of contactless induction charging.
The infrastructure side includes a coil and an inverter (AC/AC converter) placed on the Audi’s parking location – at home for now, and Audi is working on solutions for parking garages and more. A 3.6-kw primary coil set into the plate generates a high-frequency alternating field activated when the vehicle parks in place.
Neo-retro convertible. How would you feel riding around town in this?
How does it work?
“The alternating magnetic field of the infrastructure side induces an alternating current across the air gap in the secondary coil, which is integrated into the vehicle. This current is rectified and fed into the vehicle’s electrical system, where it charges the battery or powers consumers such as the heater. The alternating field is only generated if the vehicle is standing over the plate and thus poses no danger to people or animals.
The car’s shell material is carbon-fiber reinforced polymer (CFRP), and the occupant shell is a mix of aluminum and CFRP monocoque.
Getting in and out of it is just about as novel.
The vehicle’s cabin offers slightly offset seating for two with a roof that slides back for entry.
With fender-mounted LEDs lit.
Audi says without great flexibility required, driver and passenger step into the door-less vehicle much like you would a bathtub. To make it even more fun to drive, the sliding roof on the coupe can remain open in good weather.
Sitting in the car is said to be somewhat like sitting in an airplane cockpit. The driver can precisely adjust the positions of the aluminum pedals and steering column with both components being telescoping for a custom driving position.
Although driver and passenger sit next to one another, the right seat is offset to the rear by 11.81 inches (30 cm) to provide shoulder and elbow room. To save weight, the seats are fixed, integral components of the monocoque and covered with foam custom-fabricated to the customer’s measurements. The seat belts run through cutouts in the seat backs.
A mat covers parts of the floor, rather than carpeting. It is made from a water-repellant and durable technical textile originally developed for athletic shoes. The seats are covered with cloth, with the edges of the foam pads framed in kangaroo leather. Aluminum applications accentuate the dashboard.
Suspension is wishbone-type made from CFRP and aluminum to position the 21-inch free-standing wheels. Tire sizes are unique also at 125/60 in front and 145/50 in the rear.
Atop the fenders are innovative LED strips used as more conspicuous turn signal/marker lights.
“The highly concentrated look of the technical study, with its forward-urging lines, is dynamic and emotional – it lends Audi’s design language a completely new impetus,” Audi says.
The suspension mounts the struts like some racecars in a nearly horizontal fashion connected by pushrods. Four discs do the stopping duties.
The turning circle is less than 29.5 feet (nine meters) for maneuvering in tight city environments. No power assist is required for the rack-and-pinion steering.
Staggered seats and good visibility.
Audi says safety has been as studiously thought out as the rest of the car, with crumple zones in front and rear as well as two airbags to create a high degree of passive safety.
Included is an electronic assist to aid the driver in avoiding accidents with pedestrians.
Fresh ideas are good
Yesterday we saw Opel’s idea of lightweight urban mobility, today we see Audi’s.
We will see more designs this week and whether they make it to series production stage or merely lend new direction, it is positive for electric vehicles that manufacturers are spending this much effort.
German-language video has the sound turned off.
So, how would you re-engineer this to make it ready for prime time?
The Audi’s 45-mile range sounds a bit like a hard sell, but what if a vehicle like this was made a little larger, with more power capacity to enhance range and speed as well?
The mantra of “less is more” has been said to be particularly appropriate for EVs, as it helps maximize performance from a limited energy budget.
Less mass offer a cascade of benefits, including less power is required, which means smaller batteries and motor are needed, which means less to pay for, and it takes less time to recharge.
Or, how would this be as an EREV, say maybe with a 600cc three- or four-cylinder genset and a bit more battery/motor power as well?
If its head-turning looks were matched with more performance, it could be another step toward fun-to-drive solutions trumping other automaker’s more frumpy eco-friendly designs.
Like it or not, this car is more reminiscent of a vintage hotrod than something one would expect from Audi, and it appears to have a lot of the right stuff for improved possibilities to follow.
Audi.
This entry was posted on Tuesday, September 13th, 2011 at 5:55 am and is filed under General. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. Both comments and pings are currently closed.
