Site for Automotive Research

Space Exploration Technologies, better known as SpaceX, hopes launch its second Falcon 9 rocket in late October. The goal is putting its Dragon capsule in orbit for the first time.

The launch is part of a design and test program started in 2008 after the Southern California company, founded by Tesla Motors CEO Elon Musk, received a NASA contract for flights to the International Space Station. The $1.6 billion contract, for 12 cargo delivery flights, is part of NASA’s push to use commercial space flight operations once the space shuttle program is retired in 2011.

The October launch is expected to test the Dragon’s guidance and navigation systems during a planned three orbit trip, according to Aviation Week. The heat shield and reentry systems also will be used for the first time.

Earlier this month SpaceX successfully drop tested the Dragon off of the California coast. A large Erickson Aircrane helicopter lifted the capsule 14,000 feet over the Pacific and dropped it to test the parachute recovery system (shown in the pic above). It landed gently, a key step in the development of a capsule designed to carry astronauts into orbit and back to earth.

“By holding the Dragon to stringent standards for manned missions from the start,” Musk said in a statement after the drop, “tests like this will ensure the highest quality and reliability for Dragon over the long term.”

During the drop test, smaller drogue parachutes gradually slowed the capsule before three 116-foot chutes deployed. SpaceX says astronauts would experience only 2 to 3 times the force of gravity during a Dragon capsule reentry. Video of the drop test can be seen here.

SpaceX could conduct as many as three test flights during the next year, including a flight that would bring the Dragon within several miles of the space station and another where it would dock with the station.

The Falcon 9 rocket that will carry the Dragon reached orbit in June. It’s shown in the main photo lifting off at Cape Canaveral.

Cargo flights to the ISS are expected to begin next year. The Dragon also can be used to bring cargo back from the station, more than 5,500 pounds per trip. There is no word on when manned flights using the Falcon 9 rocket and Dragon capsule would begin.

In addition to the parachutes, thrusters on the capsule will be used to help guide the reentry to a precise landing point. SpaceX says they eventually plan to add landing gear so the capsule can touch down on land.

Main photo: Chris Thompson / Space X. Second photo: Roger Gilbertson / SpaceX

See Also:

• SpaceX Rocket Achieves Earth Orbit on First Flight
• SpaceShipTwo Makes First (Captive) Flight
• SpaceX Launch Successfully Delivers Satellite Into Orbit
• Exclusive Video of Virgin Galactic’s Test Flight
• Xoie Claims $1 Million Lunar Lander Prize

When Doug Small started drawing up plans for a homebrew electric car, he wanted to start with something lightweight, easy to work on and stylish. Naturally, he decided on an MG TD.

Purists needn’t worry, however, as no British roadsters were harmed during the construction of this electric car. This is a replica TD, a mere fiberglass shell atop the remnants of a Volkswagen Beetle.

Small, who lives in East Moline, Illinois, chose an old VW as a donor for the same reason so many Beetles end up battery-powered: They’re cheap, they’re easy to work on and they weigh almost nothing. While the replica body looks great, the primary reason for the Anglification was the 800 pound weight savings that came from replacing a Beetle’s steel body with a fiberglass shell that has neither roof nor pillars.

Small started planning the conversion four years ago and started construction in September, 2008. He did all the work himself.

“I started with a complete frame-off restoration from the chassis up,” he said. “The frame was infused with a new suspension, brakes, shocks, etc. The body was sanded, primed and repainted. The interior was pretty rough, so I completely started from scratch.”

Small crafted new door panels, trim and a wood dashboard, using aircraft switches and turned aluminum for an authentic look. Next up came the drivetrain, which consists of a rebuilt VW gearbox driven by the 40 horsepower D&D Electric DC motor, twelve 6-volt 240-amp lead acid deep cycle batteries and a few other easy-to-find parts.

“Everything was readily available online,” Small said. “The most difficult challenge was figuring out the battery layout. There was a bit of trial and error, but I finally found optimal battery positioning.”

The car has a range of 20 to 25 miles and the batteries take 6.5 hours to recharge. That’s not very far and not very fast, but Small says it’s ideal for a quick summertime jaunt along a country road. Top speed is 55 mph, though Small says it’s a fun car to drive at any speed.

