The Future of Cars?
 

I can only imagine what would happen in an accident....but hey, its a nice first step. Let alone one hell of a chick magnet at Star Trek Conventions.

"CARLSBAD, Calif. — Accelerated Composites LLC, a small startup company here, said it is developing the Aptera, a two-seat hybrid passenger car delivering 330 mpg at a steady 65 miles per hour — at a price under $20,000"

http://www.edmunds.com/insideline/do...cleId=108992#3

That door looks awfully tricky. And where do I put my stuff?

It looks like a shoe. You can't argue with 330 mpg, though. Jesus. The article says "0-to-60-mph acceleration of 11 seconds", but it only has 24 hp. Maybe this will be today what the bug was 40 years ago.

America will need to radically change its buying patterns before a 24HP car will *ever* make it in the marketplace.

true! americans would more likely buy that engine to strap onto there current engine to add 24HP :D

Haha, that is awesome.

While I agree that this would typically apply, especially in today's hybrid cars where the miles per gallon is relatively similar to current automobiles, I think there would be a lot of people that commute long distances that would be willing to give up their horsepower for 330 miles per gallon...

Incredible...

Can it go in reverse? Backing up could pose a challenge.

It would be nice if they provided guesstimated weight. The 24HP electric plus the Diesel could be more than adequate if they keep it under 8-900lbs.

I like that idea....... hmmmmm, If I put this here and that there... :D

It looks like an airplane minus the wings.

I can't see myself taking that 'cross country. Like fresnelly said, where's the storage?

The most significant thing about this car is the pricetag. If they could actually sell the thing for $20,000, maybe aspects of the technology could be used to make practical cars more efficient. Plus, I'm all for anything that reduces weight: I love the good handling characteristics that compliment a low curb weight...

No, no you can't. If only my car got 300 mpg... or even 50, I'd be happy. Interesting car, for sure.

Yup, I commute almost 300 km every day, and I couldn't care less what the vehicle looks like or how fast it can accelerate, I'd give up anything to enjoy 330 mpg. I'm spending a tonne on gas every month, if I could just cut it in half I'd be a happy man...

I think there is far more to it than the horse power. We tend to want all the frills as well. AC, CD changers, heated leather seats and all the little things we think sends the message that "we've made it". I'll be the first to admit we should be ashamed of our attitudes towards the cars we drive. A love affair with the automobile is one thing. Thinking we can represent ourselves with a vehicle is another.

"I hate new cars. They all look like electric shavors to me."

-Marv

That's the first time I've seen those two phrases in the same sentence.

I agree that people want all the bells and whistles, the problem is, I can get you all the bells and whistles in a car that is easy on fuel (but has less horse power)... it won't sell. The first complaint I will read in the reviews and hear parroted by car buyer will be all about the lack of "horses."

The average male car buyer is obsessed with horsepower. "Fuel economy is for pussies, give me a hemi!"

This is very funny when you mention that people are trying to "represent themselves with a vehicle." What are we trying to compensate for with all this horsepower?

Sadly I think we try to compensate for more than the subject of the "you don't need a big dick when you have a Corvette" jokes. I worked in a new car dealership when I was a kid. You wouldn't believe the people that made the detail department leave the sticker in the window when they took delivery.

But back to the OT...
I think commuter vehicles could catch on were most people able to afford a daily driver and a weekend runner. As it is, many families I think need a vehicle that covers many needs. As a result, we use as much horsepower to drag our butts to work daily as we do to haul the whole family to activities on the weekend. Get the price of these things low enough, provide tax incentives and lowered registration costs and maybe they will make a positive impact.

I agree about the daily commuter options.

I've thought for some time that the SmartCar is a great option for getting around the city. Why do I need a huge vehicle to haul my ass to the office? It's the main reason I bought a Vespa. I spend less than $5 a week putting gas in my scooter and when I am not driving my scooter I take public transit.

Unfortunately, the poor planning of our cities (ie urban sprawl) demands that the automobile continue to be a big part of our lives for some time to come. The population density is just not there to ensure that public transit (rail and bus) works effectively in the suburbs. Small commuter vehicles, with the right price point, make a lot of sense.

Were hydrogen refueling stations widespread, these look like a fun commuters.

Even better, 'cause you don't have to wait for hydrogen pipe-dream to come to fruition, is the Carver.

http://www.carver-europe.com/

This I would buy.

I wonder what the mpg during acceleration and stop and go traffic is like. If it could average out to 100 mpg, someone with a 25 mile commute would spend about $6.25 on gas compared to $25 right now.

/that carver is pretty cool.

Try putting a carseat and a baby in there too.

There is a reason we have mini-vans.

Being a performance oriented guy, I've always liked the idea of little 1 and 2 seater cars with tube frame/carbon fiber construction powered by motorcycle engines. Tons of performance, with decent gas mileage. Not ground breaking or revolutionary, but if everyone did it, it'd save tons of gas.

You missed the point. We were talking about this being a second car.

