That definately is one cool little car. It seems like every day or so we see new inventions and new ways of doing things coming out of Asia and Europe. Funny, the U.S. used to be the leader in those departments. Now, we are more concerned about Paris Hilton or Britney Spears.
Ford bought a few hundred Norwegian made electric cars some years ago. The manufacturers here in Norway managed to prevent Ford's planned destruction of them. With legal assistance, they bought them all back. They've since been sold like hot-cakes, and everybody exept Ford is happy :-)
No more are being made to my knowledge, but every little bit helps.
I have to give credit where credit is due. Make that India. Apparently India's Tata Motors are going to put ex-Formula One engineer Guy Nègre's design into production. This will work great for India so I can see why they are doing it. Not only does it not run on fossil fuel but it would be great for India's population who like little cars anyway and have narrow roads as I understand it. This article has a picture the car and its engine. Facinating stuff. Its funny, but after reading the article about this Indian build car I almost expect to see a robot named "Johnny Five" driving it from the movie Short Circuit. :lol:
Indian air-powered City Cat car prepares for production run
Sun, 01/06/2008 - 10:19 — Eric Almighty (not verified)
Somebody else put this in the comments in an earlier post. That person posited that it would free us from the oil barons who have caused the world so much trouble. That comment brought a genius response that we would eventually become beholden to the compressed air barons. Booyah.
Seriously, though. Does anybody know if it's more efficient to run an air compressor or an internal combustion engine?
That definately is one cool little car. It seems like every day or so we see new inventions and new ways of doing things coming out of Asia and Europe. Funny, the U.S. used to be the leader in those departments. Now, we are more concerned about Paris Hilton or Britney Spears.
One of the first things the Reagan admin did, was to scrap the transition to the metric system that (I believe Carter started) had gotten very far until 1981. That is just one of the reasons the US no longer is at the top and in front. Another thing is that too many influential Americans have lead the country into complacency. OK, fine, the space program, but even there nothing much has happened since the saturn rockets were shelved.
holy cow, $3 per 125 miles !! it looks funky but for that rate, i'll drive one with pink polka-dots. Or paint it like the Mystery Machine and drive around with my dog.
That definately is one cool little car. It seems like every day or so we see new inventions and new ways of doing things coming out of Asia and Europe. Funny, the U.S. used to be the leader in those departments. Now, we are more concerned about Paris Hilton or Britney Spears.
If you go to most engineering/applied science depts. in the US of A, you will see how most students are of the foreign persuasion. However, most MBA programmes have such demand that even the crappy schools have a surplus of them nice American boys and girls to chose from.
A nation of lazy jackasses with deliriums of grandeur, as represented by our current president: a mediocre student, with an MBA, and who ran every business he touched into the ground. Alas people were dumb enough to not figure out that, as a life long failure, maybe he was not qualify in the least to manage this country's top office.
The level of self entitlement by a lot of people in this country is mind blowing sometimes... to say the least.
Very interesting technology, and a great idea. Using compressed air for the energy storage solves the primary problems of batteries - weight and the toxic materials they contain, which pose a pollution problem during manufacture and disposal.
The claim that the compressed air propulsion is non-polluting is, however, wrong. It takes energy to compress the air to store in the vehicle, and unless you would care to hook the compressor to your exercise bike, that energy will pollute. It's the same with electric cars, which would mostly get their charge from generators run by burning gas, oil, or coal. Off-peak charging from the grid would marginalize that effect, so it's a step in the right direction. And the compression of air for energy storage is another great step.
But let's not be misled that ANYTHING we use or consume is totally free of pollution. Use wisely and sustainably.
Busholini has advanced this country's decline into an also-ran in short order. But Raygun started the dumbing-down process.
Only the Republicans could take a country, that set foot on the moon, cured polio, and detonated the first atomic bomb, and de-evolve it to a level in which it seems as perfectly reasonable to open a $20 million "museum" dedicated to creation.
Very few societies have managed to go in reverse as to negate a lot of their advancements in such a sort period of time.
I have to give credit where credit is due. Make that India. Apparently India's Tata Motors are going to put ex-Formula One engineer Guy Nègre's design into production. This will work great for India so I can see why they are doing it. Not only does it not run on fossil fuel but it would be great for India's population who like little cars anyway and have narrow roads as I understand it. This article has a picture the car and its engine. Facinating stuff. Its funny, but after reading the article about this Indian build car I almost expect to see a robot named "Johnny Five" driving it from the movie Short Circuit. :lol:
Indian air-powered City Cat car prepares for production run
Now I know why oil companies are jacking all their prices up so high. They know that they will be obsolete in 50 years and they are trying to rake in as much money as they can while they are still BMOC. This is some really exciting information. And right after Santa delivered all his goodies......darn. Good luck to these inventors. With the internet, US markets will not have such an easy time trying to stop these advances.
OK, fine, the space program, but even there nothing much has happened since the saturn rockets were shelved.
Ironically, the US space programme ran out of steam as the German team that came with Von Braun started to die off.
A lot of the genius of this country IMHO was that Americans were willing to accept the best and the brightest from else where in order to complement, and further, the local homegrown talent. And thus, the American research engine was able to quickly surpass other approaches which were far too afraid of the "not invented or born here" paradigm.
However, the country is now run by a generation of jingoistic ignorant idiots who assumed that shitting and peeing into the well where you drink from, is not only a good idea but also adds bouquet to the taste of the water. The level of self entitlement of some people made them too self centered to look around and realize, that the reason why this country was where it was (at the top) was because they were sitting on the shoulder of giants. It is the prototypical story of the jackass who was born in 3rd base and who things he just scored a triple....
Sun, 01/06/2008 - 10:48 — Chris May (not verified)
OMG people... COME ON!!
So long as people keep pushing these things (air powered cars, fuel cell powered cars, etc) the electric car (or plug in hybrid), which could be used tomorrow in many applications, will never get the push it needs.
To get that into the US, first we'd have to blow $9 fitting the compressed air dispenser into the ass*oles of the CEO's of Ford, GM, and Chrysler (or whatever it's called today).
After they've gone to 'heaven', we'd need another $300 or so to take care of the Senator's, less than $1,500 for the representatives, about $3,000 for the lobbyists, $1,000 for the White House (they are bigger assh*les), and we'd have some neat wheels.
Oh, oh, I forgot BigOil. Fu*k 'em, let's just shoot 'em, they're way overdue.
On another note, I've looked at many vehicles from around the world and the vehicles producted are usually small, economical, and look pretty simple in design but they do look like great vehicles to me. Maybe another problem Ford and GM have is that we Americans tend to be more concerned about how we look, or how impressive our new "ride" is. We have to have the big gas guzzler truck with a suped up engine or something. It seems most people around the world aren't concerned with that. They do like nice things but are more concerned about getting from point A to point B and if all they can afford is a little beat up car then so be it. They don't have much money so they demand more from the auto makers and as Tata Motors just showed, they can deliver.
250 miles per charge, top speed between 130 and 150, 0-60 in under 4 seconds and it is so sexy (lotus body) it would easily get you laid ... metaphorically. :) Lotus is selling them in numbers in the UK this year.
Didn't realize they plan on having an on board compressor to charge at home and also make a hybrid version.
It would be nice if they did manage to go into production some day
For city driving it's ideal and considering gas stations make little out of gas sales (the supplier makes the money) I'm guessing the station owners might be happier as they could keep 100% of the profits.
I do wonder though what would happen in countries like England where the government would lose a lot of tax revenue from petrol sales. They would make it up somehow and my guess is that the environment would gain but the motorist would still pay through the nose.
I'm sure some lawmakers here will put as many obstacles in the way of sales as they can so don't hold your breath just yet.
250 miles per charge, top speed between 130 and 150, 0-60 in under 4 seconds and it is so sexy (lotus body) it would easily get you laid ... metaphorically. :) Lotus is selling them in numbers in the UK this year.
The Tesla is also $100,000!
This is a zero emission car.
250 miles per charge, top speed between 130 and 150, 0-60 in under 4 seconds and it is so sexy (lotus body) it would easily get you laid ... metaphorically. :) Lotus is selling them in numbers in the UK this year.
The Tesla is also $100,000!
This is a zero emission car.
Go back to driving your golf cart.
This sells electric cars NOT Ed Begley. (I love Ed).
They will have a family version in 24 months for 35K.
So if pure sex is too much for ya, your E-Taurus is on the way.
Very interesting technology, and a great idea. Using compressed air for the energy storage solves the primary problems of batteries - weight and the toxic materials they contain, which pose a pollution problem during manufacture and disposal.
The claim that the compressed air propulsion is non-polluting is, however, wrong. It takes energy to compress the air to store in the vehicle, and unless you would care to hook the compressor to your exercise bike, that energy will pollute. It's the same with electric cars, which would mostly get their charge from generators run by burning gas, oil, or coal. Off-peak charging from the grid would marginalize that effect, so it's a step in the right direction. And the compression of air for energy storage is another great step.
But let's not be misled that ANYTHING we use or consume is totally free of pollution. Use wisely and sustainably.
Very important point. It all comes back to how you source the energy. There are plenty of ways to store energy, including emerging ultra-efficient batteries. Right now the only plentiful energy resource in the U.S. (that we know how to harness) is coal, which is dirtier than petroleum. Probably the source energy from a project like this could come from natural gas, but that does nothing to change our national energy security outlook. Natural gas is cleaner though. Sorry to say but wind, solar, geothermal, etc. are all still marginal energy sources. Unless the U.S. gets really serious about making the big investment in home-grown energy, alternatives such as this car wont matter much.
