[Peak_Plus]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('MyOtherID', 'I')'m 100% behind you on the light rail issue. It is definitely a huge part of the solution but I had no space for it in my graphic.

But <b>ultra-low consumption vehicles</b> will be wildly popular as well, you'll see. <b>They are</b>n't <b>a joke!</b>

[MyOtherID]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Peak_Plus', 'R')ight. They're called motorcycles.

[Heineken]

I'm dubious of "solutions" like micro-cars that are basically just an overlay on the existing infrastructure, which is inherently unsustainable from a maintenance perspective alone.

I'm trying to envision I-95 packed with micro-cars during an evening rush-hour snowstorm.

Micro-cars are in the same basic category as bicycles and mopeds. You can't run the currently configured civilization on either.

First create a scaled-down world into which micro-cars would fit.

[MyOtherID]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Heineken', 'I')'m trying to envision I-95 packed with micro-cars during an evening rush-hour snowstorm.

[Heineken]

The problem is that the highways and the rest of the associated mess, including all of suburbia and exurbia, account for 95% of our infrastructure. It's a completely decentralized system built for zillions of high-powered cars and trucks and nothing else.

[Wildwell]

The laws of physics tell us the 8000 MPG car is a joke. Electric cars use 90-96 odd percent efficient motors, which leads a family type car equivalent to get around 100-120mpg without conversion losses taken into account. The only way you can improve this efficiency is to install re-gen braking and make the thing a lot lighter, but that's about it. Or turn it into an impractical go-kart (see above).

[NeoPeasant]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('MyOtherID', '
')What is a "real world vehicle"? For me it is one that gets me from A to B. With vehicles like this, the road danger would be minimal and we could all have our own cars, even children.

[gg3]

There's a world of difference between a rational critique and an emotional tirade. The intensity of the scorn & contempt shown by some of y'all tells me it's not about the car, it's about your head: a psychological defense mechanism to ward off unwelcome facts in order to preserve a specific emotional outlook. Fine, go right ahead, and good luck.

Strictly speaking, an 8,000 mpg car is a demonstration project only, i.e. sure it's not practical for daily transport. However, that doesn't mean that some of the design concepts can't be used in practical vehicles of one kind or another. Even if only in single-seater velomobiles, which after all are quite popular in Europe.

As for achievable efficiencies, I'm shocked that no one here has mentioned the 312-mpg VW prototype that was first shown a few years ago. It's a 2-seater, looks like a cross between an oldschool Messerschmitt and a futuristic Porsche speedster, and does Autobahn speeds with ease. A production version of this thing could probably be built and get over 200 mpg easily.

Now if VW can get 312-mpg on a viable car for highway driving, a velomobile with some of that British technology might reasonably get 400 - 500 mpg.

As for "SUV roadkill," I have a solution for that: Active Deterrence. Sensors in the micro-vehicle would detect if it was compressed in any dimension sufficiently that there would be no way the occupants would survive (for example if it were run over and squished). In that event, a large explosive charge would be set off, thereby destroying the attacking SUV and killing all of its occupants as well. Neat, huh?:-)

[Heineken]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('gg3', 'T')here's a world of difference between a rational critique and an emotional tirade. The intensity of the scorn & contempt shown by some of y'all tells me it's not about the car, it's about your head: a psychological defense mechanism to ward off unwelcome facts in order to preserve a specific emotional outlook. Fine, go right ahead, and good luck.

Strictly speaking, an 8,000 mpg car is a demonstration project only, i.e. sure it's not practical for daily transport. However, that doesn't mean that some of the design concepts can't be used in practical vehicles of one kind or another. Even if only in single-seater velomobiles, which after all are quite popular in Europe.

As for achievable efficiencies, I'm shocked that no one here has mentioned the 312-mpg VW prototype that was first shown a few years ago. It's a 2-seater, looks like a cross between an oldschool Messerschmitt and a futuristic Porsche speedster, and does Autobahn speeds with ease. A production version of this thing could probably be built and get over 200 mpg easily.

Now if VW can get 312-mpg on a viable car for highway driving, a velomobile with some of that British technology might reasonably get 400 - 500 mpg.

[Zardoz]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('gg3', '.')..I'm shocked that no one here has mentioned the 312-mpg VW prototype that was first shown a few years ago. It's a 2-seater, looks like a cross between an oldschool Messerschmitt and a futuristic Porsche speedster, and does Autobahn speeds with ease. A production version of this thing could probably be built and get over 200 mpg easily.

[Wildwell]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('gg3', 'T')here's a world of difference between a rational critique and an emotional tirade. The intensity of the scorn & contempt shown by some of y'all tells me it's not about the car, it's about your head: a psychological defense mechanism to ward off unwelcome facts in order to preserve a specific emotional outlook. Fine, go right ahead, and good luck.