“The performance is equivalent to a 40-horsepower Volkswagen Bug, but without the noise, oil leaks or gas consumption,” he said.

If it’s the looks that catch people’s attention, it’s the lack of that characteristic four cylinder engine note that holds their curiosity.

“The amount and types of looks the car receives is astounding,” he said. “There are many double takes and I think that the car might confuse people when they don’t hear an expected engine noise.”

Two weekends ago, the car got a second look from the judges at the Quad Cities British Auto Club who awarded the TD EV first place in the Special Interest category at the 2010 Autofest. We’re not sure if it’s in that category because it’s a replica, or because it was a British car without an oil leak.

Photos: Doug Small

When automakers and safety advocates show off the results of crash tests, they inevitably feature videos of their cars crashing into things, with or without dummies aboard. Back in the 1980s, federal safety regulators even turned a pair of crash test dummies into the stars of an ad campaign. What the industry doesn’t like talking about is how much safety innovation was developed testing cadavers.

Cadavers have been essential to making driving safer since the 1930s, when researchers at Wayne State University threw a body down an elevator shaft to determine the forces it could endure. Every part of a car touching on safety — from steering columns and laminated windshields to side-impact air bags — drew from tests with cadavers to ensure they work.

More recently, Ford’s been heavily promoting the inflatable rear seat belts in the 2011 Explorer. Ford says the feature provides five times the protection of a conventional belt. Less heavily promoted is the fact human cadavers played a role in their development.

“It’s still very important,” said Priya Prasad, a former top safety researcher at Ford, of using cadavers. “Even though we have very good math modeling of dummies, human modeling hasn’t reached that state yet.”

Automakers prefer to distance themselves from such ickiness. When a Swedish researcher told the newspaper Expressen in 2008 that General Motors and Saab were using cadavers in research, both companies quickly denied the story. And as far as the denial goes, it’s true: Automakers don’t have the medical resources that cadaver tests require.

But universities do. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration funds scores of cadaver tests annually; many of those schools also receive grants from automakers. The data they gather can be shared widely.

That’s the case with Ford’s inflatable seat belts, an idea Ford has tested for several years. The 2011 Explorer will be the first vehicle to offer the technology, and Ford has made the belts a highlight of the safety features offered to compete against other family haulers.

But before the system could be sold, Ford had to answer myriad questions. Just because the belts use air bags didn’t mean they would do a better job than the seat belts we’ve been using for more than 50 years. It could even be worse. For example, what would happen to children sleeping on the belts when they inflated?

Most of Ford’s tests used the family of conventional dummies developed by the industry, including ones that mimic children. But without a cadaver test, Ford couldn’t know for sure how the inflatable belt might affect internal organs and tissues.

Typically in cadaver tests, such as the test pictured here by the University of Michigan Transportation Research Institute, researchers swaddle the body, including the head, in stockings both for scientific reasons and out of respect. The arms and hands, if present, are bound to keep them still. Sensors record the forces on various parts.

After the test, researchers likely would have used X-rays and autopsies to examine any damage to the cadaver. Ford shared the results with NHTSA but deemed them confidential business information, so they aren’t accessible under a Freedom of Information Act request. But given that the inflatable airbag safety belts will be in the new Explorer, it’s reasonable to assume the tests were successful.

Universities that run such tests have standard procedures for handling cadavers, and they cover everything from telling donors’ relatives how the body will be used to disposing of the remains afterward.

Ford spokesman Wes Sherwood said the company, like others, is moving toward digital modeling whenever possible. It’s far cheaper to run thousands of computer simulations than to do even one test with a dummy. And of course simulations and dummies are far more appealing to the general public than cadaver tests. It’s no wonder automakers are reluctant to publicize their continued, and necessary, use.

“If there’s a specific need (for a cadaver test), we will look outside the company to see if someone can help, but most of our work is digital,” Sherwood said.

Albert King, a professor at Wayne State who has been working in cadaver research since 1966, said the school’s tests had fallen off in recent years. It used to do an average of one cadaver test a month; it now conducts no more than a few each year. He outlined the benefits of such work in “Humanitarian Benefits of Cadaver Research on Injury Prevention,” a paper the Journal of Trauma published in 1995. King estimates that safety advancements made as a result of such tests through 1987 saved 8,500 lives a year.