Sep 13th, 2011 (6:10 am)This reminds me of the Edison2 VLC which won the mainstream class of the Automotive X Prize last year. It has all the main features of the VLC such as exceptionally low mass, aerodynamic shape with tapered tail and outboard wheels.
+5
Sep 13th, 2011 (6:56 am)As with yesterday’s vehicle from Opel, the “rear end” protection must be taken to our real world, since there are no bumpers or crash protection in this concept. That alone will add several pounds and change the power train design.
I have seen hundreds of concept vehicles, some were sold as scale model kits (I remember building the Mako Corvette of the sixties) which looked fabulous after building and painting, but in the real world these vehicles will not survive, and may violate crash worthy laws in several countries and in America.
We may dream about our ideal vehicle, but putting it on the road is never easy nor simple, unless the road is also yours and no one else travels on it.
Raymond
+1
Sep 13th, 2011 (7:47 am)As concept cars goes, I found another old design for the Corvette. I know that CorvetteGuy will like it, and if the Voltec -powered Corvette gets a green light for production, this Manta Ray design could be the inspiration:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Manta_Ray.jpg
Raymond
+4
Sep 13th, 2011 (8:48 am)“What’s more, the concept uses Audi Wireless Charging (AWC), a form of contactless induction charging.”
——————
This was the interesting part of the article for me. I hope more car companies (and other companies) experiment/implement this idea.
Sep 13th, 2011 (8:57 am)I’d like to see it a little wider so I’m not sitting in front. With the packaging allowed using motors, I think we’ll see a lot more like this.
One day, cars will be one-off limited production. Just replicate/print it from the computer rendering.
+4
Sep 13th, 2011 (9:04 am)I’d rather be in a GM Hy-Wire or EV-Wire.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Hy-wire1.JPG
NPNS!
Volt#671
+5
Sep 13th, 2011 (10:06 am)It would be really nice if these auto companies would show some “practical” concept vehicles that might have a better chance at production. I am tired of all of the futuristic concepts that will never make it beyond the auto show floor. They should be spending their money on actually creating vehicles that will save the consumers money and help save the environment. I am just not interested in wasting my time looking at and reading about these so-called concept vehicles unless they are pre-production models. Just my opinion.
I know many of you will disagree with me because you do find the concepts interesting and so on. That is fine. That is what makes the world go around, so to speak. I am more interesting in real-world solutions than pipe dreams.
+2
Sep 13th, 2011 (10:46 am)Take a look at Indy cars. They crash at 200mph and the driver walks away. It’s all a matter of how you define ‘crash protection’. With Indy cars, the wheels (and everything else not part of the central cage) are designed to come off the car and dissipate all that energy.
‘Bumpers’ in the traditional sense are not needed. Take a look at any newer car. The ‘bumper’ is made out of lightweight materials and designed to take some punishment. A lot more than a simple steel bumper can take.
I can see this kind of open wheel design protecting it’s passengers in the same way as an Indy car.
I think American DOT regulations started going off the rails when the 5-mph bumpers were mandated. It’s better to take some damage and protect the occupants than protect the car itself.
Sep 13th, 2011 (10:53 am)I hope the folks who worked on this had a good time. One possible problem is that the technological advancements may outstrip the designs as the motors and batteries get smaller and change the packaging. I note that these are all electric vehicles. If you have an EREV you have much bigger packaging issues.
+3
Sep 13th, 2011 (10:53 am)I kind of like the Prowler:
Sep 13th, 2011 (11:29 am)Love the Idea’s the more the merrier !
posted yesterday:When I turned 16 lived in Kaiserslautern Germany and the first thing I did was go buy a 50cc mopad to cruise around with friends. The Euro look’s a hell of a lot saver and dryer and warmer then the motor scooter I used everyday rain,snow or shine . So yes I would have LOVED the EURO and so would millions of kids I cruised with.
-1
Sep 13th, 2011 (11:57 am)If this Audi had the design and protection of an Indy car, it would be too expensive to buy as a daily car. I prefer the visible bumpers, front and rear. I bet that those Indy drivers have regular bumpers in their daily vehicles.
And I definitely don’t drive at Indy speeds!