Sun, 01/06/2008 - 11:07 — Ruthless People (not verified)
If the Bush cabal could just figure out a way to give Halliburton no bid contracts at taxpayer expense to aquire all the air so Cheney's Halliburton stock could rise another 3000% and then sell the air back to the taxpayer at over $3.00 a gallon this car just might make it to this country after all, so don't loose hope yet.
There are so many ways of fueling motion, but Detroit decided to pay politicians to avoid getting pressured into innovation. Now they are green with envy when they see car makers from other countries so much better prepared for the changing markets. In a way it is just another example where the corporations in line with the incompetence of the current administration have lost contact to reality. While they were still chiding Al Gore as a dreamer and tree hugger, the world turned without them realizing it. I'd laugh if it weren't so sad.
If the Bush cabal could just figure out a way to give Halliburton no bid contracts at taxpayer expense to aquire all the air so Cheney's Halliburton stock could rise another 3000% and then sell the air back to the taxpayer at over $3.00 a gallon this car just might make it to this country after all, so don't loose hope yet.
BioDollars, Cheney's subsidiary in the Bio/Genetic/Chemical monopoly field, has already patented the formula for 'Air'. So getting the little car here is going to be a boon for him.
And it would be wise not to piss Cheney off, or we're all liable to have a problem inhaling.
A car with a 120-mile range has zero chance in the US. Sad, but true.</blockquote
Sure it does. For those living in any large metropolitan area (the majority of the population), you don't need to go that far to reach your destination (just like in Europe). For the rest of the population, rural or small town, they need an attitude adjustment (which will come one way or the other whether they like it or not, in some form).
Where I live, cars (especially trucks) define your "manhood" (lots of rednecks and cowboy wannabees here). For all I care they can go ahead and pay, $4, $5, then $6 and upwards per gallon of gas in the future all they want.
As with any technology, it will be improved upon as time goes by, so that 125-mile per tank of compressed air will improve.
The major obstacle in the US will be the Big Three, car companies, and businesses who owe their living to replacement parts, auto repair shops (based on the combustible engine), etc... and the politcians beholding to them, along with tax revenue from lost gasoline sales. It will have far reaching effects, not unlike other revolutions in history.
250 miles per charge, top speed between 130 and 150, 0-60 in under 4 seconds and it is so sexy (lotus body) it would easily get you laid ... metaphorically. :) Lotus is selling them in numbers in the UK this year.
The Tesla is also $100,000!
This is a zero emission car.
Go back to driving your golf cart.
This sells electric cars NOT Ed Begley. (I love Ed).
They will have a family version in 24 months for 35K.
So if pure sex is too much for ya, your E-Taurus is on the way.
R u bustin' my onions? The Tesla is a beautiful car. It's also prohibitively expen$ive and, so far, hasn't gotten beyond the testing stages (as far as I've heard).
From what I hear is the thing already isn't street legal in the US because it's pretty much made out of foam..
Maybe instead of listening to false hearsay you should try listening to the facts for a change. http://www.theaircar.com/
I first read about this car early last year and it definitly has an incredible amount of potential. If I could afford it I would have already pre-ordered one.
Flash @42, I guess you've never heard of a bellows before then. Nor wind and waves. You might be interested to know that the first European firearms were compressed air powered. Their air chambers were filled by bellows and were rather effective.
I said the Tesla is a $100,000 car -- certainly not one for the masses.
I was watching a documentary about the Tesla car and the thing is amazing. The technology for a working and practical electric car has been available for at least twenty five years. Even more so now with the development of wafer-thin lithium batteries. I believe the Tesla uses similar technology, greatly reducing the weight of the vehicle. Therefore you can achieve speeds that is almost comparable to that of a combustion engine. If serious research and resources had been committed into mass producing these, our country would be driving them by now. The reason we aren't is the fact the oil companies expend vast amounts of money to stifle research into anything that would be a viable alternative to gasoline.
If not electric, why not bio-diesel or E85? These technologies would take very little effort utilize. Again it's not explored because we are being manipulated by the oil companies. Brazil has been using E85 since the 80's. They are almost energy independent now. Can't find E85? There is a simple modification to existing engines where you flip a switch and viola...you can fill-up with old fashioned gasoline. Interesting...every time you put gas in your car, the oil companies are using their record profits to keep us addicted to petroleum.
Nikola Tesla did vast amounts of research onto the practical uses of electricity and magnetism. He died in 1943. Much of his work to this day is still classified by the government. Why?
This sells electric cars NOT Ed Begley. (I love Ed).
They will have a family version in 24 months for 35K.
So if pure sex is too much for ya, your E-Taurus is on the way.
R u bustin' my onions? The Tesla is a beautiful car. It's also prohibitively expen$ive and, so far, hasn't gotten beyond the testing stages (as far as I've heard).
No, just making a point.
It is in production in the UK by Lotus.
The Tesla costs nothing like 100k to make. It is being sold at that price to generate initial revenue. They are honest about that. The intentionally made their first model a fast status car to create interest and income - and it worked.
In 2009 (late) they plan a 35k family car for mass production in the US.
Nothing magic here. Nothing unattainable here.
They understand people in the US just HATE electric golf carts and LOVE Vipers, Ferraris etc. Sex sells ... so they made a sexy car.
Its not for you, its for the McMansion crowd. The next one is for you.
uh, you still have to compress the air which requires.....
energy, like electricity or burning something.
energy is never free.
This is why the rest of the world sees America as scientificly challanged. Hydro is free except for the infrastructure. Same for solar, wind and wave. And then you've got your geo-thermal too. Didn't you have science classes at some point in your life???
This sells electric cars NOT Ed Begley. (I love Ed).
They will have a family version in 24 months for 35K.
So if pure sex is too much for ya, your E-Taurus is on the way.
R u bustin' my onions? The Tesla is a beautiful car. It's also prohibitively expen$ive and, so far, hasn't gotten beyond the testing stages (as far as I've heard).
No, just making a point.
It is in production in the UK by Lotus.
The Tesla costs nothing like 100k to make. It is being sold at that price to generate initial revenue. They are honest about that. The intentionally made their first model a fast status car to create interest and income - and it worked.
In 2009 (late) they plan a 35k family car for mass production in the US.
Nothing magic here. Nothing unattainable here.
They understand people in the US just HATE electric golf carts and LOVE Vipers, Ferraris etc. Sex sells ... so they made a sexy car.
Its not for you, its for the McMansion crowd. The next one is for you.
Okay. I've seen videos and news stories about the car -- it's a beauty. Today I went to their website (very impressive). The Tesla bears a strong resemblance to the Lotus Elise, which now that you've informed me that Lotus is selling it in the UK, is no surprise.
Busholini has advanced this country's decline into an also-ran in short order. But Raygun started the dumbing-down process.
Only the Republicans could take a country, that set foot on the moon, cured polio, and detonated the first atomic bomb, and de-evolve it to a level in which it seems as perfectly reasonable to open a $20 million "museum" dedicated to creation.
Very few societies have managed to go in reverse as to negate a lot of their advancements in such a sort period of time.
It is criminal to say the least.
Don't forget that the US also created the integrated circuit in the 70's, and was the leader in telecommunications in the 90's. Now we've become a joke in networks and telecommunications in just 7 or 8 short years.
at the end they state sales in show rooms start this year (2008).
... and no we wont learn.
This is the brain child of Elon Musk - a genius and founder of pay pal. This fella is worth following closely (his next project is outsourcing heavy lift to earth orbit for nasa)
I've read most of the posts here, and I can tell there are few ME's responding to this. The simple fact is it will take MORE energy to fuel this car than you get back from the car. Entropy is a hell of a thing. This is just like a hydrogen car (H2 cars will never really hit the streets for a 1000 different reasons). You are not making 0 pollution you are simply shifting the source to a coal-fired electric plant (here in the US) which in turn hits the power grid harder and increases mercury emissions. That is the most likely source for compressed air for this thing.
TO POSTER 56:
H2 is not free. H2 takes orders of magnitude more energy to produce than what you get back from the re-combustion process. Additionally, H2 cannot be stored. H2 migrates through the crystal lattice structure of holding tanks in a fairly short time. The pipe needed to move H2 must be all welded (no cheap fittings here) and verified flaw free to store H2 for a short while. Hydrogen is the smallest atom and as such can squeez through the crystal structure of any holding tank.
For on-demand production of H2 --- well, why use orders of magnitude MORE energy to make H2 then re-burn H2 thus getting less energy than the production process consumed???
H2 killed itself a long time ago. The auto industry is dangling it in front of you to show they are indeed green when in fact they could easily produce cars with less Hp and better fuel economy.
The worst aspect of oil is that it packs so much easily accessible energy into a small package. There are few sources of energy as potent and easily accessible as oil.
I was around in the 1970s when the gas crunch first reared its ugly head. There were alternatives and new designs back then.
However, in the United States, the super-powers (mainly the oil industry) have obstructed innovations such as this van. Decades and decades of reliance on oil, all intentional, all planned.
People are not even aware of the reliance on oil for ordinary TIRES. There were alternatives to petroleum-based tires decades ago, but the tire manufacturers wanted nothing to do with them.
All petroleum-based interests/corporations are in collusion to obstruct innovation. Nothing goes this long without intentional obstructionism.
I was around in the 1970s when the gas crunch first reared its ugly head. There were alternatives and new designs back then.
However, in the United States, the super-powers (mainly the oil industry) have obstructed innovations such as this van. Decades and decades of reliance on oil, all intentional, all planned.
People are not even aware of the reliance on oil for ordinary TIRES. There were alternatives to petroleum-based tires decades ago, but the tire manufacturers wanted nothing to do with them.
All petroleum-based interests/corporations are in collusion to obstruct innovation. Nothing goes this long without intentional obstructionism.
