Car of the Future

dee1949

,,,who wants one. Will weigh 1000lbs....100mpg

http://earth2tech.com/2010/07/23/edison2-last-mainstream-car-standing-in-x-prize-finals/

fatchowmein

Heck, yes. Anything to get me through DFW traffic.

JimKellyfan

Is that....dare I say.....Delorean 2010 ?

dkg999

That will look good after a head-on with a large truck!

bobman1235

dkg999 wrote: »

That will look good after a head-on with a large truck!

I'd like to see any vehicle that looks good after a headon with a large truck.

tonyb

dkg999 wrote: »

That will look good after a head-on with a large truck!

A 1970 olds Delta 88 would make that thing into a pancake. Thing is with cars like that is that they are death traps. Would you want your kids driving around in one of those things?

mhardy6647

Looks like something from the cover of a mid-1960s issue of Popular Mechanics.

RuSsMaN

The Olds 88 is a death trap, the only deformable object on board are the occupants. Small, light weight cars look scary, but a lot of them are pretty safe. Small cars get tossed, large cars are less likely to move and transfer a lot more impact to passengers.

That being said, that car looks stupid, and I drive a GMC Suburban.

F1nut

Nascar's next "car of the future."

mhardy6647

F1nut wrote: »

Nascar's next "car of the future."

Indeed. The sponsor can paint its name on the wheel spats.

tonyb

RuSsMaN wrote: »

The Olds 88 is a death trap, the only deformable object on board are the occupants. Small, light weight cars look scary, but a lot of them are pretty safe. Small cars get tossed, large cars are less likely to move and transfer a lot more impact to passengers.

That being said, that car looks stupid, and I drive a GMC Suburban.

Driver deaths per million registered passenger vehicles 1-3 years old, 2007. Source: IIHS
Vehicle Size Rate
Car — Small 96
Car — Midsize 62
Car — Large 64
Car — Very Large 35
Pickup — Small 104
Pickup — Large 90
Pickup — Very Large 86
SUV — Small 48
SUV — Midsize 41
SUV — Large 43
SUV — Very Large 47


Not really Russ....I would put that Olds 88 as a very large car.

shack

tonyb wrote:

Not really Russ....I would put that Olds 88 as a very large car.

It isn't the size....it's the technology. Like Russ said...nothing in that Olds collapses. Everything becomes a projectile or battering ram. Your chances of survival are better in a Yaris.

Oh and yeah....I would drive on of those "cars of the future". It looks like it would handle like crazy and be fun to drive.

mhardy6647

shack wrote: »

Your chances of survival are better in a Yaris.

Now there's a statement you don't see every day!

tonyb

I wouldn't let my dog ride in a Yaris, let alone my kids.
I understand Russ's point, but still think it would be safer in a tank than a collapseable cardboard box.

shack

tonyb wrote: »

I wouldn't let my dog ride in a Yaris, let alone my kids.
I understand Russ's point, but still think it would be safer in a tank than a collapseable cardboard box.

Then you are basing your decision on perception and not reality.


http://www.iihs.org/ratings/rating.aspx?id=716

superjunior

F1nut wrote: »

Nascar's next "car of the future."

NO!!!!! :eek:

Vette C6.r

F1nut wrote: »

Nascar's next "car of the future."

lol. Could it be anymore boring than it already is ????

hearingimpared

I think it's fugly!

madmax

I'll stick to my xBox at 2000 lbs and 35mpg. Still a death trap but I love it! I can't tell you how many times I got out of someones way when my old Blazer would have taken the hit just because it was too heavy and wasn't quick.

Ron-P

That has got to be one of the fugliest things I've ever seen.

falconcry72

Many people care about the fact that in a small car you're more likely to die in a collision. Few people care about that fact that in small car you're less likely kill someone else in a collision.

People who would rather die than kill don't reproduce as much as people who would rather kill than die; hence the world is full of people who would rather kill than die. The world is full of war.

Survival of the fittest? Nope.

FYI: I like to say things; don't assume that I believe what I say.

bobman1235

Survival is every being on Earth's first priority, thinking anything different is just retarded.

And you're not more likely to die in a small car; not by a long shot.

falconcry72

bobman1235 wrote: »

Survival is every being on Earth's first priority, thinking anything different is just retarded.

Survival is not every being's first priority; example: me.

Given what I just stated along with the fact that I'm not retarded, it's safe to say that what you said is wrong.

madmax

falconcry72 wrote: »

Many people care about the fact that in a small car you're more likely to die in a collision. Few people care about that fact that in small car you're less likely kill someone else in a collision.

Truthfully I think most people are more worried about the big truck that hits them than if they kill someone in a lesser car.

falconcry72

madmax wrote: »

Truthfully I think most people are more worried about the big truck that hits them than if they kill someone in a lesser car.

I know; that's the problem. Nice metaphor, by the way.

shack

History is full of people who ignored the survival instinct and gave their lives for others. While suvival may have been part of the equasion...it was not their first priority.

I assume you believe those people are retarded?

Most consider them to be heros.

madmax

falconcry72 wrote: »

I know; that's the problem.

Having the instinct of survival is not a bad thing. Most people who survive have this instinct.
madmax

falconcry72

madmax wrote: »

Having the instinct of survival is not a bad thing. Most people who survive have this instinct.
madmax

I agree with both of those statements, but I'd throw a "necessarilly" between the "not" and "a" of the first one.

TECHNOKID

RuSsMaN wrote: »

The Olds 88 is a death trap, the only deformable object on board are the occupants. Small, light weight cars look scary, but a lot of them are pretty safe. Small cars get tossed, large cars are less likely to move and transfer a lot more impact to passengers.
That being said, that car looks stupid, and I drive a GMC Suburban.

Agreed, never rely on impressions. Today's car technology is met to destroy the car in order to save lives. Older car technology didn't this in mind... the car simply had to last and that's it.

DSkip wrote: »

Where are the wings?

I was thinking the same.

shack wrote: »

It isn't the size....it's the technology. Like Russ said...nothing in that Olds collapses. Everything becomes a projectile or battering ram. Your chances of survival are better in a Yaris.

Oh and yeah....I would drive on of those "cars of the future". It looks like it would handle like crazy and be fun to drive.

Yes, I would too love to drive this little toy and I agree that it looks like in can handle toe road no problem.

shack wrote: »

History is full of people who ignored the survival instinct and gave their lives for others. While suvival may have been part of the equasion...it was not their first priority.

I assume you believe those people are retarded?

Most consider them to be heros.

+1

bobman1235

shack wrote: »

History is full of people who ignored the survival instinct and gave their lives for others. While suvival may have been part of the equasion...it was not their first priority.

I assume you believe those people are retarded?

Most consider them to be heros.

Point taken.

Though I'm gonna go ahead and guess that a douchebag who comes on here bragging about his altruistic nature and condescending to everyone is most likely not ever going to be considered a "hero."

TECHNOKID

bobman1235 wrote: »

Point taken.

Though I'm gonna go ahead and guess that a douchebag who comes on here bragging about his altruistic nature and condescending to everyone is most likely not ever going to be considered a "hero."

:eek::( Your post is not exactly a good vision of sharing ideas and agreeing to disagree. Your statement is somewhat inflamatory and this is not typical of you