A big reason for the decline in testing? After six decades, there’s not much left to be done improving safety inside the car. Even the cheapest cars offer as many as eight air bags, so most research has turned toward how to prevent crashes in the first place.

“We have most of the information we need,” King said. “The rest of it we’re doing through computer.”

It’s not just cars that benefit. Researchers have drawn on Wayne State’s cadaver work to design helmets that might prevent concussions in NFL players. NASA has used cadavers to test vehicle crashworthiness, and the Defense Department backs studies using cadavers to better understand traumatic brain injuries. And as good as computer models are, they still can’t capture the exact essence of how human tissue reacts, Prasad says.

“It’s always a good idea when you’re developing something to do cadaver testing,” he said.

This story was written by Justin Hyde and originally published by Jalopnik on Aug. 26.

See Also:

• The Seat Belts On The Bus Go Click, Click, Click
• Smithsonian Celebrates Seatbelts and Safety
• Strapping Success: The 3-Point Seatbelt Turns 50
• Ford Brings Airbags to Back Seats
• Mercedes Builds A Car To Protect Us From Ourselves
• Volvo Promises an Injury-Proof Car by 2020
• This Day In Tech, July 10, 1962: 3-Point Seat Belt Patented

The feds, eager to make fuel economy stickers easier to understand even as new technologies enter the market, suggest assigning all new vehicles a letter grade based upon their efficiency. The best fuel misers would, as you’d expect, get an A while the worst guzzlers would get a D.

Assigning each new car an overall grade based on fuel economy and greenhouse gas emissions would the biggest change to vehicle window stickers in 30 years. The proposal is one of two the Environmental Protection Agency and Department of Transportation are considering under a sweeping effort to revamp vehicle window stickers for the 2012 model year. That’s when electric vehicles and plug-in hybrids are expected to hit the market in (relatively) significant numbers.

Current stickers provide each vehicle’s fuel economy in miles per gallon and an estimate of its annual operating costs. Under one proposal, the feds would add a letter grade summing up a vehicle’s energy efficiency and greenhouse gas emissions. Under the second, current stickers would be updated to include comparison of various vehicles’ fuel economy and emissions.

The goal is to provide consumers with a simple, straightforward way to compare the energy consumption and environmental impacts of all types of vehicles, from internal combustion vehicles to electric and plug-in hybrid. Regulators want some public feedback before deciding which proposal to adopt.

“New technologies such as battery electric vehicles and plug-in hybrids are entering the American market in greater numbers,” Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood said in a statement. “We need to provide consumers with labels that include fuel economy and environmental information so that buyers can make better informed decisions when purchasing new vehicles.”

The grades would range from an A+ to a D, perhaps to spare automakers from having to see their least efficient vehicles slapped with an F. To earn top marks, a vehicle would have to get at least 59 mpg or the equivalent, while anything getting 14 or below would earn a D.

Clearly some vehicles will blow the curve. An electric vehicle like the Nissan Leaf would get an A+, while a plug-in hybrid like Toyota’s forthcoming Plug-In Prius would earn an A. The average car like, the Toyota Camry, for example, would score a B-, while most SUVs and pickup trucks like the Ford F-150 would fare no better than a C+. Extreme performance machines like the Ferrari 512 Scaglietti would get a D.

A second proposed label would retain the current label’s focus on miles per gallon and annual fuel costs but update the overall design and add comparison information on fuel economy and emissions.

Automakers are, as you might expect, skeptical of the proposed changes.

“A car is generally a consumer’s second biggest expenditure, and automakers support providing our customers with meaningful information for decision-making on vehicles that meet their particular needs, but the proposed letter grade falls short because it is imbued with school-yard memories of passing and failing,” Dave McCurdy, president and CEO of the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers, told the Detroit News. The trade association represents the Big Three, Toyota Motor Corp., and seven other companies.

Automakers also worry letter grades amount to the government making a value judgment on vehicles.