I remember that as well (and more, overpopulation issues for example).
And it was shortly after those 'solutions' were identified that we got Reagan ... who (we now know) started the long process of handing the country over to the very corporations that were threatened by these new solutions (oil companies etc) - and fascism.
I was around in the 1970s when the gas crunch first reared its ugly head. There were alternatives and new designs back then.
However, in the United States, the super-powers (mainly the oil industry) have obstructed innovations such as this van. Decades and decades of reliance on oil, all intentional, all planned.
People are not even aware of the reliance on oil for ordinary TIRES. There were alternatives to petroleum-based tires decades ago, but the tire manufacturers wanted nothing to do with them.
All petroleum-based interests/corporations are in collusion to obstruct innovation. Nothing goes this long without intentional obstructionism.
You know why tires still contain oil? It's cheaper. BFG, Cooper, Toyo, etc are not colluding with the oil industry to keep Shell's profits up. Corporations exist to make money, not to ensure the longevity of other corporations. This "industry X is doing this to help the oil industry" is a simple-minded argument. It falls apart when one thinks about the economics involved. Ford doesn't give a rat's ass about big oil. Ford only cares about making a profit. If US consumers were willing to buy slow, under-powered 4-bangers then that's what Ford would produce; however, Americans want their 320 Hp Mustangs and the like.
The auto industry is NOT supporting big oil. The US auto industry doesn't want tighter regulations because that would mean the US auto industry would have to re-think their engine designs. The US auto industry is resisting change to avoid spending money, not to make more money or support big oil.
I can just imagine that car being used on the streets of Los Angeles. Somebody fills it up with compressed air sucked out of the atmosphere above L.A., then a 'polution control official' measures the emissions coming out of the tailpipe, and fines the owner for pumping too much pollution into the air.
For such a "Christian" country, Americans at large are unwilling to make sacrifices.
People need to have a concept of a "greater good" and the willingness to compromise. Alas such notions are usually regarded as weakness in this great society.
So you will keep on seeing GOPers reminding us about how Christian we are, and talk the talk. But like a lot of people in our land, they will be most unwilling to walk the walk.
It is only we need to face the music, that you will see plenty of victimization: "What happened? We never saw this coming! We're scared! Who is at fault!" You'll see once we are in the toilet, these assholes will complain that it was our fault because we were not forceful enough in our efforts to induce change.
I have been walking/running/cycling to work whenever possible, and I use public transport again... whenever I can. However, it is always a chore... and not only that, but cycling can be sometimes down right dangerous. When you have to negotiate the roads with plenty of jackasses with the latest mega ultra big SUV who can barely drive, and who have no concept of other people in smaller vehicles in the same road. I never understood why a 2 ton car was required to transport an asshole...
I can just imagine that car being used on the streets of Los Angeles. Somebody fills it up with compressed air sucked out of the atmosphere above L.A., then a 'polution control official' measures the emissions coming out of the tailpipe, and fines the owner for pumping too much pollution into the air.
Um... why can't you put a filter on the air compressor. That way each time you drove, you'd actually be cleaning the air?
I wish we had those "pollution control officials," now. If you throw trash out the window of your car, you'll get a ticket for littering. But those same cars pollute the public commens with poison out their tail pipes and get away with it. If you've ever ridden a bike in LA you'd know.
I was around in the 1970s when the gas crunch first reared its ugly head. There were alternatives and new designs back then.
However, in the United States, the super-powers (mainly the oil industry) have obstructed innovations such as this van. Decades and decades of reliance on oil, all intentional, all planned.
People are not even aware of the reliance on oil for ordinary TIRES. There were alternatives to petroleum-based tires decades ago, but the tire manufacturers wanted nothing to do with them.
All petroleum-based interests/corporations are in collusion to obstruct innovation. Nothing goes this long without intentional obstructionism.
You know why tires still contain oil? It's cheaper. BFG, Cooper, Toyo, etc are not colluding with the oil industry to keep Shell's profits up. Corporations exist to make money, not to ensure the longevity of other corporations. This "industry X is doing this to help the oil industry" is a simple-minded argument. It falls apart when one thinks about the economics involved. Ford doesn't give a rat's ass about big oil. Ford only cares about making a profit. If US consumers were willing to buy slow, under-powered 4-bangers then that's what Ford would produce; however, Americans want their 320 Hp Mustangs and the like.
The auto industry is NOT supporting big oil. The US auto industry doesn't want tighter regulations because that would mean the US auto industry would have to re-think their engine designs. The US auto industry is resisting change to avoid spending money, not to make more money or support big oil.
The sum total of your premises equals bullshit.
AT&T isn't colluding with the government to wire-tap law-abiding citizens either, right?
There is something called a domino effect. I suggest you read up on it. When an infrastructure exists, one that cost trillions of dollars to put in place (i.e., oil based industries and manufacturers), the investors in that infrastructure are not about to abandon it for something new. Of course they don't want their investments tumbling into worthlessness. But don't give me that tired, lame, consumers aren't ready for "slow, under-powered 4-bangers" crap. Those 4-bangers can be every bit as "peppy" as people like you desire, and you know it.
God, the mentality of people like you sickens me. I hope nobody believes a word you wrote. Think about it, readers: Almost 4 decades of basic no-change because of YOU.
If BILLO, Lumpballs, or Fox Noise ever find themselves out of a job they could refill every car in the UK with all the (worthless) hot air they expell every day.
Ford doesn't give a rat's ass about big oil. Ford only cares about making a profit. If US consumers were willing to buy slow, under-powered 4-bangers then that's what Ford would produce; however, Americans want their 320 Hp Mustangs and the like.
If that argument was true, then Mustangs would be the best selling cars in America and not the niche sellers that they truly are. Alas, the best selling cars for the past couple of decades have been the Accord and Camry, with the Taurus peeking in every now and then when it was in production.
All the sanctimonious arguments about Detroit simply catering to the demand are bullshit. The problem with the big 3 is that they still think that they are in a supply side argument. They produced, and for the most part force-fed, all those butt ugly SUVs for the better part of a decade, not because that was what the US public demanded, but because those vehicles are the most profitable for them.
Furthermore, efficient and reliable cars are a threat to Detroit's business models, which rely on a car providing them with a revenue stream through its lifetime, not just at purchase time. This happens in the form of continuous repairs, replacement parts, oil changes etc. Of course, when the customers went shopping elsewhere. It could not possibly be that the American auto makers were producing utter shit. Of course not, it was them pesky Unions and uppity workers demanding decent wages!
"Johnathan Goodwin can get 100 mpg out of a Lincoln Continental, cut emissions by 80%, and double the horsepower. Does the car business have the guts to follow him?"
http://www.fastcompany.com/magazine/120/motorhead-messiah.html
Gas turbines have their own problems. They must be checked very often to ensure they wont blow up. An engine spinning at 60K RPM will put A LOT of tensile stress on the turbine blades. These stresses will eventually lead to turbine blade failure (creep failure). Most consumers are not willing to drop the thousands of dollars needed to keep a GT up and running. Now, add in turbine lag and the increased NxOy(oxides of nitrogen) produced by a GT and you're back where you started.
Diesel will be the next big thing... Diesel is much more efficient than gasoline. There's a reason reciprocating engines have been unchanged for the last 150 years --- they work well, are easy to produce, are cheap, and tough.
Ford doesn't give a rat's ass about big oil. Ford only cares about making a profit. If US consumers were willing to buy slow, under-powered 4-bangers then that's what Ford would produce; however, Americans want their 320 Hp Mustangs and the like.
If that argument was true, then Mustangs would be the best selling cars in America and not the niche sellers that they truly are. Alas, the best selling cars for the past couple of decades have been the Accord and Camry, with the Taurus peeking in every now and then when it was in production.
All the sanctimonious arguments about Detroit simply catering to the demand are bullshit. The problem with the big 3 is that they still think that they are in a supply side argument. They produced, and for the most part force-fed, all those butt ugly SUVs for the better part of a decade, not because that was what the US public demanded, but because those vehicles are the most profitable for them.
Furthermore, efficient and reliable cars are a threat to Detroit's business models, which rely on a car providing them with a revenue stream through its lifetime, not just at purchase time. This happens in the form of continuous repairs, replacement parts, oil changes etc. Of course, when the customers went shopping elsewhere. It could not possibly be that the American auto makers were producing utter shit. Of course not, it was them pesky Unions and uppity workers demanding decent wages!
Ford doesn't give a rat's ass about big oil. Ford only cares about making a profit. If US consumers were willing to buy slow, under-powered 4-bangers then that's what Ford would produce; however, Americans want their 320 Hp Mustangs and the like.
If that argument was true, then Mustangs would be the best selling cars in America and not the niche sellers that they truly are. Alas, the best selling cars for the past couple of decades have been the Accord and Camry, with the Taurus peeking in every now and then when it was in production.
All the sanctimonious arguments about Detroit simply catering to the demand are bullshit. The problem with the big 3 is that they still think that they are in a supply side argument. They produced, and for the most part force-fed, all those butt ugly SUVs for the better part of a decade, not because that was what the US public demanded, but because those vehicles are the most profitable for them.
Furthermore, efficient and reliable cars are a threat to Detroit's business models, which rely on a car providing them with a revenue stream through its lifetime, not just at purchase time. This happens in the form of continuous repairs, replacement parts, oil changes etc. Of course, when the customers went shopping elsewhere. It could not possibly be that the American auto makers were producing utter shit. Of course not, it was them pesky Unions and uppity workers demanding decent wages!
I was around in the 1970s when the gas crunch first reared its ugly head. There were alternatives and new designs back then.
