The Very Light Car

Edison2 was founded by Oliver Kuttner, a Virginia entrepreneur and auto enthusiast, and is headquartered in Lynchburg, Virginia. The VLC development involved over 100 of its own and other companies' employees. After the contest, the team brought on designer Jason Hill and electric vehicle expert Ron Cervan.{{cite web|url=http://www.edison2.com/future-plans/|title=Edison2 - Future Plans|website=Edison2.com|accessdate=17 April 2018}}

File:Henry Ford Museum August 2012 93 (2010 Edison2).jpg

Their four competition vehicles were powered by small (250cc) one-cylinder E85-gasohol-fueled internal combustion engines. The aim was to achieve the prize's requirement of 100 MPGe or higher fuel economy.{{cite web |url=http://www.progressiveautoxprize.org/files/downloads/auto/PIAXP_Guidelines_V_1.3.pdf |title=Archived copy |website=www.progressiveautoxprize.org |access-date=17 January 2022 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20101228194613/http://www.progressiveautoxprize.org/files/downloads/auto/PIAXP_Guidelines_V_1.3.pdf |archive-date=28 December 2010 |url-status=dead}} A small E85 internal combustion engine was chosen for the competition in order to have the lowest possible powerplant and fuel weight, high energy density, low pumping losses, and an engine design with an efficiency sweet spot at cruising speed; while meeting mileage and emission standards.{{cite web|url=http://www.edison2.com/blog/2010/6/9/e85.html|title=Edison2 - Very Light Blog - E85|website=Edison2.com|accessdate=17 April 2018}} The fuel-vs-batteries tradeoff was especially onerous in the mainstream class, because it had a higher 200-mile range requirement, doubling the potential size of a heavy battery pack for hybrid and EV designs.

Their two 4-passenger cars were the only qualifiers in the finals of the "mainstream" division of the competition. All other mainstream entrants broke down in qualifying rounds or failed to achieve minimum MPGe requirements. One of them won the 2010 division prize of $5 million with a fuel economy of 102.5 MPGe. Edison2 could not participate in final validation tests at Argonne Laboratories because two engines were damaged during the coast-down portion of final tests before validation. "Competition officials ruled that Edison2 was not at fault for the incidents at Coast Down that damaged the engines of both of their Mainstream Class entries." In the absence of time and finances to repair and calibrate engines, "officials granted Edison2 a waiver from validation testing. However, Roush laboratories, a separate third party, had conducted dynamometer tests for Edison2 in preparation for Knockout and Finals rounds of the Xprize, and officials reversed an earlier decision to eliminate any vehicle unable to complete validation and agreed to review those results to determine whether they can be accepted in lieu of testing at Argonne."{{cite web| url = http://autoblog.xprize.org/axp/2010/08/the-competition-isnt-over-yet-why-validation-matters.html#comments| title = The Competition Isn't Over Yet: Why Validation Matters| accessdate = 2011-03-31| author = Eric Cahill| publisher = Progressive Automotive XPrize Blog}} After Coast Down and before tests at Argonne Labs, Xprize officials determined: "The engine failures were found to have been caused by third-party drivers of the vehicles, however, and were not blamed on vehicle design or capabilities." Edison2 was permitted to provide independent third-party validation reports instead of undergoing the same validation testing as other finalist teams.{{cite web| url = http://blogs.edmunds.com/greencaradvisor/2010/08/auto-x-prizes-mainstream-finalist-gets-ok-to-provide-own-validation-results.html| title = Auto X-Prize's 'Mainstream' Finalist Gets OK to Provide Own Validation Results| accessdate = 2011-03-31| author = John O'Dell| publisher = Edmunds.com Green Car Advisor| url-status = dead| archiveurl = https://web.archive.org/web/20100820062230/http://blogs.edmunds.com/greencaradvisor/2010/08/auto-x-prizes-mainstream-finalist-gets-ok-to-provide-own-validation-results.html| archivedate = 2010-08-20}} Progressive Automotive Xprize posted Edison2's final MPGe results in a press release on their website.

In addition to its entries in the X Prize "mainstream" division, the team also entered one additional vehicle in each of the two "alternative" (2-passenger) divisions. The side by side alternative class entrant, #96, "failed to meet the minimum 67 MPGe fuel-economy requirement" during the knockout phase of the X Prize competition and was eliminated.[http://onlocation.consumerreports.org/xprize/edison2_very_light_car.html "Edison2 Very Light Car"], Consumer Reports. Retrieved on 30 April 2013. The tandem alternative class entry suffered catastrophic engine failure, possibly due to a software problem, and was also eliminated.[http://www.dailyprogress.com/news/article_5d431504-1981-51aa-b082-1cc00809b530.html "A $2.5 million software problem: Catastrophic failure eliminates local supercar from competition"], "The Daily Progress", 27 July 2010. Retrieved 30 April 2013

After winning the X-Prize, Edison2 continues work on further VLC prototypes, developing more aerodynamic bodies, an electric drive train, and further refining the innovative in-wheel suspension. In addition, further prototypes are aimed more at consumer acceptance than bare-bones competition requirements. The eventual aim is to have established auto manufacturers pick up low-weight designs for mass production, and possibly license individual technologies, such as the in-wheel suspension.

• Shared the 2010 Progressive Insurance Automotive X PRIZE.
• Selected by Time Magazine as one of the 50 Best Inventions of the Year 2010{{cite news|url=http://www.time.com/time/specials/packages/article/0,28804,2029497_2030622_2029707,00.html|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20101114075919/http://www.time.com/time/specials/packages/article/0,28804,2029497_2030622_2029707,00.html|url-status=dead|archive-date=November 14, 2010|title=The 50 Best Inventions of 2010: Edison2|author=Bryan Walsh|publisher=Time Magazine|date=2010-11-11|accessdate=2010-11-17}}

{{Reflist}}

{{Commons category}}

• {{official|https://edison2motors.com}}
• Eric Cahill. [http://autoblog.xprize.org/axp/2010/08/the-competition-isnt-over-yet-why-validation-matters.html#comments "The Competition Isn’t Over Yet: Why Validation Matters"], Progressive Automotive XPrize Blog, August 26, 2010
• John O'Dell. [https://web.archive.org/web/20100820062230/http://blogs.edmunds.com/greencaradvisor/2010/08/auto-x-prizes-mainstream-finalist-gets-ok-to-provide-own-validation-results.html "Auto X-Prize's 'Mainstream' Finalist Gets OK to Provide Own Validation Results"] Edmunds.com Green Car Advisor, August 17, 2010.
• Bryan Gentry, [https://archive.today/20110716190609/http://www2.newsadvance.com/news/2010/jan/10/lynchburg_man_hopes_his_efficient_car_will_change_-ar-216077/ "Lynchburg Man Hopes His Efficient Car Will Change the Auto Industry"], The News and Advance, January 9, 2010
• Brian McNeill, [https://archive.today/20130120065445/http://www2.dailyprogress.com/news/cdp-news-local/2009/nov/08/car_of_tomorrow_kuttners_100_mpg_vehicle_still_in_-ar-95592/ "Car of Tomorrow: Kuttner's 100mpg Vehicle Still in X Prize Fight"], The Daily Progress, November 8, 2009
• [http://www.edison2.com Edison2 website]
• [http://www.progressiveautoxprize.org Progressive Insurance Automotive X Prize website]
• [https://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=128652416 "Light, Fuel-Driven Car Goes For 100 Mpg X Prize"], NPR Morning Edition, July 22, 2010

{{DEFAULTSORT:Very Light Car}}

Category:Sustainable transport

Category:Concept cars

Category:Microcars