PDA

View Full Version : What will cars be like in 20 years time?



Bagpuss
17th November 2009, 17:23
According to Back to the Future part 2 we will have flying cars by 2015


Standard equipment, power plant etc...

Spacecadet
17th November 2009, 17:24
According to Back to the Future part 2 we will have flying cars by 2015


Standard equipment, power plant etc...

According to Terminator we will have cars with DIY fitted anti aircraft guns by now

DimPrawn
17th November 2009, 17:25
Something like this by the time the Climate Change twonks have finished their bullshit. (http://etc.usf.edu/clipart/18000/18037/horse_cart_18037_lg.gif)

thunderlizard
17th November 2009, 17:28
According to Terminator we will have cars with DIY fitted anti aircraft guns by now

They have been around since the year dot
http://browningmgs.com/Images_1919A4/Brownings/1895&Car.jpg

Moscow Mule
17th November 2009, 17:42
You won't have to drive it if you don't want to (at least on motorways).

My grandkids will not believe that there was a time when you had to drive yourself anywhere.

Spacecadet
17th November 2009, 17:45
My grandkids will not believe that there was a time when you had to drive yourself anywhere.

Have they not been in a car yet?

gingerjedi
17th November 2009, 17:49
Cars?:laugh

Electric push bike if you're lucky, not heard of ''peak oil'?

xoggoth
17th November 2009, 17:51
I think The Flintstones showed us the future on that one.

Moscow Mule
17th November 2009, 17:51
Have they not been in a car yet?

I guess my point only makes sense when you know I don't have any kids yet...

TimberWolf
17th November 2009, 17:57
We could have flying cars now, but they aren't very practical. You need either a big wing (or rotors) or a fuel hungry engine. e.g. a car on a hang-glider, or a fan strapped to someone's back, both of which have been done.

Basically you have to impart momentum to the air equal to the weight being lifted, either by pushing lots of air down slowly (a big wing/fan) or pushing down less air more quickly using more energy.

Board Game Geek
17th November 2009, 18:06
There's enough carnage and nutters on the road as it is.

Can you imagine the potential chaos once we factor in a third dimension ?

Just because something is "technically possible", doesn't mean it's "necessarily desirable"

Bagpuss
17th November 2009, 18:09
Exactly who would want a flying car when you can sit on the M25 admiring the scenery

TimberWolf
17th November 2009, 18:12
Come to think of it, if you were to factor in the cost of road building and maintenance, traffic, relative slow speed, etc, air travel might not be so energy expensive after all. I wonder if anyone has actually worked it out.

hyperD
17th November 2009, 19:22
If the eco-Nazis worshiping in the Temple of Anthropomorphic Global Warming have their say over the lethargic and the politically autistic, then it won't just be donkeys driving Volvos, they'll be pulling them as well.

gingerjedi
17th November 2009, 19:50
If the eco-Nazis worshiping in the Temple of Anthropomorphic Global Warming have their say over the lethargic and the politically autistic, then it won't just be donkeys driving Volvos, they'll be pulling them as well.

Do you think oil will become cheaper and taxed less if AGW went away? Personally I think the AGW debate is a smoke screen to ween us off fossil fuels as they become far too expensive to consume at current levels.

I think we'll have donkeys pulling Volvo's no mater what, provided we don't eat all the donkeys.:D

DimPrawn
17th November 2009, 20:05
Do you think oil will become cheaper and taxed less if AGW went away? Personally I think the AGW debate is a smoke screen to ween us off fossil fuels as they become far too expensive to consume at current levels.

I think we'll have donkeys pulling Volvo's no mater what, provided we don't eat all the donkeys.:D

Yeah, petrol is so expensive.

http://uk.theoildrum.com/uploads/465/cv_petrol_price.gif

:rolleyes:

OwlHoot
17th November 2009, 20:14
Why does everyone assume cars will always have wheels?

Perhaps in twenty or thirty years "personal carriers" will be little more than a pair of computerized powered legs, especially for local journeys. Why not?

Maybe they would have miniature retractable wheels for downhill stretches, to save energy.

Spacecadet
17th November 2009, 20:16
Why does everyone assume cars will always have wheels?

Perhaps in twenty or thirty years "personal carriers" will be little more than a pair of computerized powered legs, especially for local journeys. Why not?