However, in the United States, the super-powers (mainly the oil industry) have obstructed innovations such as this van. Decades and decades of reliance on oil, all intentional, all planned.
People are not even aware of the reliance on oil for ordinary TIRES. There were alternatives to petroleum-based tires decades ago, but the tire manufacturers wanted nothing to do with them.
All petroleum-based interests/corporations are in collusion to obstruct innovation. Nothing goes this long without intentional obstructionism.
You know why tires still contain oil? It's cheaper. BFG, Cooper, Toyo, etc are not colluding with the oil industry to keep Shell's profits up. Corporations exist to make money, not to ensure the longevity of other corporations. This "industry X is doing this to help the oil industry" is a simple-minded argument. It falls apart when one thinks about the economics involved. Ford doesn't give a rat's ass about big oil. Ford only cares about making a profit. If US consumers were willing to buy slow, under-powered 4-bangers then that's what Ford would produce; however, Americans want their 320 Hp Mustangs and the like.
The auto industry is NOT supporting big oil. The US auto industry doesn't want tighter regulations because that would mean the US auto industry would have to re-think their engine designs. The US auto industry is resisting change to avoid spending money, not to make more money or support big oil.
The sum total of your premises equals bullshit.
AT&T isn't colluding with the government to wire-tap law-abiding citizens either, right?
There is something called a domino effect. I suggest you read up on it. When an infrastructure exists, one that cost trillions of dollars to put in place (i.e., oil based industries and manufacturers), the investors in that infrastructure are not about to abandon it for something new. Of course they don't want their investments tumbling into worthlessness. But don't give me that tired, lame, consumers aren't ready for "slow, under-powered 4-bangers" crap. Those 4-bangers can be every bit as "peppy" as people like you desire, and you know it.
God, the mentality of people like you sickens me. I hope nobody believes a word you wrote. Think about it, readers: Almost 4 decades of basic no-change because of YOU.
Actually, Pickups are the best selling vehicles in the US, not cars. Pickups outsell cars and Ford pickups lead the pack.
This is from 2004 but the trend is still true today.
I don't have a blue book in front of my but my guess is the camry and accord sold quite a few V6's (not 4-bangers). I'd bet dollars to donughts that the majority of cars sold in the US DO NOT have 4-cylinder engines. 6 is the typical and about the average number of cylinders. US consumers don't want 4-cylinder cars.
I don't have a blue book in front of my but my guess is the camry and accord sold quite a few V6's (not 4-bangers). I'd bet dollars to donughts that the majority of cars sold in the US DO NOT have 4-cylinder engines. 6 is the typical and about the average number of cylinders. US consumers don't want 4-cylinder cars.
Of the top 10 cars sold in the US of A the past year, 3 (Civic, Corolla, and Cobalt) are 4-cylinder, and at least another 3 offer 4-cylinder platforms (Camry, Accord, and Altima). So it is not quite accurate to say that US consumers don't want 4-cylinder cars.
The main problem, is that a lot of the American public seem to equate cylinders with power. America is indeed the land of contradictions...
Diesel will be the next big thing... Diesel is much more efficient than gasoline. There's a reason reciprocating engines have been unchanged for the last 150 years --- they work well, are easy to produce, are cheap, and tough.
Plus diesels can use biofuels and obtain competitive mileages per gallon with respect to hybrids. Heck, I think that the first diesel engine ran on peanut oil or something like that :-)
I was around in the 1970s when the gas crunch first reared its ugly head. There were alternatives and new designs back then.
However, in the United States, the super-powers (mainly the oil industry) have obstructed innovations such as this van. Decades and decades of reliance on oil, all intentional, all planned.
People are not even aware of the reliance on oil for ordinary TIRES. There were alternatives to petroleum-based tires decades ago, but the tire manufacturers wanted nothing to do with them.
All petroleum-based interests/corporations are in collusion to obstruct innovation. Nothing goes this long without intentional obstructionism.
You know why tires still contain oil? It's cheaper. BFG, Cooper, Toyo, etc are not colluding with the oil industry to keep Shell's profits up. Corporations exist to make money, not to ensure the longevity of other corporations. This "industry X is doing this to help the oil industry" is a simple-minded argument. It falls apart when one thinks about the economics involved. Ford doesn't give a rat's ass about big oil. Ford only cares about making a profit. If US consumers were willing to buy slow, under-powered 4-bangers then that's what Ford would produce; however, Americans want their 320 Hp Mustangs and the like.
The auto industry is NOT supporting big oil. The US auto industry doesn't want tighter regulations because that would mean the US auto industry would have to re-think their engine designs. The US auto industry is resisting change to avoid spending money, not to make more money or support big oil.
With respect, you dont understand the nature of the 'collusion'.
Its not a matter of the boards of each company meeting in secret together or each board deciding how to benefit a different company.
Right now cars need oil ... there is no replacement. Making cars that use oil benefits oil producers. It would be more expensive to develop an alternate source of energy to use in cars than to use what is available at ANY cost.
The key here is to STOP development of alternate forms of energy and replacements for oil. This has been successfully done over the last 40 years. This has helped everyones profits.
But understand this is NOT capitalism. This is just greed. Capitalism says that ALL costs must be internal - that is, reflected in the price to the consumer. This simply is not the case. Sickness and disease are not included - (at one point in L.A. 1/4 of the young had lesions on their lungs due to pollution), harm to the environment etc. Costs that are paid by society at large and are NOT reflected in the price to the consumer. It is expensive to use oil, its just that the corporations arent paying for it, we are.
To those that have dominate market positions, the status quo is a very attractive place to be - big oil and the auto manufacturers understand this.
Finally, if all that matters is profit, then the fascists are right and there is no point in even having a government. I assert that a government is essential to prevent behaviors that are harmful to the citizen or the interests of the citizen. I further assert that continuing to use oil in the ways we have been using oil is harmful to both the citizen and the interests of the citizen. This therefore shouldnt be a choice given to the corporations. It should be a requirement placed on the corporations. Otherwise, they will simply defend their 'winning' position - the status quo.
How did this obscure visionary from what is now Yugoslavia lay the foundation for modern communication – and which of his inventions were considered a little too revolutionary by government agencies and the power brokers of the time.
This is an excellent documentary that details the life and work of Nikola Tesla, who's been mentioned in this thread a few times. I found the documentary to be very impressive and am interested to hear what others think of this great scientist and his vision.
With respect, you dont understand the nature of the 'collusion'.
Its not a matter of the boards of each company meeting in secret together or each board deciding how to benefit a different company.
Right now cars need oil ... there is no replacement. Making cars that use oil benefits oil producers. It would be more expensive to develop an alternate source of energy to use in cars than to use what is available at ANY cost.
The key here is to STOP development of alternate forms of energy and replacements for oil. This has been successfully done over the last 40 years. This has helped everyones profits.
But understand this is NOT capitalism. This is just greed. Capitalism says that ALL costs must be internal - that is, reflected in the price to the consumer. This simply is not the case. Sickness and disease are not included - (at one point in L.A. 1/4 of the young had lesions on their lungs due to pollution), harm to the environment etc. Costs that are paid by society at large and are NOT reflected in the price to the consumer. It is expensive to use oil, its just that the corporations arent paying for it, we are.
To those that have dominate market positions, the status quo is a very attractive place to be - big oil and the auto manufacturers understand this.
Finally, if all that matters is profit, then the fascists are right and there is no point in even having a government. I assert that a government is essential to prevent behaviors that are harmful to the citizen or the interests of the citizen. I further assert that continuing to use oil in the ways we have been using oil is harmful to both the citizen and the interests of the citizen. This therefore shouldnt be a choice given to the corporations. It should be a requirement placed on the corporations. Otherwise, they will simply defend their 'winning' position - the status quo.
The industry trolls here do not deserve any respect.
What you said is only a fraction of what could be said on this issue.
I don't know if it is ever going to be possible to slap down these GD corporations who control everything. It won't happen in my lifetime.
Good on you for rightly bringing up the sickness/disease issue. People don't even realize where all that petroleum-based tire rubber goes when their tire treads are "worn down".
And the very corporations who cause this sickness and disease that is rampant throughout our country and others are the same ones who scream resistance to "socialized medicine".
Domino effect. Everything is in line with everything else. If one falls, they all fall. That's the real reason things haven't changed for so many decades.
Busholini has advanced this country's decline into an also-ran in short order. But Raygun started the dumbing-down process.
Fact! Raygun was Chimpy's enabler with his deregulation of everything that still should be. I like the car; I'd buy one because our commuting needs match with the range quite splendidly and as far as the pollution created to run the compressor is concerned, the discharged air would not be creating anything further. I like my air conditioner though...
Compressed air technology is no joke and will be very influential in developing countries with minimal infastructure.
It is also very viable in the marine industry in the air + fuel mode with compressed air used for slow cruising speeds and a small onboard direct injected diesel for higher speeds an refilling the tank for small to midsized vessels (14-24 ft).
jorogo and slowdown said it better than I can, but here's my two cents. This car is really cool and a good step in the right direction, but it is not green yet. At this time more fuel would be burned at the power plant to generate the electricity to run the compressor to provide power for a certain distance of driving than would be burned by a comparable gas powered car over the same distance. In other words, this car gets worse gas mileage if you include the compressor.
When the grid goes green, compressed air will become a very nice safe alternative to gasoline.
jorogo and slowdown said it better than I can, but here's my two cents. This car is really cool and a good step in the right direction, but it is not green yet. At this time more fuel would be burned at the power plant to generate the electricity to run the compressor to provide power for a certain distance of driving than would be burned by a comparable gas powered car over the same distance. In other words, this car gets worse gas mileage if you include the compressor.