“Grades may inadvertently suggest a government label of approval, when what we really want to do is encourage consumers to consider buying one of the many new technologies on sale,” Gloria Bergquist, spokeswoman for the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers, told the Wall Street Journal. The alliance is the auto industry’s largest trade group.

Both labels expand on the data currently available by providing new info about fuel consumption, tailpipe CO2 emissions and smog-related emissions. The new labels would provide information on a web-based interactive tool also accessible by smart phone.

When it comes to electric vehicles and plug-in hybrids, the feds propose showing energy use by translating electricity consumption to miles per gallon equivalent, but the labels also would express energy use in terms of kilowatt-hours per 100 miles. GHG emissions would be measured only at the tailpipe and would not consider any “upstream” emissions from, say, electricity generation. That’s sure to be a bone of contention among EV naysayers who argue electric vehicles simply transfer emissions from the tailpipe to the power plant, even though some studies have shown the well-to-wheel emissions of electric vehicles are lower than internal combustion even when the electricity comes form coal-fired plants.

The feds will take public comment for 60 days after the proposal is published in the federal register, so click here if you want to sound off.

Photo: Ford. A dealership employee prepares a Ford Escape Hybrid for delivery. Under the feds’ proposed window sticker revisions, customers shopping for cars would more easily be able to compare different vehicles’ fuel efficiency and emissions.

Under one proposal, the feds would assign all new cars a letter grade based upon energy efficiency and tailpipe emissions. The label also would outline projected annual savings in fuel costs over the average vehicle. Electric vehicles would get an A+, while plug-in hybrids would get an A.

The most fuel efficient gasoline cars would earn high marks, and most SUVs would get a C+. Anything getting 14 mpg or less would earn a D. Just like so many schools these days, no one would get an F.

A second proposal calls for updating the current stickers. Electric vehicles would show energy use by translating electricity consumption to miles per gallon equivalent, but the labels also would express energy use in terms of kilowatt-hours per 100 miles.

The feds say the redesign is meant to make it easier for consumers to compare the fuel efficiency of various vehicles and technologies.

What’s the most exciting part of setting a land speed record in an electric vehicle? Roger Schroer, who drove the student-built Buckeye Bullet to a record-breaking 307.7 mph, says the true thrill comes from witnessing the teamwork involved in building the car.

No, that’s not the feel-good copy of a cheesy press release. He says setting a land speed record in the Buckeye Bullet feels more like a successful experiment than a thrill ride. We caught up with Schroer as he returned home from the Bonneville Salt Flats after his third time setting a record in the Ohio State University streamliner. It turns out going that fast doesn’t really feel all that fast.

“Most of your sensation of speed is a visual sense, but at Bonneville it’s just a huge open plain of salt. It’s all white,” he says. “If you combine the relative lack of visibility with the lack of visual reference points and add in the control tests you have to do, you don’t quite get the sensation of speed I expected.”

Not to mention an EV offers a unique soundtrack, even at high speeds.

“In our car, I can hear the tires on the salt, the spinning of the electric motor and the noises from the rotating brake rotors and the drivetrain,” Schroer says. “I’ve got to think that’s somewhat unique amongst cars that go over 300.”

Schroer’s nonchalant attitude might come from his 26-year career as a test and development driver at the Transportation Research Center in East Liberty, Ohio, or his hobby of racing cars.

“It’s a lot different than the road racing, because in road racing, you’re concerned with how fast you exit a corner,” he says. “The challenge here is simply to keep the car pointed straight. At first glance, it seems pretty simple. I know that’s what I thought. But there’s a whole set of issues. At those speeds, aerodynamic issues come into play.”

Famed Bonneville racer Tom Burkland gave Schroer some advice: Think of the car as an airplane on the ground.

“The forces at those speeds are very significant — you have to pay attention to the longitudinal center of gravity and the aerodynamic center of pressure,” Schroer says.

That’s where experience is vital. In addition to keeping the car straight, Schroer concentrates on reducing wheel spin, shifting at the engine speeds specified by the car’s engineers and staying within mile markers.

“I’m trying to pay attention to whether things feel different and at what points,” he says. “At the end I want to deploy the parachutes and note the condition of the car — that’s a critical issue. That’s what’s going through my mind. I’m paying attention and trying to stay out of trouble.”