Yes, there are reasons why minivans exist but for one person to commute into the city for work, why have such a massive machine. It would be great if we had smaller single commute vehicles that could get us where we need to get and back without being wasteful.

Perhaps that what you were talking about, but 'second car' doesn't seem to be a theme here, so don't read too much into my statement.

It’s a cute idea, but I'm keeping my wife and kid shelled in airbagged steel with crumple zones. I can afford the gas. It reminds me other 3 wheeled cheap, fuel efficient, cars of the past, but with 'futuristic' lines), and those didn't go over that well.

http://www.motoringpicturelibrary.co...340001141c.jpg

http://www.habersack.net/Pictures/Sc...heeled_Car.jpg

http://www.rqriley.com/imagespln/tmc3.jpg

Focusing in fuel economy is not enough, we already have fuel efficient vehicles and they are not the most popular. It needs to combine the comfort, safety AND fuel efficiency, otherwise its just another cool looking gimmick car.

The idea is it has to start somewhere. Who cares if its a second or third car, as long as we trend towards something other than the freakin' Hummer.

Good one, UStwo! Well said for the daddys out there!

- Tho........I could see wings on it and an antigravity pack under the frame....
And it def could be a fun place for the quick love session after the movie or at noon. :crazy:

...and Ustwo and Hunnychile underscore the point, yet again, that it will take a lot for America to change it's transit patterns.

I don't see anything particularly wrong with this in a free market economy. The only way I see it coming to an end is when the price of fuel gets high enough to increase consumer demand for either fuel efficiency or alternative and cheaper fuels... otherwise it will just be more of the same.

Yes of course, no SUV's, pickup trucks, or vans in Canada :)

I'm in Canada every summer, never noted a change in the vehicles.

Or for that matter, we have Europeans with much much higher gas prices, yet even there, the mini-cars are only so popular.

Perhaps the issue here is what people want not what others want for people.

I meant that as North America (which, last I checked includes Canada).

Gas prices *are* higher in Europe and smaller cars *are* much more prevalent amongst the middle class.

For me it is not what I want for others... I have simply recognized the patterns and commented. I do not think buying patterns will change until something forces them to change (like high fuel costs or legislation like the zero emmisions ones in California).

I honestly don't care what people drive... I loved my 1988 Jeep Cherokee when I still had it.

But I think the focus on smaller and more fuel efficient is the wrong way to go from a development perspective.

I'd rather see as big or bigger AND more fuel efficient or using a cheaper/less polluting fuel.

One is adapting to the conditions, the other is altering the conditions. It’s a philosophical difference in how one looks at progress.

Oh and nice save with the American's bit. I'll be holding you to that in your future posts, as I'm sure you also included the Mexicans and South 'Americans too' :p

Why would you think I wouldn't include Canada when talking about US car buying trends? That would be plain stupid. Actually the trends are slightly different between the US and Canada... The US is top heavy with SUVs and Canada is top heavy with MiniVans (just read the stats and can get you the reference it you wish).

As for bigger and fuel efficient as a mark of progress... that's great. Make it happen. For the time being, I don't see this happening. All I see is bigger more polluting machines getting made. The pollution they spew is one of the those pesky negative externalities I was talking about elsewhere. One way to deal with this is more costly fuel or greater taxation on the purchase of vehicles that exhibit bad efficencies (i.e. they spew pollution). The market would correct itself.

As it stands, there is a huge loophole in the US system that allows SUVs to be catagorized as light trucks. Small business owners (like yourself to be sure) can right off the expense of their SUV (I can't remember of the specifics of this but I suppose I could look it up as well). In anycase, this is a prime example of the government having a negative impact on not only fuel consumption (rather than conservation) and pollution (i.e. smog).

I understand the philosophical difference you point out and agree. Again, I don't want to see everyone driving tiny cars, nor do I want to see them driving mammoths. I want people to be able to drive what they want. The thing is, I want drivers to be responsible for their own negative externalities. If you are going to drive a gas guzzling, polluting machine, I want you to assume some the cost of the damage to the environment, roads, etc. that you are making.

Something viable needs introduced that will take hold like the Japanese imports in the 70s did. What would it be like to take the cars that Toyota, Datsun and Mazda introduced in the 70s, add air bags and computer engine management to them and see what happens? The only thing you would see people pissing and moaning about with those cars would be the lack of leather and CD players I suspect.

Yugos were pieces of shit because they were pieces of shit. Not because they were basic transportation.

And the average male car buyer reads a lot of car magazines and probably loves the movie "xXx" which creates his entire "buying mood" in the first place. Oh and let's not forget the Speed channel.

I would have to say that it could be feasible IF in popular culture we started seeing the equating of low mpg vehicles with the necessity to create an energy policy which sanctions force against nations we are dependant upon. Of course that would require us to accept two basic facts:
1. We kill for oil
2. Pop culture defines us more than we define pop culture

There's a hidden beauty in your statement Ustwo, you have pointed out that Charlatan unwittingly accepts the integration of Canada into the United States. I make similar statements all the time.