Because given the availability of nice flat, smooth(ish) roads, wheels are more efficient

Bagpuss
17th November 2009, 20:45
Why do cars have to run off the internal combustion engine? It's 19th century technology.

gingerjedi
17th November 2009, 20:58
Yeah, petrol is so expensive.

http://uk.theoildrum.com/uploads/465/cv_petrol_price.gif

:rolleyes:

Maybe now but in 20 years? I'll believe my ex oil trader mate who worked for Statoil over an IT geek thanks.:wink

gingerjedi
17th November 2009, 21:00
They'll have giant spoilers, huge flared wheel arches, and ridiculously large exhaust pipes......

.....kind of like this (http://files.sharenator.com/Ricer_Ricers-s546x386-13858-580.jpg). :eek:

Nah... more like this (http://www.anorak.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/reliant-land-speeder.jpg).

hyperD
18th November 2009, 01:50
Do you think oil will become cheaper and taxed less if AGW went away?

Yes, compared to what they want to do. The AGW guilt propaganda is imposed on us to make us pay more tax on fuel and on the way to do business in the UK within a global market. That's why governments immediately backed the whole AGW charade. Remember that gurning SeeYouNextTuesday tard Bliar and his incompetent cohort Broon jumping on the bandwagon before anyone had any idea what green was with his big announcement?

That alone should have got your spider senses tingling.


I think we'll have donkeys pulling Volvo's no mater what, provided we don't eat all the donkeys.:D

China have at least 200 years of coal reserves. We have coal. Most countries have fossil fuels or a market to trade. Technologies improve to extract more oil from the reservoirs that were considered not cost effective a few years ago.

Yes, to conserve fossil fuels because ultimately they are finite.

Yes to conservation and increasing efficiencies of power stations etc

Yes to investigating into alternatives, including the holy grail of fusion.

But NO to taxing all our businesses back into the stone age in a global market by dressing ourselves in sackcloth and beating ourselves with green taxes because of some misplaced guilt over bad science.

It's politically driven, it has no sound scientific basis, it's absolutely wrong. And if you believe in the faux religion of AGW, you are complicit in one of the greatest evils to fall upon mankind and progression and so be you condemned.

gingerjedi
18th November 2009, 08:39
Yes, compared to what they want to do. The AGW guilt propaganda is imposed on us to make us pay more tax on fuel and on the way to do business in the UK within a global market. That's why governments immediately backed the whole AGW charade. Remember that gurning SeeYouNextTuesday tard Bliar and his incompetent cohort Broon jumping on the bandwagon before anyone had any idea what green was with his big announcement?

That alone should have got your spider senses tingling.



China have at least 200 years of coal reserves. We have coal. Most countries have fossil fuels or a market to trade. Technologies improve to extract more oil from the reservoirs that were considered not cost effective a few years ago.

Yes, to conserve fossil fuels because ultimately they are finite.

Yes to conservation and increasing efficiencies of power stations etc

Yes to investigating into alternatives, including the holy grail of fusion.

But NO to taxing all our businesses back into the stone age in a global market by dressing ourselves in sackcloth and beating ourselves with green taxes because of some misplaced guilt over bad science.

It's politically driven, it has no sound scientific basis, it's absolutely wrong. And if you believe in the faux religion of AGW, you are complicit in one of the greatest evils to fall upon mankind and progression and so be you condemned.

I totally agree with everything you say, I said it was a smokescreen in a previous post. I still think oil will get much more expensive over time AGW or not.

Far east economies are expanding, the worlds population is expanding, they have a thirst for oil that will not be sustainable unless output rises to meet demand, in the 70's a 5% drop in production triggered a 400% price rise.

http://www.businessweek.com/globalbiz/content/jul2009/gb20090729_550682.htm

VectraMan
18th November 2009, 09:51
Why do cars have to run off the internal combustion engine? It's 19th century technology.

What do you suggest? An electric motor is also 19th century technology.

Spacecadet
18th November 2009, 10:21
What do you suggest? An electric motor is also 19th century technology.

I thought the electic motor pre-dated the internal combustion engine.

DaveB
18th November 2009, 11:11
With any luck, one of these (http://www.conceptcarz.com/vehicle/z15868/Citroen-GTbyCITROEN.aspx)with a fuel cell power plant.

Saw it in the flesh, so to speak, at the MPH show last weekend.

threaded
18th November 2009, 11:12
My favourite example of this "Green Charade" is the catalytic converter. Only the loony Greenies would come up with a method of burning more fuel, and create several of the worlds most un-natural disasters in the strip mining of rare-earth metals. If you really wanted to be "Green" you'd just burn less fuel by having more efficient engines. More efficient engines produce less pollution, duh! Example, experimental ceramic engines are running so hot that with just a normal type exhaust (well nearly, but nothing fancy, it's all in the bends) it produces water and carbon dioxide.

