Hello! if you're new here, you may want to subscribe to the SolidSmack RSS feed or to the free email updates. Thanks for visiting!
Well, right after slapping SolidWorks on the wrist for an inaccurate case study about car design, we’ll move on to a car that just might be completely created with SolidWorks. You can at least get SolidWorks models eDrawing Model Files for it… earth-friendly eDrawing model files models.
Hybrid Cars are all the craze with the imminent melting, cooling, melting of the earth, but waiting for the car manufacturers to reap the toils of current mpg and emission standards is expensive and annoying.
However, you can now order the complete plans to build your very own XR-3. A three-wheel, plug-in, diesel-electric amalgamation of a car for years of fuel-efficient romping about.
At just 1300 pounds, this high-performance design combines lightening-fast acceleration, a maximum speed of 85 mph, and fuel economy of 125- to over 200-mpg.
Its clam-shell canopy and three-wheel platform boldly differentiates the XR-3 from conventional passenger cars. The vehicle’s hybrid power system, diesel engine, and low curb weight are the main ingredients of its super-high fuel economy and excellent performance. Acceleration equal to that of a conventional car and a maximum speed of 85 mph make the XR-3 Hybrid equally at home on freeways and surface streets.
For those who are willing and able, this provides an opportunity to start with something already designed, then make modifications and improvements on the original. Open-source cars, if you will… but not exactly as LK points out below in the comments.
Just send in $200 and the plans and SolidWorks models are all yours for the pickin’. More XR-3 Pics and Plans.
Thanks to Ben for the story via Jalopnik.
If you haven't already, consider subscribing to SolidSmack so you can easily receive updates when new articles are published or announcements are made.
Kudos to the Imagineers that dreamed up this design, it looks cool, but impractical to me.
1. It sits so low to the ground, it would be difficult to see, like recumbent bicycles are difficult to see while driving. Imagine an 18 wheeler making a hard right turn and not seeing this vehicle along side.
2. So many cool designs have tremendous blind spots at the B/C pillar.
3. It appears to offer very little crash protection or even inclement weather protection.
4. But, it looks cool!
Devon
Out here in California, the Department of Motor Vehicles has made it very, very difficult to build any type of “kit” vehicle. Sure, you can build it yourself, but forget about getting it licensed for use on public streets. It’s too bad, really.
Devon
Devon it is a common misconception that low to the ground means hard to see. Contrary to popular belief they are easier to see. Think of it this way have you ever seen a small woodland creature cross the path of your car? Quite likely you have… Did you hit it or did you do your best to dodge the animal? Well weather you are a small creature hater or a tree hugger the fact remains that you did see it, it was small, likely low to the ground and you had time to decide weather to hit it our not. It has shown also in studies that unique or strange objects instantly catch the eye of 99% of the human population. Now with those two things in mind I disagree with the hard to see comment.
Having worked many many years in the aircraft industry and having to do approvals of aircraft and now in some recent cases of getting a car approved for on the road I would have to say it is easier to get a aircraft approved. Still you see unique vehicles on the road. One way to make this easy is to have a motorcycle. With the recent chopper movement this has been show that even hacks can get a “motorcycle” on the road. Now a trike is considered a motorcycle so the approval process is much easier.
I would have to sit in the vehicle to see the blind spots and although you may be right that there are some blind spots how would you know unless you sat in it? I still agree that you are likely right on this.
Here is some other motorcycles you may want to look at as well and the T-Rex is very crash worthy.
http://go-t-rex.com/
http://spyder.brp.com/
Hi Ben-
Thanks for sharing those links. At first glance, the Can-Am looks interesting to me.
Devon
Correct me if I’m wrong here…From the site.
The XR-3 Deluxe Plans Package is priced at $200. The Deluxe version includes everything from the Standard version plus a CD-ROM and DVD.
The CD-ROM will include electronic 2D CAD files (SolidWorks e-Drawing files and dxf files), 3D models in SolidWorks e-Drawing formats, links to free viewers, and a construction manual set up to run in a web browser with click-to-enlarge color photos, video clips, iges files for CNC machining, and more.
So if I’m reading this correctly, there are no native SW files…?
I see:
E-drawings
DXF
3D models in E-drawing format
iges
No mention of SW parts/assemblies or native SW drawings…
“Open Source?” Kinda’…
Am I being picky…? Kinda’…
LK
But to add to the above…
Its a great idea put down on paper…Farm tractor engine with a VW transmission! Gotta’ love the creativity!
I really think that Bio-diesel is a great option for the time being. Until the next big thing hits…
LK
—But does it have cup holders? And can I put a set of 20″ rims with spinners on it?
Yep, your right. I agree, a bit misleading huh. Although, if you have the eDrawing model files you can export them as .stl file you can then import into SolidWorks. Still though, would be nice to actually have files with the features you could edit. It’s a start I guess.
Actually the STL function is one that the maker of the file needs to allow you to do. I would suspect that you might not be able to get the STL data.
Ben
Josh,
You can only export those edrawing models IF they set it up initially to allow you to pull that info…Right?
But I can do the same thing with the IGES files… No?
Its cool and all, but I think I’ll stick with my Motorcycle and 70 MPG…
L.Kutcher
yeah, pretty lame, native files would be the best, but still kinda cool. I’d rather it be a four-wheeler, even though it would lower the MPG.
4 wheels and say 26% less MPG…That’d still be ok.
Funny how the big 3 say they do not have the tech to build a car that will meet the new MPG law that “may?” go into effect…What was it, 35 MPG?…
Maybe their Eng dept needs to give this guy a call…?
I’ve always heard it was market politics and limiting the technology to the minimum required limits to build dominance and backlog. Ya know, adding a little more each version instead of all at once so the consumer keeps consuming. I doubt that wouldn’t be beyond them.
I’m sure they’ve developed better technology than this guy, but they may send their engineering hitmen after him, just make sure.
Yah’, could you imagine a car that was actually reliable to over 200K miles!!!?
Hum, I hit 220K miles with a Nissan Altima.
I hit 287K miles with a Subaru Legacy.
I guess they don’t have the same politics and marketing gurus…
Next car, Honda.
See a pattern…?
Then, when (”they”, all of the MFGs) -get their acts together (decide to sell really economic/ reliable/torque monsters), there will be a Diesel Accord sitting in the garage…Yah ~60 MPG and less pollutants than the Gas version. Imagine that.
Either that or a BMW 1 series diesel thats just about in the same ball park for MPG with a notch up on “spirited” driving abilities…That is, if we get to see them on these here shores.
Hi Devon,
You said that this was designed using SolidWorks.. Can you please let me know how difficult it is to design such complex curved using the software…
Please e-mail me for my phone # … Thanks…
Thanks,
Paul