Raymond
Sep 13th, 2011 (11:57 am)I thought this quote from the Wiki article was entertaining:
“In 2003, General Motors stated that it was confident that it could produce a commercially viable model by 2010″
Sep 13th, 2011 (12:01 pm)This is a great design for countries that don’t have the standards that prevent such artistic creations. Good fender design for the road and the LED lighting shown in the video is very futuristic. If the car companies can’t manufacture them, at least rent the concepts to the movie studios for the enjoyment of seeing these designs in action.
Here is a car that never made it to mass production on our roadways, but what an inspiration and joy for everyone!
http://www.google.com/search?q=chitty+chitty+bang+bang+car&hl=en&tbo=u&prmd=ivns&tbm=isch&source=univ&sa=X&ei=9XxvToPuBePXiAKbkuHhBg&ved=0CDgQsAQ
Sep 13th, 2011 (12:09 pm)Love the Audi Urban!!
Audi may be thinking that small BEVs are the immediate practical future of EVs. 45 miles range is not too bad for Urban folks. Quick recharge opens up the possibility of suburban commuters too.
Wish they’d at least do a few thousand units for “branding braggadocio” and see what happens.
There would perhaps be a very strong demand but as always, the market will correct for pricing eventually, right Volt?
Sep 13th, 2011 (12:13 pm)They have lots of covered scooter options today (prob for much less than the Audi)
Sep 13th, 2011 (12:22 pm)GM already implemented this in 1996 with the EV1.. problem is that it costs 10 times as much and I think there are induction losses .. so just a plain plug is more effective.
Sep 13th, 2011 (1:01 pm)Of course I like the Manta Ray !
+1
Sep 13th, 2011 (1:12 pm)A few thoughts:
1. I am trying to imagine my wife getting out of that car wearing a skirt…..
2. With the lights flashing in the video, it looks like a car from the movie Tron.
3. The first good sized pothole would destroy most of that car!!!!!
+5
Sep 13th, 2011 (2:55 pm)Just watched the Series Finale of HBO’s “Entourage”. One of the shows most likeable characters “Lloyd” drove up near the end of the show and parked his Volt. It was on screen for a good 20 seconds, I think it was some smart product placement, although you never saw the back of the car or the name. I think less can be more though. Perhaps it wasn’t even a paid placement. That show is big among Hollywood elites I believe. Next stop, more celebs driving Volts than Prius’.
+1
Sep 13th, 2011 (3:12 pm)And indeed, the idea appears to be lifted from aviation:
http://blog.ratestogo.com/airplane-seats-cozy-suite/
… and not such a new idea at that (“Google Books” result; sorry, all I could find. Scroll down to next page to see staggered-seating diagrams):
http://tinyurl.com/1987-Scorpion-Concept
Sep 13th, 2011 (3:18 pm)One aspect of both the Audi concept and yesterday’s Opel one is that you would never be caught in a situation where someone parking too close cuts off access to your door (If you don’t mind climbing over a wheel strut, that is).
A unique design can have unique practicalities, even if conventional ones seem weak or non-existent.
Sep 13th, 2011 (3:29 pm)Um, where would you put it? Maybe a tiny rotary-engine-based generator could find space; but even so, a genset is hard to imagine for this concept. The range is far too short without one, but a better battery could mitigate this somewhat.
What kind of radio-frequency interference is likely to be generated? (emphasis added). You can get electrical effects at far lower levels than would be harmful to humans or pets. What, for example, would it do to a smartphone or other remote link? I have had occasional trouble with a cordless phone placed too close to a WiFi linked laptop.
Sep 13th, 2011 (3:38 pm)That was 15-years-ago technology, and they only used small panels, that you had to put on the car anyway, so you might as well plugged it in.
In case you have missed these discussions here, do some reading on Witricity (over 95% efficient at long ranges)
http://www.witricity.com/
Or plugless power
http://www.pluglesspower.com/unleash/
Sep 13th, 2011 (3:41 pm)John W (Tampa),
Nice catch. I keep seeing the Nissan Leaf ads with the Volt parked a the gas station. I’m ready for GM to create a response ad showing the Leaf getting towed as the Volt drives by.