The Bullet, built by student engineers at Ohio State University’s Center for Automotive Research with help from Monaco-based boutique EV manufacturer Venturi, started its run for the record Aug. 23. Schroer hit a new record of 291 mph, then topped it Aug. 24 when he averaged 307.7 mph during two back-to-back runs. The team called off further runs after the Bullet’s clutch shot craps.

The time must be ratified by the rules-makers at the Federation Internationale de l’Automobile. But Dave Petrali, chief steward for U.S. Auto Club and an FIA timer, said there is no doubt the previous record of 245.5 mph, set in 1999 by Pat Rummerfield at the wheel of White Lightning, fell.

The EV is version 2.5 of the original Buckeye Bullet, whose 314.9 mph run in 2004 didn’t meet the FIA specs for a world record run. Version 2 was powered by hydrogen fuel cells and set the land speed record for a fuel cell vehicle at 302.877 in September 2009.

It took 11 months for the team to swap Bullet 2’s Ballard fuel cell for lithium-ion batteries from A123 Systems. The team is mum on details about the battery pack but it reportedly uses 1,600 cells. Only the power source has been changed — the body, chassis and electric traction system are all the same as the speeding Bullet’s previous incarnation.

If anything were to go wrong, Schroer has the benefit of a carbon fiber survival cell bolted within the car’s chrome-moly space frame. He’s also secured by the same six-point harness and the same foam padding used by Top Fuel dragsters.

Still, any queasy stomachs were the result of last-minute technical glitches and not the thought of driving nearly five times the speed limit.

“The last 12 days or so we’ve been so full of problems that it’s not such a matter of nerves as can we do it this time? Are we going to have any electronic issues, is everything going to work?” Schroer says. “It’s a complicated vehicle and everything has to be right. It’s not to say that I’m not excited. Your heart pounds a bit, but you try to downplay that.”

If anyone could pull off the record-setting run, it’s the folks at OSU, Venturi and A123Systems, he says.

“The whole deal is this team,” he says. “The point of the project is to expose the new young engineers to problem solving and challenges. It took three years to get the [original Buckeye Bullet 2] hydrogen fuel cell car right, but if you think of it in terms of what the team is supposed to accomplish, they work together and learn to solve problems. That’s what this is supposed to be about.”

With a successful record that’s sure to be ratified, the team’s attention has turned to building the Buckeye Bullet 3 and topping 400 mph.

“As far as I know, I’ll be involved with that and I’ll be looking forward to it,” Schroer says. “When I first went 300, one of my first thoughts was, ‘Can we go 400?’”

Photos: Ohio State University

See Also:

• Buckeye Bullet Sets EV Land-Speed Record
• Top Fuel Racing: Propelled by the Hand of God
• Mild-Mannered Suzuki Sedan Tops 200 MPH
• King of All Cars Tops 267 MPH
• What’s It Like Doing 268 MPH?
• Steam-Powered Car Breaks Century-Old Record
• Supercharged Jag XF Does 225 MPH at Bonneville
• This Day In Tech, Sept. 3, 1935: Campbell Shatters 300 MPH Barrier at Bonneville

Editor’s note: Few topics we’ve covered have generated as much debate among readers as Rick Cavallaro and his colleagues proving a wind-powered vehicle can travel downwind faster than the wind. Although we don’t expect this to quell the debate, Cavallaro and John Borton recount their adventure here.

Brainteaser, n — A puzzle that requires mental/cognitive activity to solve and generally includes thinking in unconventional ways with given constraints in mind.

What are the moments when a challenger meets a problem and classic brainteasers are born? Who would have imagined that a plane and a treadmill would end up as inextricably linked as PB&J? Did Monty Hall ever dream the dreams of mathematicians? And if a wind-powered vehicle races a floating balloon and wins are physics texts made obsolete?

Tracing the path of this last riddle leaves a line that passes through moments of competent genius followed by years spent in the stubborn pursuit of absolute silliness. Add a counterintuitive solution and a bunch of name calling amongst academic elites and you have the perfect recipe for an intellectual disaster.

Directly downwind faster than the wind, n — a.k.a. DDWFTTW. An idea that 99 percent of people declare impossible. Ninety-nine percent of the rest can’t figure out how it’s done.