Spacecadet
18th November 2009, 11:14
My favourite example of this "Green Charade" is the catalytic converter. Only the loony Greenies would come up with a method of burning more fuel, and create several of the worlds most un-natural disasters in the strip mining of rare-earth metals. If you really wanted to be "Green" you'd just burn less fuel by having more efficient engines. More efficient engines produce less pollution, duh! Example, experimental ceramic engines are running so hot that with just a normal type exhaust (well nearly, but nothing fancy, it's all in the bends) it produces water and carbon dioxide.

Soon to be repeated as the planet is raped for all the lithium required for the huge market in electric cars

threaded
18th November 2009, 11:19
Soon to be repeated as the planet is raped for all the lithium required for the huge market in electric cars

Quite. What exactly is wrong with the internal combustion engine? It is perfect for the task. If they're going to be producing an energy source, some synthetic diesel would be the logical choice. Batteries etc. have got an awful long way to meet the energy density of such fuels. And they will never be as transportable or safe.

sasguru
18th November 2009, 11:35
It's politically driven, it has no sound scientific basis, it's absolutely wrong. And if you believe in the faux religion of AGW, you are complicit in one of the greatest evils to fall upon mankind and progression and so be you condemned.

Yes I ought to believe some moronic statement made by some random IT geek on the web than these the vast majority of the world's scientists.

:rolleyes:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change

Spacecadet
18th November 2009, 11:53
Yes I ought to believe some moronic statement made by some random IT geek on the web than these the vast majority of the world's scientists.

:rolleyes:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change

The issue I have with Global Warming is that all the funding and news paper articles are hiding some far worse enviromental issues which don't really get any attention unless they can somehow be linked to global warming.

There is still massive deforestation going on, reducing bio-diversity and causing huge soil loss, soil which when lost means it will be very difficult to regrow the forest or anything for that matter. Haiti is a prime example of this, as a country they are now ****ed

Fishing is for all intents and purposes unregulated and over industrialised, huge damage is being done to ocean eco systems and some species are being driven to extention (either directly or indirectly)

Intensive farming (linked to deforestation) upsets the natural bio-diversity, it is also a contributor to the ocean dead-zones. In the gulf of mexico an area the size of wales (the usual unit of ecological damage) is de-oxygenated each year because of fertilizer runoff from the mississipi resulting in almost all fish in the area dying. This happens in many places around the world with both natural and un-natural causes.

There are still massive amounts of pollutants being released into the land/sea and air

And the elephant in the room: The human population. The ONLY way we're ever going to make a serious enviromental impact is through depopulation on a massive scale.

sasguru
18th November 2009, 11:58
The issue I have with Global Warming is that all the funding and news paper articles are hiding some far worse enviromental issues which don't really get any attention unless they can somehow be linked to global warming.

There is still massive deforestation going on, reducing bio-diversity and causing huge soil loss, soil which when lost means it will be very difficult to regrow the forest or anything for that matter. Haiti is a prime example of this, as a country they are now ****ed

Fishing is for all intents and purposes unregulated and over industrialised, huge damage is being done to ocean eco systems and some species are being driven to extention (either directly or indirectly)

Intensive farming (linked to deforestation) upsets the natural bio-diversity, it is also a contributor to the ocean dead-zones. In the gulf of mexico an area the size of wales (the usual unit of ecological damage) is de-oxygenated each year because of fertilizer runoff from the mississipi resulting in almost all fish in the area dying. This happens in many places around the world with both natural and un-natural causes.

There are still massive amounts of pollutants being released into the land/sea and air

And the elephant in the room: The human population. The ONLY way we're ever going to make a serious enviromental impact is through depopulation on a massive scale.

So humans are fooking up the earth? Course they are.
But there are still morons who'd rather carry on as they are and justify that POV by saying its all a hoax.
But then most people are very much to the left of the normal curve.

oracleslave
18th November 2009, 12:11
So humans are fooking up the earth? Course they are.
But there are still morons who'd rather carry on as they are and justify that POV by saying its all a hoax.
But then most people are very much to the left of the normal curve.

Why are humble aygo owners allowed to pontificate on the future of cars?

Spacecadet
18th November 2009, 12:20
Why are humble aygo owners allowed to pontificate on the future of cars?

The Aygo is the future!