True, and I thought of bringing that up, but I decided to be nice :D

Besides Canada is most definately a different culture as they serve gravy with french fries. :eek:

Don't make me get my stats out... we largely have the same choice of products but our buying patterns do differ.

I don't agree with this. It is the other way around. Pop culture does not exist in a vacuum. Symbiotic might be closer to the truth.

Gravy on fries is a common dish in the sates as well. In fact I had this for lunch just yesterday.

Most likely at a Canadian restaurant ;)

Maybe, but no doubt whatever becomes popular culture is whatever gets emulated. Those in the population who are more prone to subscribing to the way of life that is determined for them by the media (who I would dare say are less intelligent, or at least less freethinking), those are the types of people who would be defined more by what is popular and would not be capable of creating what is popular themselves. If the relationship really is symboitic, then I would rephrase that second statement to point out that there are a much smaller number of people defining pop culture than there are people subscribing to it. I'd like to know what you think.

This I can agree with...

What I take exception to is this:
The media does not create popular culture. From what I can see, most popular things start out as "alternative" things. It is those that seek to be "individualistic", "cutting edge", etc. That set the trends. The media just follows along for the ride.

There are a very limited number of people who are truly setting the trends. These are followed by early adopters who popularize something (by this time, the initial trendsetters are on to something new). Trends become normalized and absorbed into the mainstream.

The media does not force anything on anyone. The media does not create culture. The media is a part of culture.

I know it is trendy to point to people who enjoy or particpate in pop culture and call them sheep, but I see nothing prodcutive in this. If you truly want to step out of pop culture loop... the only way to do so is to conform. The more you try to be an "individual" the more you feed the machine.

Charlatan, a few thoughts about your last post.

I also agree that the few define, and the many imitate. It's a matter of willingness to spend energy trying to define yourself as an individual, I suppose, but the fact is that many do not take advantage of their own personal growth potential in society. I suspect that if more people in the US were to drive those interesting cars, we'd see dependence on oil (and huge, 9 mpg SUVs dissapear). There has to be a degree of responsibility in the power of defining pop culture.

As for the question of who defines pop culture...this is more complicated. Yes, many things are simply a matter of someone really cool doing something new, people emulating it, and the media catching on and commercializing it for the masses. That is not always the case, however. There are also times when a media comglomerate sees that a particular trend would benifit them greatly. Often it is a matter of tweaking a current of continuing trend. Let's take entertainment insider television shows for example (a la Extra, Entertainment tonight, Access Hollywood, etc...of course there are older shows and news papers, these are simply the current manifestations). People have always been interested in entertainment, and there have always been celebrities of one type or another in society. Western culture often falls short in the production and distribution of the stories of heros and celebrities, so it was decided that glorifying modern story tellers would be benificial in that people would watch the shows, AND it would explore a new avenue of promoting a film. Why not promote a film based on the star power, not just the story? And maybe even the director? And why not the third boom handler? It's a matter of creating fandom in order to boost interest in films that might not otherwise have interest (Mr. and Mrs. Smith).

I WISH I could feed the machine. That kind of power would be amazing to yield. It's the tweaking after it goes into the machine and before it gets rereleased that worries me. I'd love to start a trend of smaller, european type cars that have better gas milage and are more ecologically sound.

Also, your new avatar gave me nightmares.

I believe that the commercialization of trends is their modification into things which can be used to reap great profits. However this is something I assert from my intuitive experiences, so I have nothing to back up this claim- I don't ask you to take my word on it, but I'm letting you know that I'd have to do research before I can verify it as fact.

I disagree. With the tacit capacity of the evolving media conglomorates to dictate which trends fall through the cracks, the media creates the "acceptable spectrum" of culture within which we live.

I would never do that for the sake of appearing trendy, I just wish to derive at a reasonable conclusion of why things occur the way they do. I'm also having a hard time understanding what you mean by "stepping out of the pop culture loop by conforming" and how exactly that would be done.

===
With that response, I'd like to point out again what exactly I believe could be done to make a 330mpg vehicle popular. We would have to first be honest about and highlight the negative effects of low mpg vehicles. The indirect effects are quite dire:
1. We consume more fuel, therefore require more fuel.
2. The energy policy must be constructed in a manner to provide for the demands.
3. Since the energy sources are found most abundantly outside of North American borders, the energy policy will effectively also form the foreign policy.
4. The foreign policy will be built in a manner to acquire all such resources in order to meet demand.
5. (And this is where it gets ugly) The current foreign policy is a policy of economic sanctions, followed by state-sponsored coups (sometimes even via terrorism) and also military interventions.

If there was a concerted effort on drastically reducing the popularity of vehicles with high fuel consumption, eventually the populous will start subscribing to the newly popular vehicles which have comparitively very low fuel consumption. The demand drops, and eventually dependence decreases until we find a more permanent solution.

I've never heard of gravy & fries together.
I now have a rumbly in my tumbly.