+1
Sep 13th, 2011 (4:00 pm)It’s nice to know our world’s major automakers have budgets that allow these flights of fancy. It seems to me, however, that there are too many of such flights. Auto companies also have large budgets for racecar and ICE race engine development – it’s all figured into the bottom line of each and every pedestrian automobile we purchase.
My dad and I used to argue just how much tech transfer comes from racing, and my argument was that the safety lessons are definately productive, but making ICEs faster and more durable with a near bottomless budget is hard to replicate into efficiency and speed anyone could actually benefit from in normal, everyday driving conditions. Does the cost justify the upside?
It’s the same with these concept eye candy machines developed for the car show circuit. How many engineers and artists are employed to work on these nearly imaginary vehicles that could, otherwise, be working on cars that, in some form, could actually be made for sale?
Certainly lots of thought went into a Nissan Land Glider, Renault Twizy, Volkswagen ILS or these Audi cars. They provide buzz and internet exposure – so the big brass of each company must feel that is enough to justify the cost. I cannot say I agree.
On the plus side, there definately could be a use for such machines in Europe and Asia where I’ve personally seen the population and congestion problems even in small villages or suburban areas. Narrow vehicles where lanes can be split to accomodate twice the traffic flow – and EVs can use the no emission zones.
Also – if you read between the lines of hype/futuro-speak, you can see what engineers are thinking to improve the autos they make that will actually make it into production. In these concepts the amount of weight reduction is key. I think there is room for cars like Volt to lose some fat in lighter battery packs, lighter seat systems and use of materials in some structural areas. Boeing is showing us with the 787 what can be done with new-era composites. These Audis show similar attributes to Aptera and other X-Prize contenders – where frontal area is reduced by eliminating traditional fenders and covering the front wheels with wheel pants. The suspensions, as in race cars, are designed to sheer off in frontal offset collisions where the passenger area is surrounded by a tubular cage.
If aero drag is so reduced, why would Audi engineers insist on this thing’s nose to be abrupt and verticle – proudly displaying their trademark shape? Is this worth the aerodynamic loss? All told, I think these excercises add unnecessary and unneeded cost to the vehicles we buy.
VOLT – IT’S MORE FREEDOM THAN ELECTRIC! .
James
Sep 13th, 2011 (4:40 pm)Hi Jackson,
The thing that caught my attention about the car is Audi is going for the “less is more” school of thought – a decided departure from the “too much is never enough” school of American SUVs leading up to Hummers and Suburbans as solo-vehicles, etc.
I interviewed and wrote a story about an electric motorcycle designer a few months ago who touted the benefits of lighter weight with regards to performance. (Safety would not necessarily be an advantage, unless a lot more people also started to scale down their cars).
The chief disadvantage to BEVs at present is battery potential – heavy, and low energy density means short range and heavier than ICE vehicles.
A way to overcome it is go for lighter weight designs.
In the article, I suggested maybe a vehicle a bit larger would work
RE: “… what if a vehicle like this was made a little larger, … ”
This tiny car weighs under 1,100 pounds which is minimalistic to the extreme. Lengthening and widening a vehicle and keeping it under, say, 2,200 pounds (or 1000 kilos) would be a very light car).
Do that, then you could put in your 600-800cc genset, 12-kwh battery, more powerful motors, maybe even one of the new multispeed transmissions (don’t hold me to the exact weight, but you get the idea).
The idea is the know how is there, and I am looking at this car as a starting point.
What I like about it is it’s trying to be viscerally exciting, and light weight in the extreme.
Its looks and performance potential capture the imagination which is a major plus compared to more boring alternatives.
They are on the right track, that’s all I’m suggesting.
Sep 13th, 2011 (5:14 pm)Jeff Cobb,
I do agree that lighter construction can do a lot for an EV, and that there is definitely a market waiting for a smaller EREV. I’d love to see GM work up something like an EREV Sonic … But by the time you enlarge cars like the Opel or Audi wheel-pod city concepts (from today and yesterday), in order to carry bigger batteries and an engine, I’m afraid you would quickly morph them into another, much more heavy class of car: snore-mobiles not that different from what we’ve already seen. (This is why I said better battery instead of a larger one … it may be that we won’t see even a decent 1 + 1 BEV until there are cells of a much higher energy density).