In 2001 a friend asked Rick Cavallaro whether a sailboat could tack downwind such that it could beat a free-floating balloon to a point directly downwind. They both knew sailboats can sail faster than the wind, but can they do well enough to beat the wind to a destination directly downwind? It would seem obvious it is not possible, but Rick knew things aren’t always as they seem. He did a quick vector analysis and convinced himself it should be possible. It certainly would be in an ice boat due to its very low drag, but could it be done with a sailboat?

As it happens, Rick’s boss at the time was legendary ocean racer and sailing navigator Stan Honey. Rick asked Stan if it had been done. Stan had recently raced PlayStation, the one boat he knew had the performance to (theoretically) do it, but Stan wasn’t sure PlayStation actually had done so.

Rick is known to tease brains to a point well past reasonable annoyance, while John Borton’s best (and worst) trait is having no clue when to give up and no sense of scale. Rick has faith in the theoretical, but JB trusts his eyes more than equations scribbled on the back of an envelope. In fact, it was a brainteaser posted at a hang gliding forum that brought them together more than a decade ago. Given a challenge, be it intellectual or physical, the two of them generally can sweet-talk it into submission or beat on it until it succumbs.

Rick, being an aficionado of brainteasers, realized this could be a great one. If this principle could be used to make a wind-powered vehicle that can go directly downwind faster than the wind without tacking, it would really bend some brains. So he gave it some thought.

Story continues

The age of the automobile started exactly 125 years ago when Gottlieb Daimler filed a patent for his revolutionary “riding car,” a two-wheeled machine driven by an internal combustion engine.

His machine looks like a motorcycle with training wheels. But under the strictest etymology — the Greek auto means “self” and the Latin mobilis means “mobile” — the riding car was the first automobile. The car as we know it arrived in 1886 when Daimler built the four-wheeled Motor Carriage and Carl Benz built the three-wheeled Patent Motor Car. But Daimler set the stage for the automotive era when he filed his patent for the riding car on Aug. 29, 1885.

Daimler and Benz, who had developed their automobiles independently, later founded Daimler AG. The giant German automaker marked the anniversary of the riding car by calling it “the most important precursor to individual mobility.” It proved an internal combustion engine could power a vehicle and a human being could control it. It was a glimpse of what could be achieved.

In today’s tech world, it would be called Automobile V1.0.

What made the machine possible was the “Grandfather Clock” engine, so named because it resembled a clock. Daimler developed the single-cylinder four-stroke engine with Wilhelm Maybach in 1884. It displaced 265cc, produced 0.4 horsepower at 600 rpm and was remarkable for its relatively light weight

Daimler built the riding car to test the engine. The wood frame rode on wood wheels wrapped with iron bands. The engine drove the rear wheel via a belt. According to Daimler, a contemporary publication (which Daimler did not name) described the riding car like this:

“To start the engine, one must first light the small flame beneath the hot ignition tube and crank the engine once using the crank; these preparations take only a minute. The engine runs smoothly, since the silencer dampens the exhaust gases entering the exhaust pipe. To set the vehicle in motion, the driver climbs aboard, takes hold of the steering bar and connects the engine to the bicycle. This is done by means of a lever, cord and tension pulley, which shifts the drive belt onto the pulley.”

Two gears were available, selected using a lever while at a standstill. First gear was good for 6 km/hr (3.7 mph) while second gear brought the machine to twice that. The brakes were activated by tugging on a cord.

In November 1885, Daimler’s son Adolph Daimler drove the riding car along a three-kilometer stretch of road between Caanstatt and Untertürkheim and back. The patent was awarded on Aug. 11, 1886.

The automobile age was officially under way.

Photos: Daimler

See Also This Day In Tech:

• March 4, 1887: Start Your Engine
• Aug. 12, 1888: Road Trip! Berta Takes the Benz
• Nov. 5, 1895: First U.S. Automaker Gets Off to Slow Start
• Sept. 13, 1899: Pedestrian Dies in First U.S. Traffic Death
• July 27, 1888: Electric Tricycle Jolts Bostonians
• June 30, 1953: Corvette Adds Some Fiber, Flair to American Road
• April 17, 1964: Ford Mustang Starts Galloping

A replica of the “riding car” at Spa Gardens in Caanstatt, Germany, where it was first tested.