When the grid goes green, compressed air will become a very nice safe alternative to gasoline.
.. and of course you will have the numbers and studies to back up those statements. Right?
Sun, 01/06/2008 - 16:11 — jackpine savage (not verified)
While the tanks are made of carbon fiber (produced in a defense factory with classified methods), i still wouldn't want to be sitting on them in the event of a crash at 70 mph...as they are filled to 4500 psi.
This is not new; its "breaking" news because Tata is going to actually try selling them. And it has uses, especially in urban areas. The drawback is that it takes a lot of energy to compress air. But everything has drawbacks, just like fossil fuels.
Actually there's a guy in Australia who has built a wenkel cycle compressed air engine that is even more efficient than the one shown in this post. Part of the efficiency gain is that the compressed air acts as lubrication for the single cylinder. (which has less power loss than a V or I configuration to begin with)
Our problem is that we keep looking for a silver bullet, single technology to replace fossil fuels. That isn't going to be how it works. Different applications will benefit from different solutions.
And if we really want to slow down global warming, we might want to start with agriculture. It requires 2,200 pounds of combusted coal (or its equivalent which is usually natural gas) to make 5.5 pounds of fertilizer which we spread with abandon. (think about that the next time you stop for some Miracle grow...every 5 pounds = 2,200 lbs of coal) A great deal of that nitrogen doesn't even make it into the ground before it vaporizes as nitrous oxide...directly into the atmosphere. And most of the rest of that nitrogen simply runs off into the ground water. The same goes for pesticides. Between ferts and pesticides, we manufacture and apply at rates in the hundreds of millions of pounds/year.
Enough ranting, that Opel is cool...have your cake and eat it too kind of cool.
I don't want to be anywhere near one of those things in the event of a crash.
I've filled 4500psi air packs for firefighters (and divers), and you treat those things with respect. If I had to extract someone from one of those things in the event of a car accident...oy. People have no sense of how dangerous compressed air is. When you have an accident involving a vehicle with air brakes you have to approach it from certain directions in case one of the cylinders lets go, and you do not want to be catching fragments going fast enough to be thrown over 300 meters.
In many ways, gas is less dangerous. Car gas tanks, movies to the contrary, are almost impossible to explode and if ruptured (and not on fire), can be dealt with fairly safely. I've done it a number of times. Once an air tank ruptures, however, you are talking about a rocket going off and beating the crap out of whatever it hits.
... yet firefighters go into fires with compressed air tanks and not gasoline tanks.
... and every year millions of people manage to cheat dead in their homes when dealing with pressurized CFC canisters, when they try to shave or apply body spray.
I understand the dangers of pressurized air containers, however we are talking about something which is orders of magnitude less dangerous than high octane gasoline. Diesel is far safer regarding risk of ignition though...
I've been following this great little car for about two years now. There are plans to open a factory here in Australia. If we can do it here, then maybe the U.S. might even make the jump.
The air pressure used is not explosively high. In fact it can still run on 1PSI.
If you visit the website you can get more technical info. A mechanic here in Australia told me he's looked at the 70% max compression cycle of the motor and believes it to be genius. More than promising.
There is an Australian air motor in development for forklifts, golf carts etc in the works too. The whole motor weighs 10 pounds.
The average petrol car uses most of it's energy to move the motor and frame, not the humans or cargo. This is all very smart light footprint stuff.
... yet firefighters go into fires with compressed air tanks and not gasoline tanks.
... and every year millions of people manage to cheat dead in their homes when dealing with pressurized CFC canisters, when they try to shave or apply body spray.
I understand the dangers of pressurized air containers, however we are talking about something which is orders of magnitude less dangerous than high octane gasoline. Diesel is far safer regarding risk of ignition though...
I'm one of those firefighters. And we're always aware of the explosive we have strapped to our back. That's why the tanks are inspected regularly (like, after every use), every tank has its history recorded (date filled, start pressure, end pressure) and any indication of significant damage, at all, especially with carbon fiber or fiberglass tanks, and the tank gets scrapped. When you get that level of care with a car for the ordinary person, well, that's one scrupulous car owner.
As for household containers, when you find one that's pressurized to 4400 pounds per square inch, you just let me know.
I am of the opinion that the reason why the oxygen tanks are checked routinely are the same reason why parachutes have to be rechecked before every use: because if they fail to work they will endanger the life of the person depending on their functionality. A lot of oxygen containers are easily punched and or prone to leaks, in which case it is not the risk of explosion but the risk of not providing oxygen that it is at stake.
In any case, there is plenty of heavy pneumatic machinery operating with much less maintenance in far harsher environments, than a normal drive could ever present, and the technological challenges have long being conquered and understood.
So I am sure that more people die every year in car crashes as an aftermath of fuel ignition than catastrophic failure of pressurized components.
I am still in favor of diesel alternatives though...
Compressed air motors have been around for a looong time.
Still its a fun toy. Just not new or practical. It's too light, and unsafe as pointed out.
But more importantly, compressing air is a terrible way to store energy. Very inefficient. The friction and elasticity loss is quite high. Takes a lot of volume.
Again fun thought experiment. No dice in reality. You'd better off with regular ol' AGM car batteries which work far better (and have for years) and are more efficient. Why don't you just get one of those instead? Oh yeah.
If I had the cash I'd get the new smaller version of the toureg (tiguan?) from VW and do 90-100% biodiesel (with tank and line heater installed). But they won't OFFER the damn diesel here, so I'd wait for whenever Subaru releases their secret weapon.
Or if I had MORE cash, I'd also have a custom electric car built. As far as vanity cars go, they really aren't that much! Less than some mercedes or BMWs for sure. Or if you don't want custom (like a new version of a cobra or 69 mustang), there is always something like this. The next version of which will be road legal and cost around $40k. It's been said to death but true -- battery/electric cars have been viable for some time now.
Options are out there, but people with money need to get some courage, taste, and conviction to bring the price down for the rest of us.
Mon, 01/07/2008 - 00:44 — bob pickell (not verified)
If we took what the u.s. spent on the war on terror it would probably be close to what it would cost to buy one of these cars for every one that drives and have enough to by solar cells to run the compressors for them. Hey then we would'nt need their oil!!!!!!!
Login or Register to post comments.
That definately is one cool little car. It seems like every day or so we see new inventions and new ways of doing things coming out of Asia and Europe. Funny, the U.S. used to be the leader in those departments. Now, we are more concerned about Paris Hilton or Britney Spears.
Ford bought a few hundred Norwegian made electric cars some years ago. The manufacturers here in Norway managed to prevent Ford's planned destruction of them. With legal assistance, they bought them all back. They've since been sold like hot-cakes, and everybody exept Ford is happy :-)
No more are being made to my knowledge, but every little bit helps.
Hmmm... interesting how, as soon as this story was posted, ANOTHER story was posted above it, immediately driving it down the queue...
Clearly Mike Finnigan is part of Ford's conspiracy to suppress news of the air-powered car!!
I have to give credit where credit is due. Make that India. Apparently India's Tata Motors are going to put ex-Formula One engineer Guy Nègre's design into production. This will work great for India so I can see why they are doing it. Not only does it not run on fossil fuel but it would be great for India's population who like little cars anyway and have narrow roads as I understand it. This article has a picture the car and its engine. Facinating stuff. Its funny, but after reading the article about this Indian build car I almost expect to see a robot named "Johnny Five" driving it from the movie Short Circuit. :lol:
Indian air-powered City Cat car prepares for production run
http://www.engadget.com/2007/05/27/indian-air-powered-city-cat-car-prepa...
From what I hear is the thing already isn't street legal in the US because it's pretty much made out of foam..
Somebody else put this in the comments in an earlier post. That person posited that it would free us from the oil barons who have caused the world so much trouble. That comment brought a genius response that we would eventually become beholden to the compressed air barons. Booyah.
Seriously, though. Does anybody know if it's more efficient to run an air compressor or an internal combustion engine?
There's an ad for sports paraphernalia and you hear a voice yell, "I want that!". Well that's what I said when I saw that car. I want that!
Joe O. @ 1:
One of the first things the Reagan admin did, was to scrap the transition to the metric system that (I believe Carter started) had gotten very far until 1981. That is just one of the reasons the US no longer is at the top and in front. Another thing is that too many influential Americans have lead the country into complacency. OK, fine, the space program, but even there nothing much has happened since the saturn rockets were shelved.
VEry cool concept. Brillant.
Zach Miller @ 5:
....and your source? The big three, I'll bet. LOL
This is a little slow for a blog. Beyond Tomorrow 2005: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QmqpGZv0YT4
Or were you just waiting for Cliff to notice? http://www.theaircar.com/
Busholini has advanced this country's decline into an also-ran in short order. But Raygun started the dumbing-down process.
holy cow, $3 per 125 miles !! it looks funky but for that rate, i'll drive one with pink polka-dots. Or paint it like the Mystery Machine and drive around with my dog.
· Equinox - It Runs on Water (00:50:18)
Joe O. @ 1:
If you go to most engineering/applied science depts. in the US of A, you will see how most students are of the foreign persuasion. However, most MBA programmes have such demand that even the crappy schools have a surplus of them nice American boys and girls to chose from.
A nation of lazy jackasses with deliriums of grandeur, as represented by our current president: a mediocre student, with an MBA, and who ran every business he touched into the ground. Alas people were dumb enough to not figure out that, as a life long failure, maybe he was not qualify in the least to manage this country's top office.
The level of self entitlement by a lot of people in this country is mind blowing sometimes... to say the least.
Kewl, now all you have to do is find someone in this country who will insure this vehicle. Good luck with that.