Yes, it’s a step along a promising road, but somehow I don’t think it will be this particular concept which takes the next step along it. I can’t say why, exactly; except maybe that it has “Concept” and “Show Car” a little too deeply stenciled across it. The lightweight materials they’re talking about don’t come cheaply, either. It seems a vast departure from the rest of Audi’s line, unless the cost will be exorbitant. Has Audi dared mention probable costs?
I also have to admit that I’m not a fan of the styling. It looks too much like someone hit a big Audi sedan with a shrink-ray. I’d much rather see something like the Opel with a little range extender.
Sep 13th, 2011 (5:25 pm)Absolutely. Sorry for not being more clear. Let me add, Audi allowed its engineers to think outside the proverbial box and use lightweight materials and unconventional designs.
That principle could be applied to an endless variety of more practical designs.
It’s the principles of not being confined to ICE designs and going for lightweight that I like. Short of cost-prohibitive exotic materials, can it be done safely and economically?
Shape it any way you like it. Just make it sub 2,500 pounds, and pack in other things needed: more range, power and a transmission of some form.
Audi has shown it can make a car under 1,100 pounds. Can’t someone do a 2 or 4-seater weighing twice or two-and-a-half times that? Why do they all have to weigh well over 3200 pounds up to and over two tons?
Sep 13th, 2011 (5:33 pm)I agree. Less can often be more, and never more so than in a mini.
By the way, GM should start (without exotic materials or basic re-engineering) with a Voltec model which skips the Volt’s space-capsule/Tokyo-by-night/gee-whiz “i-Car” instrumentation. Maybe they could leave it off of the Sonic EREV (and greatly reduce it’s costs as well).
Sep 13th, 2011 (5:37 pm)Right. Hopefully they plan to do that, and not too long from now either …
Sep 13th, 2011 (5:52 pm)The thing which limits a stronger or full-serial extended-range mode is not the engine. Like all electrics, an EREV’s capabilities are constrained by it’s batteries’. Batteries able to support many more charge/discharge cycles (than the ones in today’s EVs) would allow a much larger buffer between the generator’s output and the car’s driving requirements. A dinky, buzzy, fixed-output, two-cylinder genset could afford to take time catching up a larger charge deficit; without degrading or excessively aging the pack. I frankly don’t see another simple and small enough way to accomplish good EREV performance in so small a vehicle. Again, this may make a truly tiny EREV into a project for another day: when the batteries allow.
+1
Sep 13th, 2011 (7:09 pm)Why not add a third motor to drive the front wheels through a transaxle? You’d use a lower “fixed ratio” for this than the rear wheel motors, for several reasons:
1) Front drive is most useful and intuitive at low speeds, rear drive at high.
2) Most braking is done by the front wheels; using a lower ratio here would make for more regen, by turning the motor faster as it acts as a generator.
3) The car’s controller would shift power smoothly to the rear motors as the speed increases (never quite turning any off, except perhaps at the very highest and lowest speeds). This should result in much faster acceleration across a wide range of speeds.
You could use an extra pair of motors up front, but adding a third channel to the controller is expensive enough without making it four. Could two motors be used, one rear through a differential, and one front through a transaxle? Yes, the motors would need more power; but perhaps not as much as one might be tempted to think. Use of the two fixed ratios should work at least as well as a two-speed transmission …
Sep 13th, 2011 (8:34 pm)You may be grossly underestimating how cheap electronic components are, especially when they’re from China.
Sep 13th, 2011 (10:25 pm)I was mostly making an ironic comment about the bewildering gadget overload facing the driver of a Volt. It may or may not cost an awful lot, but I suspect that it will greatly add to driver distraction, and it gives the impression that you need all that complicated jazz to run a Voltec car (when in fact, as earlier prototypes proved, the clever drive train does it’s magic mostly in the background, transparently to the owner).
Sep 14th, 2011 (2:15 am)Not likely from an engineering standpoint. Maybe that’s why so much of the money comes from the marketing budget.
Sep 14th, 2011 (2:22 am)I would love to have one of these. If it was about 1500 lbs, with a well developed safety cage, bigger battery and two speed transmission it’d be perfect. Well on second thought, at only 1500 lbs the possible top speed of a two speed transmission would be going overboard