The “hot tube” ignition system.

Adding fuel.

The “Grandfather Clock” engine, so named because it resembles a clock. The riding car was built to test the engine, which had a displacement of 265cc and produced 0.4 horsepower.

The riding car’s two gears were selected via a lever when the machine was at a standstill.

The riding car had a top speed of 12 km/hr, or a little more than 7 mph.

A drawing of the “Grandfather Clock” engine Daimler and Maybach developed.

Editor’s note: Jeremy Hart, an occasional contributor to Wired.com, is driving around the world with a few mates in a pair of Ford Fiestas. He’s filing occasional reports from the road.

Cheerleaders, fanfares, a scrum of paparazzi? Not exactly. The most pizazz on the pier at Santa Monica for the start of our global drive to Sydney, was a glamour model in a slinky dress.

But that’s how we wanted it. No, not the glamour model. The low-key bit.

Almost 60 days on the road, crossing the United States and Canada before skipping across the pond to Ireland and then driving across Europe, the Middle East, Asia and, finally, Australia is still an achievement, even in the 21st century. Especially in the new Ford Fiesta, a car more suited to commuting in the city than circumnavigating the globe.

The drive, named, in rock star style, the Fiesta World Tour 2010, was my idea. I am lucky to have driven just about everywhere — Rolls Royces in the Atacama, Smart ForTwos in the Arctic and many cars in many, many countries in between. But I’ve never done a lap of the earth. The Fiesta is Ford’s first truly global car since the Model T, so in Uncle Henry, I found someone willing to share my planetary perambulation.

The plan was to do the old favorite of London to New York, but the Fiesta is brand-new to North America and Asia, so Los Angeles became the starting line. L.A. to Sydney sounds more like a Qantas flight than a drive, but that’s what this 15,000-mile, 21-country extravaganza became.

In the hot seat with me are a few media mates like cameraman Hilaire Brosio and ace snapper (photographer in British) Anthony Cullen. We’re in a convoy of two Fiestas. One bright-magenta metallic, the other blue-flame metallic. Ford named ‘em, not me.

The drive started at the western end of Route 66, the Santa Monica Pier. The first leg would take us to Vegas, but since I’m friends with Jay Leno, we decided to swing by his garage. The closest thing he has to a Fiesta is a wild nitrous oxide-injected 300-horsepower Ford Festiva from 1989.

Now Jay is a homeboy. Driving to the state line is pretty well his limit, so I didn’t expect much enthusiasm from him. “Come by with your pictures when you get back, I might look at the first five,” he giggled. But he does like the Fiesta. “It is a great little car,” he said.

Abusing, er, testing a Fiesta at the Motion Picture Driving Clinic

And so we sped northeast toward Vegas. Rick Seaman runs the the Motion Picture Driving Clinic at Willow Springs, where the next generation of stuntmen and women learn the art of “controlled crashing.” But anyone can sign up for a taste of stunt stardom, so we paid him a visit.

“Keeping the car fluid is the trick,” said former snowmobile-racer and ballet-dancer Olivia Summers, a veteran of 30 car commercials. With that, fellow stunt-driver Harry Wowchuk swapped his Ford Mustang for a Fiesta and did a series of forward and reverse 180-degree spins called the “Rockford” after the ’70s TV series The Rockford Files.

“Modern cars handle almost too well for stunts, but we got a few nice moves from the Fiesta,” he said. (Ed note: We’re currently testing a Fiesta sedan. We’ll have to try that …)

It was scorching in Death Valley. Although we wouldn’t dare touch the roof of the car, it turns out 124 degrees is not hot enough to fry an egg. I was disappointed.

With that we were in Vegas. Ah, Vegas. There’s no point making excuses for Sin City. It is what it is. Like everyone else in Vegas, I would either lose my shirt or gain a spouse. For the sake of the story, I opted for the latter.

“Drive up to the second window, and the minister will marry you there,” said the kindly receptionist for our Fast Lane “drive-thru” wedding package. I half expected her to ask if we’d like fries with our vows.

