They run on air compressed by a small engine, that can apparently use small amounts of ANY type of fuel. Top speed is 35 MPH, but if you’re not obsessed with speed, it’s incredibly practical for everyday use.
Sounds almost too good to be true, but apparently it is. The only current worry is how it handles crashing. It also looks like an Easter Egg on wheels. But both things can likely be corrected.
What do you think? Will these catch on? Would you drive one?
Why do these new cars always look so fucking geeky, I mean really, who wants to really drive a toyota prius, for example? If you think the look of the prius is cool, you’re just lying to yourself. I would feel obligated to follow whoever the driver of that ridiculous air car is and give him a wedgie based on principle.
Jeez, an alternative method of powering a car and all you jerks can say is change the design? I think this is an excellent idea, and a good step in the right direction. I just hope they can get the safety tests passed.
As for driving one, I probably would. As long as its safe. I don’t care what the hell it looks like, if it can get me from point A to point B relatively safely then there’s no problems with it.
G-wiz is fuckin’ right! They oughtta call that thing the “Sweet funloving christ” or “Oh the fucking humanity”, holy shit.
Yeah, good grief, I should be more excited about a car that goes only 35 MPH, can’t travel more than 100 miles at the most, and costs 20 grand for the purpose of going to the fucking grocery store. If you’re gonna sell me something so gimmicky, then yes, I’d rather it not look so retarded.
Originally Posted by Nebagram
[i]Jeremy Clarkson is spinning in his crypt as we speak.
But the crash test concern is valid, I mean, look at the G-Wiz[/i]
Damn! I hope someone brought the jaws of life for that one (though from the looks of it that car is probably tender enough to pick apart with just your fingers like some kind of oversized Thanksgiving day turkey).
Originally Posted by Mabatsekker Do remember there are people with cars solely for the reason to go shop for groceries, so a car that goes 35mph isn’t a bad idea for those. Why make cars that can go2300mph if the speed limit is 88?
What if you’ve got an extra time-flux capacitor lying around? You’re going to feel pretty foolish if all you’ve got are glorified go-karts that can’t break 40 mph to use it in (of course you still need the 2.1 jiggawatts to power the damn thing, but that’s easy enough to solve once you get to that bridge).
Besides it’s ridiculous enough as it is warping through time in a Doralin. In one of those things I’d be too embarrassed to leave my own timezone nevermind my position in the space-time continuum.
Not everyone needs a car that can take them anywhere, but I understand your point. I still stick by my point that aesthetics shouldn’t be a top priority in developing cleaner vehicles. Addressing how a vehicle looks is important for selling it, but I think it is overvalued over concept.
You do raise a good point that others will not buy it due to its speed limitations, but when you look at the size of it who expects to go across the country in it. As Mabatsekker said, it is made for your average commuter who may travel a fair distance to get to work everyday, among other small yet daily tasks that require a mode of transporation. It is not made for impressing bitches (unless they’re science majors), and it is not made for taking said bitches across the country while writing classic beat literature.
Unfortunately, for my commute, this car would actually be perfect. I drive like 2 miles to school then 2 miles back. I may go by the grocery store or cleaners or something. But my daily drive would actually make that thing rather practical.
It just wouldn’t help me get any chicks. Or if it does, it would be dirty hippie chicks. And no one wants those. Except for other dirty hippies.
Something that’s gone unmentioned until now is the fact that as a US citizen who’s adverse to flying with family halfway across the country I need a vehicle that can make cross-country trips in case of things like weddings and/or funerals. What I don’t need is a car that’s only useful for short ranged travel and nothing else.
Oh and if I really did want to drive a glorified go-kart around town I might as well drive an actual go-kart since they’re significantly cheaper to buy and maintain. They look cooler than that ladybug too.
YES! Do not get me started on that. You bastards wouldn’t be complaining about traveling across the country if there were a system similar to Europe. After visiting Europe, I am constantly surprised at the lack of rail support for both Canada and the United States, both countries that are amazingly huge yet so poorly connected (city to city within the country of course). It’s absolutely pathetic, for example, that it is cheaper to take an airplane from Vancouver to say Winnipeg than take to take a train.
And before anyone says it, trains are not out of date. Many other countries in the world have taken trains along the rise of technology, so I don’t see why North America, apparently the best place on Earth, has to fall behind on something so mandatory to its own coherency. Perhaps it can be linked to the strong sense of individualism that is promoted in NA, that leads to people wanting their own personal travel mechanisms as opposed to a system more community based.
Europe is over twice as populous and dense as America (700+ million to 300 million, 180/sq mi vs 80/sq mi). Its various train systems are also products of smaller, independent nations.
The taxes raised by European countries are far higher than would be raised by individual states; if left primarily to the federal government, there would be much bickering over whether train money should go to New York, Texas, California, Nebraska, etc.
Europe’s populous cities are also probably closer to each other than the various ones in America. A car trip from Lisbon to Athens is about the same as New York to Los Angeles. After leaving Chicago, there’s pretty much nothing until you reach Las Vegas. I have no clue how major any of the regions between Lisbon and Athens are. However, when people think of Europe’s train system, they usually only think of the England/France/Germany area. North Western Europe where it’s more densely populated. Our train system in the Tristate Area is rather good, from what I’ve heard.
Our individual cities are also more spread out than European cities generally. We’re given to urban sprawl, and lots of it. That’s probably the result of just having so much land and none of the cities being more than 400 years old. European history led to their cities being much tighter which has continued more so over there than here. That may illustrate the individualism you spoke of.
Eeh, we had a train system installed as a way to ease traffic jam problems in our metropolitan area. It was terribly unpopular. Though the government is doing its best to help it catch on, including offering one week of free passage(!) People here just love their cars too much, I guess.
Btw, with Puerto Rico being 100 by 35 miles, the Air-powered Egg would be perfect for my purposes! And no, I wouldn’t care about all the snickering. Too bad I can’t even afford a motorcycle…
I had a lengthy screed ready, but then I found this map. From Athens to Lisboa, N. Italy, Nice, Marseille, Barcelona & Madrid are densely populated areas. The Balkans aren’t really.
You make good points. Funnily enough, we owe part of the widespread railway network to the threat of war (easy troop transport). Then there’s also political will, economic circumstances and a different perception towards taxes.
It’s no wonder that the more economically powerful areas have the fastest trains, but you can get just about everywhere on one. E. Europe has a surpisingly extended if a bit old network. Anyway, it’s cool that faster lines are being introduced (e.g. Greece is upgrading the Athens-Thessaloniki line and will probably create a seaside route to Albania; Turkey is upgrading the Istanbul-Ankara line) .
Your point about sprawling cities is good (that leads perhaps to a metro conversation) and the economics are also to be considered. Still, railway is more efficient than airways and cars, especially as oil won’t be around forever, and I wouldn’t discount the benefit of available connections between major cities (at the very least along the two coasts). California seems to have some of the largest metropolitan areas in the country.