The Raw Story covers this story as well. (Jan. 4th, 2008)
Eric Almighty @ 6:
That's what I'd like to know. Plus, there's the problem that compressed air slowly leaks out of just about any container you put it in.
Very interesting technology, and a great idea. Using compressed air for the energy storage solves the primary problems of batteries - weight and the toxic materials they contain, which pose a pollution problem during manufacture and disposal.
The claim that the compressed air propulsion is non-polluting is, however, wrong. It takes energy to compress the air to store in the vehicle, and unless you would care to hook the compressor to your exercise bike, that energy will pollute. It's the same with electric cars, which would mostly get their charge from generators run by burning gas, oil, or coal. Off-peak charging from the grid would marginalize that effect, so it's a step in the right direction. And the compression of air for energy storage is another great step.
But let's not be misled that ANYTHING we use or consume is totally free of pollution. Use wisely and sustainably.
Dr. Acula @ 12:
Only the Republicans could take a country, that set foot on the moon, cured polio, and detonated the first atomic bomb, and de-evolve it to a level in which it seems as perfectly reasonable to open a $20 million "museum" dedicated to creation.
Very few societies have managed to go in reverse as to negate a lot of their advancements in such a sort period of time.
It is criminal to say the least.
ready for the sequel to "Who killed the electric car"......
whose gonna try and kill the POLLUTION FREE, AIR DRIVEN CAR!!!!?
just wait till they add the inboard compressor.... no need to fill up EVER again!
Joe O. @ 4:
Joe's right, Tata is the producer. BTW, Tata is the same company that has placed the winning bid to buy Jaguar and LandRover from Ford.
Oh man, I want to drive a Tata! Maybe I'll drive my Tata to Chi-Chi's for lunch, and Hooters for dinner...
Now I know why oil companies are jacking all their prices up so high. They know that they will be obsolete in 50 years and they are trying to rake in as much money as they can while they are still BMOC. This is some really exciting information. And right after Santa delivered all his goodies......darn. Good luck to these inventors. With the internet, US markets will not have such an easy time trying to stop these advances.
SMAWG @ 23:
I want to say "tata" to Busholini and the rest of his criminal cabal. And then say "bon voyage" as they make their way to the Hague!
CheneyIsADick @ 8:
Ironically, the US space programme ran out of steam as the German team that came with Von Braun started to die off.
A lot of the genius of this country IMHO was that Americans were willing to accept the best and the brightest from else where in order to complement, and further, the local homegrown talent. And thus, the American research engine was able to quickly surpass other approaches which were far too afraid of the "not invented or born here" paradigm.
However, the country is now run by a generation of jingoistic ignorant idiots who assumed that shitting and peeing into the well where you drink from, is not only a good idea but also adds bouquet to the taste of the water. The level of self entitlement of some people made them too self centered to look around and realize, that the reason why this country was where it was (at the top) was because they were sitting on the shoulder of giants. It is the prototypical story of the jackass who was born in 3rd base and who things he just scored a triple....
OMG people... COME ON!!
So long as people keep pushing these things (air powered cars, fuel cell powered cars, etc) the electric car (or plug in hybrid), which could be used tomorrow in many applications, will never get the push it needs.
To get that into the US, first we'd have to blow $9 fitting the compressed air dispenser into the ass*oles of the CEO's of Ford, GM, and Chrysler (or whatever it's called today).
After they've gone to 'heaven', we'd need another $300 or so to take care of the Senator's, less than $1,500 for the representatives, about $3,000 for the lobbyists, $1,000 for the White House (they are bigger assh*les), and we'd have some neat wheels.
Oh, oh, I forgot BigOil. Fu*k 'em, let's just shoot 'em, they're way overdue.
On another note, I've looked at many vehicles from around the world and the vehicles producted are usually small, economical, and look pretty simple in design but they do look like great vehicles to me. Maybe another problem Ford and GM have is that we Americans tend to be more concerned about how we look, or how impressive our new "ride" is. We have to have the big gas guzzler truck with a suped up engine or something. It seems most people around the world aren't concerned with that. They do like nice things but are more concerned about getting from point A to point B and if all they can afford is a little beat up car then so be it. They don't have much money so they demand more from the auto makers and as Tata Motors just showed, they can deliver.
A car with a 120-mile range has zero chance in the US. Sad, but true.
Nice (really, no setup) ... but many of these solutions are designed by people that dont like to drive, which makes the car unattractive.
Consider this beauty. http://www.teslamotors.com/
250 miles per charge, top speed between 130 and 150, 0-60 in under 4 seconds and it is so sexy (lotus body) it would easily get you laid ... metaphorically. :) Lotus is selling them in numbers in the UK this year.
This is a zero emission car.
The Opel Eco-speedster is pretty cool too. Check it out,
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mvKYUM5NkWk
here's another video with a bit more detail
Didn't realize they plan on having an on board compressor to charge at home and also make a hybrid version.
It would be nice if they did manage to go into production some day
For city driving it's ideal and considering gas stations make little out of gas sales (the supplier makes the money) I'm guessing the station owners might be happier as they could keep 100% of the profits.
I do wonder though what would happen in countries like England where the government would lose a lot of tax revenue from petrol sales. They would make it up somehow and my guess is that the environment would gain but the motorist would still pay through the nose.
I'm sure some lawmakers here will put as many obstacles in the way of sales as they can so don't hold your breath just yet.
Campy @ 32:
Nice, great for a smoker. Thanks for the link.
anon @ 31:
And how about that little 'PooPoo' auto from Tijuana, which gets about 200 miles on a tankful of methane?
You just get in, plug a hose into your butt, start eating refried beans, and away you go.
My comment got in the wrong spot.
I said the Tesla is a $100,000 car -- certainly not one for the masses.
Dr. Acula @ 35:
Go back to driving your golf cart.
This sells electric cars NOT Ed Begley. (I love Ed).
They will have a family version in 24 months for 35K.
So if pure sex is too much for ya, your E-Taurus is on the way.
Who Killed the Electric Car? (2006)
jorogo @ 19:
Very important point. It all comes back to how you source the energy. There are plenty of ways to store energy, including emerging ultra-efficient batteries. Right now the only plentiful energy resource in the U.S. (that we know how to harness) is coal, which is dirtier than petroleum. Probably the source energy from a project like this could come from natural gas, but that does nothing to change our national energy security outlook. Natural gas is cleaner though. Sorry to say but wind, solar, geothermal, etc. are all still marginal energy sources. Unless the U.S. gets really serious about making the big investment in home-grown energy, alternatives such as this car wont matter much.
If the Bush cabal could just figure out a way to give Halliburton no bid contracts at taxpayer expense to aquire all the air so Cheney's Halliburton stock could rise another 3000% and then sell the air back to the taxpayer at over $3.00 a gallon this car just might make it to this country after all, so don't loose hope yet.
uh, you still have to compress the air which requires.....
energy, like electricity or burning something.
energy is never free.
flash @ 42:
The links, websites, videos discuss that in some detail.
We understand that the perpetual motion machine doesnt exist. :)
I hate me for saying this, but our gas should have been $6.00 for the past ten years.
I say this on a public high school teacher's salary.
There are so many ways of fueling motion, but Detroit decided to pay politicians to avoid getting pressured into innovation. Now they are green with envy when they see car makers from other countries so much better prepared for the changing markets. In a way it is just another example where the corporations in line with the incompetence of the current administration have lost contact to reality. While they were still chiding Al Gore as a dreamer and tree hugger, the world turned without them realizing it. I'd laugh if it weren't so sad.
Ruthless People @ 41:
BioDollars, Cheney's subsidiary in the Bio/Genetic/Chemical monopoly field, has already patented the formula for 'Air'. So getting the little car here is going to be a boon for him.
And it would be wise not to piss Cheney off, or we're all liable to have a problem inhaling.
Cool indeed!
Tesla Motors is next to Nicolle. She should pay them a visit and do a report.
JTM @ 30:
I also run on compressed air.
anon @ 38:
R u bustin' my onions? The Tesla is a beautiful car. It's also prohibitively expen$ive and, so far, hasn't gotten beyond the testing stages (as far as I've heard).
Zach Miller @ 5:
Maybe instead of listening to false hearsay you should try listening to the facts for a change.
http://www.theaircar.com/
I first read about this car early last year and it definitly has an incredible amount of potential. If I could afford it I would have already pre-ordered one.
Flash @42, I guess you've never heard of a bellows before then. Nor wind and waves. You might be interested to know that the first European firearms were compressed air powered. Their air chambers were filled by bellows and were rather effective.
JTM @ 30:
It has a range greater than the Toyota Prius. (What is the range of the Prius without the gas engine?)
Dr. Acula @ 37:
I was watching a documentary about the Tesla car and the thing is amazing. The technology for a working and practical electric car has been available for at least twenty five years. Even more so now with the development of wafer-thin lithium batteries. I believe the Tesla uses similar technology, greatly reducing the weight of the vehicle. Therefore you can achieve speeds that is almost comparable to that of a combustion engine. If serious research and resources had been committed into mass producing these, our country would be driving them by now. The reason we aren't is the fact the oil companies expend vast amounts of money to stifle research into anything that would be a viable alternative to gasoline.
If not electric, why not bio-diesel or E85? These technologies would take very little effort utilize. Again it's not explored because we are being manipulated by the oil companies. Brazil has been using E85 since the 80's. They are almost energy independent now. Can't find E85? There is a simple modification to existing engines where you flip a switch and viola...you can fill-up with old fashioned gasoline. Interesting...every time you put gas in your car, the oil companies are using their record profits to keep us addicted to petroleum.
Nikola Tesla did vast amounts of research onto the practical uses of electricity and magnetism. He died in 1943. Much of his work to this day is still classified by the government. Why?