I pulled up a bit fast, and the Fiesta’s tires chirped irrelevantly. It seemed somehow fitting.

At the window, Heidi, our minister, half-leaned out of the drive-thru window and told us our road to happiness will be one of valleys and troughs. The driving analogies were a nice touch. Alas, because ours was a dummy wedding, she would not actually pronounce us husband and wife.

The King pronounces you man and wife.

Down the Strip aways at the Viva Las Vegas Wedding Chapel they make you get out of your car, only to put you in a pink 1964 Cadillac with Elvis at the wheel to literally drive you up the aisle.

With dry ice blowing and a mirrored disco ball spinning, the dearly beloved stand before Elvis as he intones, “By the power vested in me, The King, I pronounce you man and wife.” And with a thrust of his bejeweled belt buckle, he breaks into “Viva Las Vegas.”

And with that, we hit the road. After less than a day in Las Vegas, Arizona beckons.

The only place to access the Grand Canyon by road is Just off Route 66 at Peach Springs. It’s Hualapai Tribal Nation land. They have a lodge in town where you can get fried flatbread tacos that are to die for. It’s well worth the journey, one not a lot of people make.

“Not even many Americans know you can drive to the bottom of Grand Canyon,” Nancy Echeverria told us from the Hualapai Lodge. The Hualapai own a million square miles of the area, including part of the canyon. They’re the ones who opened Diamond Creek Road to drivers. They also run rafting and other tours. Alas, our little Ford wasn’t stout enough for the trip.

“The road is too rough at the moment for cars, so we will have to go in my Expedition,” said Ruby Steel, our guide.

Just another breathtaking vista in the Grand Canyon.

The road descends 2,500 feet over the course of 20 miles. The lower we go, the hotter it gets.

Cactuses border the dusty track, and cliffs five times higher than the Empire State Building dwarf us. We’re tiny, almost insignificant, in this ageless and spectacular valley.

This is the best way to see the Grand Canyon. No other tourists, no RVs, no helicopters carrying sightseers overhead.

It’s just you and some of the most magnificent scenery in the world.

Photos: Jeremy Hart

With all the hype surrounding the pending launch of the Chevrolet Volt and Nissan Leaf electric cars, Ford’s Transit Connect EV has gone almost unnoticed. It’s easy to see why. When the van goes on sale later this year, it will sell primarily to commercial fleets. In the car business, there are few things less sexy than commercial vans.

Still, Ford and Azure Dynamics, the company that engineered the electric drive system for the car, may be onto something. Companies like AT&T, which has agreed to buy a few Transit Connect EVs, have drivers motoring around all day in stop-and-go traffic. They burn a lot of fuel even though they travel fewer than 50 miles in a day, says Curt Huston, Chief Operating Officer of Azure. Since the Transit Connect EV can go about 80 miles on a charge, their needs are mostly met. The van has a 28 kilowatt-hour battery that takes six to eight hours to charge and has a top speed of 75 mph. The Leaf can go 100 miles on a charge, but it’s a compact car. This is a small deliver van. For range, the Volt beats both since it can go 40 miles on electric drive and another 300 miles once the gasoline engine kicks in and starts charging the battery. Again, it’s a small car. The Transit Connect will appeal to business owners.

Commercial fleet owners can install a charging station in the garage and get the vans juiced up overnight before heading out the next day. It’s actually a great application. Huston says the fuel savings should return the added cost of an EV in four or five years. Unlike some of the startup EV companies, Azure partnered with Ford. That means vehicle owners can take them to a Ford dealer for service. The company will have 75 dealers to start and may add more later on.

If it takes off, building sales volume through fleet sales can help drive down the cost of the technology and make electric cars more affordable in the future. There is one catch to the whole plan. The price has to be right. Ford and Azure have not set a price yet. Commercial buyers will look at the car purely on a fuel cost savings basis. It’s dollars and cents. If the car costs too much, they won’t see the savings at the pump that they want as quickly as they want it, says Jim Hall, principal of consulting firm 2953 Analytics in Birmingham, Mich. The car also won’t appeal to environmentalists and technology buffs the way a Volt or Leaf will. But for what its target buyer wants, Azure’s Transit Connect may be the right idea.