Solar electric BMW Lovos concept makes Chris Bangle look drab
BMW Lovos Concept - Click above for high-res image gallery
It must be fun to be a car designer. Unless, of course, your name becomes synonymous with a specific styling trend that very few seem to appreciate... but we digress. It definitely seems that 24-year-old Pforzheim University graduate Anne Forschner had a good time coming up with her BMW Lovos concept, which can alternatively look either like a frightened porcupine or svelte salmon, depending on its needs at the time.
The exterior of the Lovos – which stands for Lifestyle of Voluntary Simplicity – concept is theoretically constructed from just one fully exchangeable part that recurs 260 times. Each exterior piece is covered in solar photovoltaic cells and can hinge on a substructure underneath to follow the sun or act as individual airbrakes. We can only assume the concept would be powered by electricity.
See the concept in all its glory in our gallery below and check out the rest of the story (in Russian or translated) at cardesign.ru. Thanks for the tip, Greg!
Gallery: BMW Lovos Concept
[Source: cardesign.ru]
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
Turbofrog 7:46PM (9/25/2009)
Fetching and interesting, but very silly. There's pretty much no appreciable reason to put solar flaps on instead of a smooth seamless thin-film skin...and even that is pretty much essentially useless. But it does look cool.
Reply
mike 7:51PM (9/25/2009)
Well... I would think the angle of insolation might have a big impact on energy gain of a solar panel, no?
hahahaha...
I also find it humorous that the comment box on autoblog.green sees 'insolation' as a spelling error.
But I digress.
Surely this is a bit silly but that is OK with me for this kind of thing.
I will say I have never seen it before anyway, and that is nice.
Reply
KK 12:26PM (9/26/2009)
If I remember correctly, the efficiency of solar panels don't change much depending on incident angle.
Of course there is the geometric effect, i.e. if the sunlight hits the panel at a shallow angle, the panel receives less sunlight (it presents a smaller cross-section to the sunlight). But it doesn't really apply to an array of solar panels - if you cover the roof of the car with small panels aimed at the sun, the amount of sunlight captured is almost the same as if you'd covered the whole roof with a flat solar panel. The only difference is at the edge, where the small panel sticks up further than a flat roof would.
mike 9:41AM (9/27/2009)
If you are saying the standing panels shade surrounding panels and negate the benefit of the increased angle of insolation then I agree - given a confined space such as a roof.
However in general terms, from the context of angle of incidence, a panel receives more light with a shallow angle, not less. This is due to increased density of the light hitting the panel.
It can be easily seen if we imagine a 5" wide (for sake of argument) beam of light striking a surface.
Imagine it striking the surface directly perpendicular (or 0 deg angle of incidence) first, then imagine rotating the panel so the same beam strikes the panel at an increasing angle of incidence.
You'll note the beam (still 5" wide as it approaches the panel) now impacts an area on the panel which is greater than that 5". The area the 5" column of light impacts on the panel increases as the angel of incidence increases. It is less dense in its makeup as it hits that surface.
Strictly speaking the panel has a certain percent efficiency and the angle of insolation does not change that. But the angle of insolation does change the amount of light impacting the panel as noted in this example - so the given panel will produce less electricity overall at that same efficiency.
That's my story.
jpm 9:42PM (9/25/2009)
waaaaaah?
Reply
Chris M 10:46PM (9/25/2009)
"Simplicity" it ain't, to have hundreds of hinges and complex mechanisms to re-aim all those little solar panels. Turbofrog is right, it doesn't really make sense, especially when you consider the greatly increased aerodynamic drag from all those little panels sticking out like scales on a pinecone.
Nice design flight of fancy, but it will never be produced.
Mike: I think it is your web browser, not AutoBlog Green, that is doing the spell check for "Insolation". Both Google Chrome and IE8 do spell check on dialog boxes, with options for various languages
Reply
KK 12:31PM (9/26/2009)
There's also the issue of weight. Those little panels don't contribute to the structural integrity of the car, and don't form a weatherproof shell. It's just extra stuff added to a conventional car.
Laurens 3:01AM (9/26/2009)
As a concept: excellent.
There was a conference in Delft yesterday where alumni working in car design showed up celebrating the 40th anniversary of the Industrial Design department. Interesting views!
Reply
Jon 4:16AM (9/26/2009)
Car companies could make a fortune selling concepts to Hollywood movie studios. I'd love to see this thing in a film.
Reply
Gordio 5:49AM (9/26/2009)
It's a CONCEPT. I like ambitious concepts like these. Of course many parts are easy to criticize, but remember the point of concept is to open your mind and take chances. who knows maybe 1% of this concept will ignite some genius in someone somewhere out there, and portions of tis concept will be seen in the future in an actual car.
Reply
nrb 10:05AM (9/26/2009)
A new kind of ugly.
Reply
Boyprodigy1 1:33PM (9/27/2009)
I would drive it just for the shock effect that it undoubtedly would evoke.