What would you like to see in the next generation cars? - Page 3 - Calgarypuck Forums - The Unofficial Calgary Flames Fan Community

Tinordi · 03-30-2011, 05:02 PM

Light weight cars. Over 90% of the fuel used for actual motive force (not even total energy) is to move the vehicle itself not the occupant. Extremely inefficient, a complete waste of a high exergy fuel source.

Teh_Bandwagoner · 03-30-2011, 05:04 PM

burn_this_city · 03-30-2011, 05:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Teh_Bandwagoner

100% agree, I love rear window louvers

Phanuthier · 03-30-2011, 05:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Yasa

Although not new, I'd like to see a standard feature that tilts the side mirrors down when you shift into reverse. My dads MDX had that and it made parking so nice.
.

Great suggestion. I can throw that out there, thats a pretty simple to do.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Yasa

A projected HUD would be nice (not sure how it would be feasible though.)

whats thats?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Yasa

Self-tinting windshield (that can be adjusted.) Visors and that polarized layer aren't the greatest.

I like that suggestion, but that might be down the alley of someone else like Applied Materials (not what I do)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Yasa

Self-adjusting crusie control that matches the car ahead of you until you or they move out of the way.

Great suggestion, I can work with something like that.

Table 5 · 03-30-2011, 05:07 PM

Actually one tech feature i would like is the ability to forcefully remove anyone backing up traffic in the left-lane of a highway. Ie, a missile launcher.

I swear every time i drive out to Schlong Island, it's faster to go in the right lane then the left. Every Mommy-Mobile parks their ass in the left and middle lanes and stays there for their entire trip.

Table 5 · 03-30-2011, 05:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by burn_this_city

100% agree, I love rear window louvers

Also, T-Tops and Flip-up lights. Who's with me?

Bertuzzied · 03-30-2011, 05:08 PM

How about one that shoots heat seeking missles and can shoot flames 360 around the car if someone dents it.

burn_this_city · 03-30-2011, 05:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Table 5

Also, T-Tops and Flip-up lights. Who's with me?

T-Tops are great, except when they leak. I had flip up lights on my Firebird, they shook like shat at speed.

CaptainCrunch · 03-30-2011, 05:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bertuzzied

How about one that shoots heat seeking missles and can shoot flames 360 around the car if someone dents it.

Already a marketed product

Zee · 03-30-2011, 05:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tinordi

Light weight cars. Over 90% of the fuel used for actual motive force (not even total energy) is to move the vehicle itself not the occupant. Extremely inefficient, a complete waste of a high exergy fuel source.

Exactly!!! The goal should be that 50% of energy is used to move the occupants...

Kev · 03-30-2011, 05:14 PM

A flux capacitor, seriously.

Bertuzzied · 03-30-2011, 05:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

Already a marketed product

Yeah i was thinking of South Africa car jackings when i typed that.

I would like a vehicle which can automatically take multinova pics for speeding tickets built in front.

Bertuzzied · 03-30-2011, 05:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kev

a flux capacitor, seriously.

y?

SebC · 03-30-2011, 05:17 PM

First of all, Phanuthier, what is all this for?

Quote:

Originally Posted by wooohooo

I hear there are these pads that charge your phone through conduction. I would like that in the whole car so it can charge my phone even in my pocket.

That sounds like a lot of expense, inefficiency and electromagnetic field just avoid plugging your phone into the car.

Quote:

Originally Posted by burn_this_city

Unfortunately they'll be turning the track into a storm water pond or a landfill.

Good thing the economics would be totally different.

Table 5 · 03-30-2011, 05:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zee

Exactly!!! The goal should be that 50% of energy is used to move the occupants...

That might happen anyway, but mostly because we're all getting fatter.

Lighter cars would definitely be a plus....but in order to do that, people need to stop asking for 20 airbags, HDTV's and Playstations in the console, and dumb electric gadgets (rotating mirrors? seriously?) that just weights down the cars. There's way too much crap in car's these days that has nothing to do with driving.

Kev · 03-30-2011, 05:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bertuzzied

y?

To generate the flux dispersal required to allow the vehicle smooth passage through the space time continuum, why else?

llama64 · 03-30-2011, 05:37 PM

Put me in down for cars that drive themselves (plugged into an overall managed transit system).

90% of us can't drive worth crap, 89% of us can't admit it either (based entirely on my errands today...)

Adding more "infotainment" should be outlawed. If you're gonna drive, drive. Stop distracting yourself from actually driving.

Dion · 03-30-2011, 06:12 PM

Quote:

Moller International has developed the first and only feasible, personally affordable, personal vertical takeoff and landing (VTOL) vehicle the world has ever seen.

You've always known it was just a matter of time before the world demanded some kind of flying machine which would replace the automobile. Of course, this machine would have to be capable of VTOL, be easy to maintain, cost effective and reliable. Well, we at Moller International believe we have come up with the solution. That solution is the volantor named M400 Skycar.

Let's compare the M400 Skycar with what's available now, the automobile. Take the most technologically advanced automobile, the Ferrari, Porsche, Maserati, Lamborghini, or the more affordable Acura, Accord, or the like. It seems like all of the manufacturers of these cars are touting the new and greatly improved "aerodynamics" of their cars. Those in the aerospace industry have been dealing with aerodynamics from the start. In the auto industry they boast of aerodynamics, performance tuned wide track suspensions, electronic ignition and fuel injection systems, computer controllers, and the list goes on. What good does all this "advanced engineering" do for you when the speed limit is around 60 MPH and you are stuck on crowded freeways anyway?

Can any automobile give you this scenario? From your garage to your destination, the M400 Skycar can cruise comfortably at 275 MPH (maximum speed of 375 MPH) and achieve up to 20 miles per gallon on clean burning, ethanol fuel. No traffic, no red lights, no speeding tickets. Just quiet direct transportation from point A to point B in a fraction of the time. Three dimensional mobility in place of two dimensional immobility

http://www.moller.com/index.php?opti...d=49&Itemid=57

Table 5 · 03-30-2011, 06:19 PM

Unless they are self-controlled, flying cars always seemed totally unrealistic. Most people can barely drive on a 2D surface, and now they are supposed to drive in 3D? Fat chance. Every little fender bender in the sky has a chance to be deadly...for those in the air and below.

Dion · 03-30-2011, 06:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Table 5

Unless they are self-controlled, flying cars always seemed totally unrealistic. Most people can barely drive on a 2D surface, and now they are supposed to drive in 3D? Fat chance. Every little fender bender in the sky has a chance to be deadly...for those in the air and below.

Space hog!
I better cut around and try and sIide in.
Sunday astronaut!
Hey, you!
What do you think this is, the IndianapoIis 500,000?
All right, all right. Pull up.
-What's your name, speedy? -George J. Jetson.
George Jetson, eh? Well, Georgie, let's see what we got here.
-Passing under traffic. -Yeah.
-3500 in a 2500-miIe zone. -It's true.