Strictly speaking, an 8,000 mpg car is a demonstration project only, i.e. sure it's not practical for daily transport. However, that doesn't mean that some of the design concepts can't be used in practical vehicles of one kind or another. Even if only in single-seater velomobiles, which after all are quite popular in Europe.

As for achievable efficiencies, I'm shocked that no one here has mentioned the 312-mpg VW prototype that was first shown a few years ago. It's a 2-seater, looks like a cross between an oldschool Messerschmitt and a futuristic Porsche speedster, and does Autobahn speeds with ease. A production version of this thing could probably be built and get over 200 mpg easily.

Now if VW can get 312-mpg on a viable car for highway driving, a velomobile with some of that British technology might reasonably get 400 - 500 mpg.

As for "SUV roadkill," I have a solution for that: Active Deterrence. Sensors in the micro-vehicle would detect if it was compressed in any dimension sufficiently that there would be no way the occupants would survive (for example if it were run over and squished). In that event, a large explosive charge would be set off, thereby destroying the attacking SUV and killing all of its occupants as well. Neat, huh?:-)

[emersonbiggins]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Zardoz', ' ')We'll be humming to work in two-cylinder, 40-HP versions of it sooner than we think.

[NeoPeasant]

I don't know why so many people envision some Buck Rogers technology path to lowering our energy consumption to a fraction of what it is today. All you need to do is look at places where the energy consumption is already a fraction of what it is in the first world.

I have a much more realistic vision of a future. I see city streets crammed with bicycles, with the occasional jerk on a 50cc two stroke scooter zipping in between them in a vulgar display of wealth and conspicuous consumption. When the weather is too bad for the bike, you'll just get up earlier so you'll have enough time to walk.

[WisJim]

I thiought that the results of the Vetter mileage contests in the early 1980s were interesting. Not necessarily very scientifically run, but looks like they had fun. And in 1985 one fellow got 470mpg on a streamlined motorcycle on public roads.
http://www.craigvetter.com/pages/470MPG ... 0Main.html

We're thinking of getting a streamlined fairing kit for one of our little Hondas, but $1300 plus shipping etc is a lot to spend to start another string of experiments. May make something less complex and see how it works.

[ohanian]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('NeoPeasant', '
')I have a much more realistic vision of a future. I see city streets crammed with bicycles, with the occasional jerk on a 50cc two stroke scooter zipping in between them in a vulgar display of wealth and conspicuous consumption. When the weather is too bad for the bike, you'll just get up earlier so you'll have enough time to walk.

[Doly]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('ohanian', '
')I have been to the future. It's called Bangladesh.

[chitowncarl]

Just we need to prolong the fallacy of sustainable growth, a lengthening of our infatuation with, and dependence on, automobiles.

Cars and trucks of any sort are what is killing us. They get us to the big box stores and home to our waferboard breeding pens. Get over them.

These resources will be better expended to develop local non-petro agriculture and solar technologies.

Doh!

[Zardoz]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('chitowncarl', '.')..Cars and trucks of any sort are what is killing us.

[Wildwell]

Trucks are a very serious problem and not often discussed on these forums.

Traditionally they were small and their mail purpose was to take freight from wharfs, docks, rail heads and distribution points to the doorstop - a short distance. That was if industry wasn’t located next to railroads, canals and navigable watercourses/sea, which it traditionally was.

As roads/trucks became larger, it became more economical to move freight over distance.

Now the US, Canada, and Australia are way ahead in moving intercity freight by methods other than truck. The market share (US) is as follows:

Railroads: 42%
Water: 13%
Pipelines: 17%
Trucks: 28%

[ source http://www.aar.org/PubCommon/Documents/ ... erview.pdf ]

There are two problems with trucks: They are fuel inefficient compared to rail/water, but even more importantly, even in high tax countries, the wear and tear they cause to roads isn’t covered by their revenue. In other words you take out high volumes of cars, paying a high volume of tax, the entire highway system and inter city trucking system becomes uneconomic and costly to maintain.

This is where Europe is firmly behind. While Germany has a fair degree of rail freight and water transport, Switzerland has a fair degree of rail freight transport, in every other country it’s fairly modest, especially Greece and Ireland. Why’s this? Well, principally because the systems have grown up with independent methods of working in their individual states. The interoperability between countries is less than adequate. Channel tunnel freight has been a fairly because of the need for different crews with their own rule book. Britain is in particular difficulties. Its canals are narrow and can only take very limited freight - the rail system has once of the smallest clearances (loading gauge) in the world, which came from the days of Stephenson’s rocket – the only clearance needed was the tall chimney. The system can’t even carry larger containers on the majority of routes, or double decker passenger trains. Mainland Europe is the same ‘Bern gauge’, but interoperability limits transit times. This could change in the future using European Traffic control system (ERTMS) and using the Galileo satellite. In the meantime, Europe and especially Britain is hopelessly reliant on road freight.

http://ec.europa.eu/dgs/energy_transpor ... _te_en.mpg

http://ec.europa.eu/dgs/energy_transpor ... ail_en.mpg