 | Thank you for being a valued part of the CNET community. As of December 1, 2020, the forums are in read-only format. In early 2021, CNET Forums will no longer be available. We are grateful for the participation and advice you have provided to one another over the years. Thanks, CNET Support |
General discussion
Completly useless inventions
Discussion is locked
1 - 30 of 31 Posts
- Collapse
- Collapse -
than the azzes I see every day, one single suited dude to a Navigator or Escalade sitting in traffic on the way to work feeling better about himself already. While his little personal wagon may not be the next everyman's car, he has figured out the fuel management issues and how to get the most out of the least in engine displacement. My prediction is that this will be a lot like the development of hybrids. After they proved that 40-50MPG could be achieved without giving up anything, they're putting it in the high-end guzzlers to dramtically increase performance without further decreasing efficiency. Some of this guy's new idea's will make it into production. (Whether he'll get paid for his ideas, I doubt it. The big car makers will look at it, declare they could've thought of that themselves if only they had thought of thinking in those terms, and then patent their own stuff.)
dw
- Collapse -
is not intended by its inventor to do anything except to show that what is technically possible on a test track during an international engineering competition, nothing more. That is what research is about - to learn what can be done. When it comes time to apply the knowledge to everyday highway vehicles, there is more work to be done.
dw
- Collapse -
It weighs as much as a nine-year-old boy and is being "raced" at 18 mph by a driver selected as "slight of frame". There's nothing groundbreaking about using less energy to propel a smaller mass down a track!
Evie 
- Collapse -
as I read it in his original post was the bald assertion in the subject line of a "completely useless invention" with a naked link to a news article. My counter-point is that while I will agree that motorized wheeled adaptation of a one-man luge sled shouldn't be taken out on public roads in its present incarnation, there is considerable utility in the engineering of it.
dw
- Collapse -
Which was invented by a 12 year old about 10 minutes after the first internal combustion engine was assembled. There is no new technology, it?s just tweaking what already is and has zero usefulness.
- Collapse -
Even the inventor doesn't make this claim. T'wasn't rocket science to make a lighter "car". Now if he had done something ground breaking to improve the efficiency of the combustion engine significantly past current limits, then my ears would perk up.
Evie
- Collapse -
It weighs as much as a small boy ...
40-50 mpg has not been achieved without "giving up nothing". There are always tradeoffs. Not saying hybrids aren't a step in the right direction, just not the utopic solution many portray them to be.
Evie
- Collapse -
larger, engines, DM -- if only the world weren't dominated by ment tying to make up for other inadequacies by the power of their automotive equipment. Automoblies should be seen as transportation, not status symbols.
-- Dave K, Speakeasy Moderator
click here to email semods4@yahoo.com
The opinions expressed above are my own,
and do not necessarily reflect those of CNET!
- Collapse -
DUH!
KE = 1/2 mv^2
- Collapse -
- Collapse -
It's also a formula for death on the highway.
Evie
- Collapse -
...except for a very few VERY well-heeled people. The trend will be towards smaller, lighter cars capable of high fuel economy. In the short run, there will be some problems, but as the older vehicles are phased out or die, that will solve itself.
You CAN make a real light AND real safe car; AIR, there will be 33 of them racing here on 28 May.
I've come to the conclusion that this is inevitable; hopefully, we'll be able to make the transition and still have cars that are actually fun to drive as well.
- Collapse -
yet right now, there is NOT a mass sell off of SUVs buy their owners. Big cars were dead in the 80's too
- Collapse -
perhaps because there is nobody anymore to sell it to, they're stuck with it. And many of them are on lease or an upside down 5-year note with more left in the principal balance than it's worth, so they too are stuck with it.
dw
- Collapse -
... that are driving SUV's. Yeah, sales of new ones are down a bit, nobody is claiming that folks won't be picking more fuel efficient vehicles if gas prices keep going the way they are.
In January, GM saw an over 20% INCREASE in full sized SUV sales with the new Tahoes.
Evie
- Collapse -
... everyone that wanted to could save 2-3 mpg -- drive a manual transmission -- AND save yourself $1K-$2K at the time of purchase. My Honda Accord is identical in every other way to the V6's on the road, and yet people still buy the V6. Those buying the V6 hybrid are getting several miles per gallon LESS than I get in my 4 cylinder. If the gas prices were really going to mean the end of any vehicle getting less than 40 mpg, folks would have been opting for the more fuel efficient options all along.
Bottom line, if gas went to $5/gallon, there's still a limit to how much money is saved. We see it already in having to bribe the public into buying hybrids. I'm actually kinda pi$$ed that someone buying a Honda Accord hybrid today gets a $650 tax credit when my run of the mill 4 cylinder getting better mileage didn't qualify me for same!
Evie
- Collapse -
... and commercial vehicles off the road on I-95, we can talk. Until then ...
How much does a NASCAR vehicle cost Paul? How much additional safety equipment is included in that car?