Dr. Acula @ 51:
No, just making a point.
It is in production in the UK by Lotus.
The Tesla costs nothing like 100k to make. It is being sold at that price to generate initial revenue. They are honest about that. The intentionally made their first model a fast status car to create interest and income - and it worked.
In 2009 (late) they plan a 35k family car for mass production in the US.
Nothing magic here. Nothing unattainable here.
They understand people in the US just HATE electric golf carts and LOVE Vipers, Ferraris etc. Sex sells ... so they made a sexy car.
Its not for you, its for the McMansion crowd. The next one is for you.
flash @ 42:
This is why the rest of the world sees America as scientificly challanged. Hydro is free except for the infrastructure. Same for solar, wind and wave. And then you've got your geo-thermal too. Didn't you have science classes at some point in your life???
anon @ 55:
Okay. I've seen videos and news stories about the car -- it's a beauty. Today I went to their website (very impressive). The Tesla bears a strong resemblance to the Lotus Elise, which now that you've informed me that Lotus is selling it in the UK, is no surprise.
I truly wonder if this country will EVER wake up.
The Dude @ 20:
Don't forget that the US also created the integrated circuit in the 70's, and was the leader in telecommunications in the 90's. Now we've become a joke in networks and telecommunications in just 7 or 8 short years.
Dr. Acula, one more link of a BBC report on the 'lotus' ..
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Oi4wILg3V-Y
at the end they state sales in show rooms start this year (2008).
... and no we wont learn.
This is the brain child of Elon Musk - a genius and founder of pay pal. This fella is worth following closely (his next project is outsourcing heavy lift to earth orbit for nasa)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Onajosm9PWo
I've read most of the posts here, and I can tell there are few ME's responding to this. The simple fact is it will take MORE energy to fuel this car than you get back from the car. Entropy is a hell of a thing. This is just like a hydrogen car (H2 cars will never really hit the streets for a 1000 different reasons). You are not making 0 pollution you are simply shifting the source to a coal-fired electric plant (here in the US) which in turn hits the power grid harder and increases mercury emissions. That is the most likely source for compressed air for this thing.
TO POSTER 56:
H2 is not free. H2 takes orders of magnitude more energy to produce than what you get back from the re-combustion process. Additionally, H2 cannot be stored. H2 migrates through the crystal lattice structure of holding tanks in a fairly short time. The pipe needed to move H2 must be all welded (no cheap fittings here) and verified flaw free to store H2 for a short while. Hydrogen is the smallest atom and as such can squeez through the crystal structure of any holding tank.
For on-demand production of H2 --- well, why use orders of magnitude MORE energy to make H2 then re-burn H2 thus getting less energy than the production process consumed???
H2 killed itself a long time ago. The auto industry is dangling it in front of you to show they are indeed green when in fact they could easily produce cars with less Hp and better fuel economy.
The worst aspect of oil is that it packs so much easily accessible energy into a small package. There are few sources of energy as potent and easily accessible as oil.
I was around in the 1970s when the gas crunch first reared its ugly head. There were alternatives and new designs back then.
However, in the United States, the super-powers (mainly the oil industry) have obstructed innovations such as this van. Decades and decades of reliance on oil, all intentional, all planned.
People are not even aware of the reliance on oil for ordinary TIRES. There were alternatives to petroleum-based tires decades ago, but the tire manufacturers wanted nothing to do with them.
All petroleum-based interests/corporations are in collusion to obstruct innovation. Nothing goes this long without intentional obstructionism.
Lollimom @ 61:
I remember that as well (and more, overpopulation issues for example).
And it was shortly after those 'solutions' were identified that we got Reagan ... who (we now know) started the long process of handing the country over to the very corporations that were threatened by these new solutions (oil companies etc) - and fascism.
This is no coincidence in my opinion.
Lollimom @ 61:
You know why tires still contain oil? It's cheaper. BFG, Cooper, Toyo, etc are not colluding with the oil industry to keep Shell's profits up. Corporations exist to make money, not to ensure the longevity of other corporations. This "industry X is doing this to help the oil industry" is a simple-minded argument. It falls apart when one thinks about the economics involved. Ford doesn't give a rat's ass about big oil. Ford only cares about making a profit. If US consumers were willing to buy slow, under-powered 4-bangers then that's what Ford would produce; however, Americans want their 320 Hp Mustangs and the like.
The auto industry is NOT supporting big oil. The US auto industry doesn't want tighter regulations because that would mean the US auto industry would have to re-think their engine designs. The US auto industry is resisting change to avoid spending money, not to make more money or support big oil.
I can just imagine that car being used on the streets of Los Angeles. Somebody fills it up with compressed air sucked out of the atmosphere above L.A., then a 'polution control official' measures the emissions coming out of the tailpipe, and fines the owner for pumping too much pollution into the air.
"Johnathan Goodwin can get 100 mpg out of a Lincoln Continental, cut emissions by 80%, and double the horsepower. Does the car business have the guts to follow him?"
http://www.fastcompany.com/magazine/120/motorhead-messiah.html
Dr. Acula @ 57:
For such a "Christian" country, Americans at large are unwilling to make sacrifices.
People need to have a concept of a "greater good" and the willingness to compromise. Alas such notions are usually regarded as weakness in this great society.
So you will keep on seeing GOPers reminding us about how Christian we are, and talk the talk. But like a lot of people in our land, they will be most unwilling to walk the walk.
It is only we need to face the music, that you will see plenty of victimization: "What happened? We never saw this coming! We're scared! Who is at fault!" You'll see once we are in the toilet, these assholes will complain that it was our fault because we were not forceful enough in our efforts to induce change.
I have been walking/running/cycling to work whenever possible, and I use public transport again... whenever I can. However, it is always a chore... and not only that, but cycling can be sometimes down right dangerous. When you have to negotiate the roads with plenty of jackasses with the latest mega ultra big SUV who can barely drive, and who have no concept of other people in smaller vehicles in the same road. I never understood why a 2 ton car was required to transport an asshole...
Pericles @ 64:
Um... why can't you put a filter on the air compressor. That way each time you drove, you'd actually be cleaning the air?
I wish we had those "pollution control officials," now. If you throw trash out the window of your car, you'll get a ticket for littering. But those same cars pollute the public commens with poison out their tail pipes and get away with it. If you've ever ridden a bike in LA you'd know.
slowdown @ 63:
The sum total of your premises equals bullshit.
AT&T isn't colluding with the government to wire-tap law-abiding citizens either, right?
There is something called a domino effect. I suggest you read up on it. When an infrastructure exists, one that cost trillions of dollars to put in place (i.e., oil based industries and manufacturers), the investors in that infrastructure are not about to abandon it for something new. Of course they don't want their investments tumbling into worthlessness. But don't give me that tired, lame, consumers aren't ready for "slow, under-powered 4-bangers" crap. Those 4-bangers can be every bit as "peppy" as people like you desire, and you know it.
God, the mentality of people like you sickens me. I hope nobody believes a word you wrote. Think about it, readers: Almost 4 decades of basic no-change because of YOU.
If BILLO, Lumpballs, or Fox Noise ever find themselves out of a job they could refill every car in the UK with all the (worthless) hot air they expell every day.
slowdown @ 63:
If that argument was true, then Mustangs would be the best selling cars in America and not the niche sellers that they truly are. Alas, the best selling cars for the past couple of decades have been the Accord and Camry, with the Taurus peeking in every now and then when it was in production.
All the sanctimonious arguments about Detroit simply catering to the demand are bullshit. The problem with the big 3 is that they still think that they are in a supply side argument. They produced, and for the most part force-fed, all those butt ugly SUVs for the better part of a decade, not because that was what the US public demanded, but because those vehicles are the most profitable for them.
Furthermore, efficient and reliable cars are a threat to Detroit's business models, which rely on a car providing them with a revenue stream through its lifetime, not just at purchase time. This happens in the form of continuous repairs, replacement parts, oil changes etc. Of course, when the customers went shopping elsewhere. It could not possibly be that the American auto makers were producing utter shit. Of course not, it was them pesky Unions and uppity workers demanding decent wages!
equilibrio @ 65:
Gas turbines have their own problems. They must be checked very often to ensure they wont blow up. An engine spinning at 60K RPM will put A LOT of tensile stress on the turbine blades. These stresses will eventually lead to turbine blade failure (creep failure). Most consumers are not willing to drop the thousands of dollars needed to keep a GT up and running. Now, add in turbine lag and the increased NxOy(oxides of nitrogen) produced by a GT and you're back where you started.
Diesel will be the next big thing... Diesel is much more efficient than gasoline. There's a reason reciprocating engines have been unchanged for the last 150 years --- they work well, are easy to produce, are cheap, and tough.
The Dude @ 70:
The Dude @ 70:
Lollimom @ 68:
Actually, Pickups are the best selling vehicles in the US, not cars. Pickups outsell cars and Ford pickups lead the pack.
This is from 2004 but the trend is still true today.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5582238/
I don't have a blue book in front of my but my guess is the camry and accord sold quite a few V6's (not 4-bangers). I'd bet dollars to donughts that the majority of cars sold in the US DO NOT have 4-cylinder engines. 6 is the typical and about the average number of cylinders. US consumers don't want 4-cylinder cars.
Could a car that light get any traction on snowy/icy slopes?
death to fossil fuels
slowdown @ 72:
Of the top 10 cars sold in the US of A the past year, 3 (Civic, Corolla, and Cobalt) are 4-cylinder, and at least another 3 offer 4-cylinder platforms (Camry, Accord, and Altima). So it is not quite accurate to say that US consumers don't want 4-cylinder cars.
The main problem, is that a lot of the American public seem to equate cylinders with power. America is indeed the land of contradictions...