What I fear is they will make the cars lighter (especially tricky with hybrids carrying the extra 6-700 lbs of battery deadweight) but we'll have more deaths. This has been well documented by the NHSB (I think that's the right acronym). Quite frankly, many of the fuel economy savings are eaten up by higher insurance premiums. My Protege crumpled like it was apparently intended to. But a vehicle totalled in a 15 mph crash (MAX, probably going slower than that) because of ''crumple zones'' isn't good for the bottom line. Pretty soon, only the very well heeled will be able to afford the insurance on these vehicles. Have you checked out the cost of replacing a deployed airbag for example?
I would rather they focus on improving the means of propulsion. Actual engine efficiency, etc. With a focus on the possibility of practical applications. This car is interesting enough, but it's being ''raced'' in a competition at 18 mph by a driver that is ''slight of frame''. There's no real breakthrough in getting better fuel economy from a lighter vehicle driven by a small person. VERY basic physics.
Evie
- Collapse -
Answer: Those are diesel powered vehicles by and large. They are at their most fuel efficient when in steady state cruising on I-95, or I-65 here in Indiana. The fact is that any internal combustion engine is at its most efficient in that type of driving, but diesels really excel in that area.
How much does a NASCAR vehicle cost Paul?
Answer: This is May, not August. I was referring to the construction methods used in the cars raced in the Indy 500. While making an entire car out of carbon fiber composites would be cost-prohibitive, composites can be used to reduce weight without sacrificing safety. Remember the original Saturn cars? They were built on a sort of space frame over which composite body panels were attached. The only steel panels in the car's body are the hood and trunk lid. There's no reason why we can't use that form of construction more often. Cars made that way can be priced competitively in the market. We could even try monocoque construction (the way Indy 500 cars are built); in fact, GM is experimenting with something similar as I write this.
FWIW, it's the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA).
Re: ''crumple zones'': As long as NHTSA is mandating ever stiffer passenger safety standards, then vehicles will continue to crumple. Better the car crumple than Evie crumple. Your hubby can always replace your car.
Re: Hybrids. Refer back to the first paragraph of this post, then consider the fact that the type of driving at which internal combustion engines are at their most efficient is precisely the type of driving at which hybrids are at their least efficient. Your Accord, my wife's Saturn or a modern diesel powered car such as the VW TDI (Turbo Direct Injection) diesels will equal the hybrid in real world combined mileage (city and open road), or at the very least come so close that the fuel savings and the tax break combined will in no way offset the higher price by the time the hybrid's batteries need to be replaced at a cost of $7,500 for the Toyota Prius and $5,000 for a Honda Civic hybrid.
The tax break given hybrids is another example of a politically correct exercise in using the tax code for social engineering - irrespective of conditions in the real world. And remember that what Congress giveth, Congress can taketh away. Fair Tax, anyone?
However, the overall pattern is clear: SUV and large truck sales are either flat or falling. This will continue. $3.00/gallon gas is an important psychological barrier for consumers, not because they can't afford it, but it is the point where many folks start feeling squeezed a bit. In addition, in this post-9/11 world, people now fully understand the risks associated with continuing dependence on Mideast oil. The big losers here will be American auto makers, as they still haven't a clue on how to make a small car profitably, so they will have to use their foreign subsidiaries - which explains why Saturn will begin selling cars made by GM-owned Opel of Germany in 2007 or 2008. Of course, the financial squeeze on GM, Ford and Chrysler will intensify, since they are so dependent on the lavish profit margins on large SUV's and trucks for the majority of their profit.
- Collapse -
(1) My reference to the tractor trailors on I-95 was that unless these superlight vehicles are going to be sharing the road with only others like them, it doesn't matter if 100% of passenger vehicles eventually switch, they will be at more risk ...
(1b) About 40% of vehicle fatalaties in smaller cars (read: lighter cars) are single car crashes, another 6% or so with other small cars. So, even if we got all the big vehicles off the road I'm not sure I'm ready to get back in a put put.
(2) Sorry, I presumed NASCAR, but really it's a similar example. The cost would be prohibitive. And unless they can change the laws of physics (see 1b) that make smaller cars less safe, I'll spend the extra money on gas for a more substantial vehicle that offers me more conveniences to boot. It may well be in the research pipeline, but it's just not there yet. And if composites were used en masse, they are made of polymers that require petroleum to produce , and are difficult to recycle.
(3) Crumple zones are great -- BUT if your argument is that with gas prices pretty soon nobody will be able to afford the larger cars, I disagree. At some point, the higher insurance rates more than balance out any savings on gasoline. Not to mention that if the composite car costs more, it also costs more to insure it. I can dig up some links, but one of the reason insurance rates have gone up so is because of the various safety features that essentially make smaller cars as safe as their cheaper, larger, predecessors. The crumple zones save lives but so too does a weightier frame. It costs a LOT more to replace a totalled car than a real bumper, hood, etc.
(4) I'm with you on the tax code with the hybrids.
(5) I dunno Paul, Honda's SUV & truck sales were up this past winter by double digits. GM is doing very well with the new Tahoes. Yes, they are trending out of style, but the deathknell is being sounded a little prematurely, IMO.
Evie
CNET Forums
Operating Systems
Software
Electronics & Gadgets
Hardware
Tablets & Mobile Devices
General Help
Roadshow Autos
Chowhound
Comic Vine
GameFAQs
GameSpot
Giant Bomb
TechRepublic