Label me skeptic. Looks like a scam... Or at least, inherently flawed.
Compressed air? I only use that to explode sharks. I don't want my car exploding. (At least, not unless there are sharks around.)
slowdown @ 71:
Plus diesels can use biofuels and obtain competitive mileages per gallon with respect to hybrids. Heck, I think that the first diesel engine ran on peanut oil or something like that :-)
Steve Charb @ 76:
Right, because gasoline is so stable and not flammable at all :-)
slowdown @ 63:
With respect, you dont understand the nature of the 'collusion'.
Its not a matter of the boards of each company meeting in secret together or each board deciding how to benefit a different company.
Right now cars need oil ... there is no replacement. Making cars that use oil benefits oil producers. It would be more expensive to develop an alternate source of energy to use in cars than to use what is available at ANY cost.
The key here is to STOP development of alternate forms of energy and replacements for oil. This has been successfully done over the last 40 years. This has helped everyones profits.
But understand this is NOT capitalism. This is just greed. Capitalism says that ALL costs must be internal - that is, reflected in the price to the consumer. This simply is not the case. Sickness and disease are not included - (at one point in L.A. 1/4 of the young had lesions on their lungs due to pollution), harm to the environment etc. Costs that are paid by society at large and are NOT reflected in the price to the consumer. It is expensive to use oil, its just that the corporations arent paying for it, we are.
To those that have dominate market positions, the status quo is a very attractive place to be - big oil and the auto manufacturers understand this.
Finally, if all that matters is profit, then the fascists are right and there is no point in even having a government. I assert that a government is essential to prevent behaviors that are harmful to the citizen or the interests of the citizen. I further assert that continuing to use oil in the ways we have been using oil is harmful to both the citizen and the interests of the citizen. This therefore shouldnt be a choice given to the corporations. It should be a requirement placed on the corporations. Otherwise, they will simply defend their 'winning' position - the status quo.
Nikola Tesla - The Genius Who Lit the World (42 minutes)
How did this obscure visionary from what is now Yugoslavia lay the foundation for modern communication – and which of his inventions were considered a little too revolutionary by government agencies and the power brokers of the time.
This is an excellent documentary that details the life and work of Nikola Tesla, who's been mentioned in this thread a few times. I found the documentary to be very impressive and am interested to hear what others think of this great scientist and his vision.
anon @ 79:
The industry trolls here do not deserve any respect.
What you said is only a fraction of what could be said on this issue.
I don't know if it is ever going to be possible to slap down these GD corporations who control everything. It won't happen in my lifetime.
Good on you for rightly bringing up the sickness/disease issue. People don't even realize where all that petroleum-based tire rubber goes when their tire treads are "worn down".
And the very corporations who cause this sickness and disease that is rampant throughout our country and others are the same ones who scream resistance to "socialized medicine".
Domino effect. Everything is in line with everything else. If one falls, they all fall. That's the real reason things haven't changed for so many decades.
Dr. Acula @ 12:
Fact! Raygun was Chimpy's enabler with his deregulation of everything that still should be. I like the car; I'd buy one because our commuting needs match with the range quite splendidly and as far as the pollution created to run the compressor is concerned, the discharged air would not be creating anything further. I like my air conditioner though...
Compressed air technology is no joke and will be very influential in developing countries with minimal infastructure.
It is also very viable in the marine industry in the air + fuel mode with compressed air used for slow cruising speeds and a small onboard direct injected diesel for higher speeds an refilling the tank for small to midsized vessels (14-24 ft).
jorogo and slowdown said it better than I can, but here's my two cents. This car is really cool and a good step in the right direction, but it is not green yet. At this time more fuel would be burned at the power plant to generate the electricity to run the compressor to provide power for a certain distance of driving than would be burned by a comparable gas powered car over the same distance. In other words, this car gets worse gas mileage if you include the compressor.
When the grid goes green, compressed air will become a very nice safe alternative to gasoline.
Check out this regenerating electric motor.
You can power your house or put it in a car like the inventor did.
NO BATTERIES!
RJ @ 84:
.. and of course you will have the numbers and studies to back up those statements. Right?
While the tanks are made of carbon fiber (produced in a defense factory with classified methods), i still wouldn't want to be sitting on them in the event of a crash at 70 mph...as they are filled to 4500 psi.
This is not new; its "breaking" news because Tata is going to actually try selling them. And it has uses, especially in urban areas. The drawback is that it takes a lot of energy to compress air. But everything has drawbacks, just like fossil fuels.
Actually there's a guy in Australia who has built a wenkel cycle compressed air engine that is even more efficient than the one shown in this post. Part of the efficiency gain is that the compressed air acts as lubrication for the single cylinder. (which has less power loss than a V or I configuration to begin with)
Our problem is that we keep looking for a silver bullet, single technology to replace fossil fuels. That isn't going to be how it works. Different applications will benefit from different solutions.
And if we really want to slow down global warming, we might want to start with agriculture. It requires 2,200 pounds of combusted coal (or its equivalent which is usually natural gas) to make 5.5 pounds of fertilizer which we spread with abandon. (think about that the next time you stop for some Miracle grow...every 5 pounds = 2,200 lbs of coal) A great deal of that nitrogen doesn't even make it into the ground before it vaporizes as nitrous oxide...directly into the atmosphere. And most of the rest of that nitrogen simply runs off into the ground water. The same goes for pesticides. Between ferts and pesticides, we manufacture and apply at rates in the hundreds of millions of pounds/year.
Enough ranting, that Opel is cool...have your cake and eat it too kind of cool.
The tanks are at 4500 psi?
I don't want to be anywhere near one of those things in the event of a crash.
I've filled 4500psi air packs for firefighters (and divers), and you treat those things with respect. If I had to extract someone from one of those things in the event of a car accident...oy. People have no sense of how dangerous compressed air is. When you have an accident involving a vehicle with air brakes you have to approach it from certain directions in case one of the cylinders lets go, and you do not want to be catching fragments going fast enough to be thrown over 300 meters.
In many ways, gas is less dangerous. Car gas tanks, movies to the contrary, are almost impossible to explode and if ruptured (and not on fire), can be dealt with fairly safely. I've done it a number of times. Once an air tank ruptures, however, you are talking about a rocket going off and beating the crap out of whatever it hits.
... yet firefighters go into fires with compressed air tanks and not gasoline tanks.
... and every year millions of people manage to cheat dead in their homes when dealing with pressurized CFC canisters, when they try to shave or apply body spray.
I understand the dangers of pressurized air containers, however we are talking about something which is orders of magnitude less dangerous than high octane gasoline. Diesel is far safer regarding risk of ignition though...
I've been following this great little car for about two years now. There are plans to open a factory here in Australia. If we can do it here, then maybe the U.S. might even make the jump.
The air pressure used is not explosively high. In fact it can still run on 1PSI.
If you visit the website you can get more technical info. A mechanic here in Australia told me he's looked at the 70% max compression cycle of the motor and believes it to be genius. More than promising.
There is an Australian air motor in development for forklifts, golf carts etc in the works too. The whole motor weighs 10 pounds.
The average petrol car uses most of it's energy to move the motor and frame, not the humans or cargo. This is all very smart light footprint stuff.
The Dude @ 89:
I'm one of those firefighters. And we're always aware of the explosive we have strapped to our back. That's why the tanks are inspected regularly (like, after every use), every tank has its history recorded (date filled, start pressure, end pressure) and any indication of significant damage, at all, especially with carbon fiber or fiberglass tanks, and the tank gets scrapped. When you get that level of care with a car for the ordinary person, well, that's one scrupulous car owner.
As for household containers, when you find one that's pressurized to 4400 pounds per square inch, you just let me know.
I am of the opinion that the reason why the oxygen tanks are checked routinely are the same reason why parachutes have to be rechecked before every use: because if they fail to work they will endanger the life of the person depending on their functionality. A lot of oxygen containers are easily punched and or prone to leaks, in which case it is not the risk of explosion but the risk of not providing oxygen that it is at stake.
In any case, there is plenty of heavy pneumatic machinery operating with much less maintenance in far harsher environments, than a normal drive could ever present, and the technological challenges have long being conquered and understood.
So I am sure that more people die every year in car crashes as an aftermath of fuel ignition than catastrophic failure of pressurized components.
I am still in favor of diesel alternatives though...
Compressed air motors have been around for a looong time.
Still its a fun toy. Just not new or practical. It's too light, and unsafe as pointed out.
But more importantly, compressing air is a terrible way to store energy. Very inefficient. The friction and elasticity loss is quite high. Takes a lot of volume.
Again fun thought experiment. No dice in reality. You'd better off with regular ol' AGM car batteries which work far better (and have for years) and are more efficient. Why don't you just get one of those instead? Oh yeah.
If I had the cash I'd get the new smaller version of the toureg (tiguan?) from VW and do 90-100% biodiesel (with tank and line heater installed). But they won't OFFER the damn diesel here, so I'd wait for whenever Subaru releases their secret weapon.
Or if I had MORE cash, I'd also have a custom electric car built. As far as vanity cars go, they really aren't that much! Less than some mercedes or BMWs for sure. Or if you don't want custom (like a new version of a cobra or 69 mustang), there is always something like this. The next version of which will be road legal and cost around $40k. It's been said to death but true -- battery/electric cars have been viable for some time now.
Options are out there, but people with money need to get some courage, taste, and conviction to bring the price down for the rest of us.
If we took what the u.s. spent on the war on terror it would probably be close to what it would cost to buy one of these cars for every one that drives and have enough to by solar cells to run the compressors for them. Hey then we would'nt need their oil!!!!!!!
Login or Register to post comments.