Warren Buffett put a billion up for a 300 mpg car

[mirage62 0]

Just got to thinking, what if Buffett put a billion up for a car that got 300 miles to a gallon, 0-60 in 10 seconds, can hold four adults..... ect, ect.

Something like the rocket into space prize a while back.

You'd have to really think out the rules, like it can't cost a million bucks each.

I know, I know it can't be done - but a billion bucks would motivate a lot of people to work on it.

Kevin Keenan is my hero, a double FUP, he does so much with so little

[billvon 3,119]

>I know, I know it can't be done . . . .

Sure it can; cars like that exist now. Heck, give me the money and I could do it in a year. You just can't do it cheaply.

We don't need miraculous advances to get ultra-efficient cars. I mean, advances would sure be nice, but we all the needed technology now. Now you just have to do the boring part - productizing the technology.

[shropshire 0]

Is that better than being Philanthropic?... maybe

(.)Y(.)
Chivalry is not dead; it only sleeps for want of work to do. - Jerome K Jerome

[kallend 2,150]

Quote

>I know, I know it can't be done . . . .

Sure it can; cars like that exist now. Heck, give me the money and I could do it in a year. You just can't do it cheaply.

We don't need miraculous advances to get ultra-efficient cars. I mean, advances would sure be nice, but we all the needed technology now. Now you just have to do the boring part - productizing the technology.

I think the money might be better spent fixing up our dreadful traffic management systems to reduce congestion.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[ExAFO 0]

Quote

I think the money might be better spent fixing up our dreadful traffic management systems to reduce congestion.

At least you can use the CTA or Metra. Damned suburbs have none of the former, and very little of the latter.

Illinois needs a CCW Law. NOW.

[mirage62 0]

Okay make the billion payable to the people who come up with a way to produce the car for $25,000. My point is let's get people working on this. I don't buy the idea that we can't do it.

Kevin Keenan is my hero, a double FUP, he does so much with so little

[billvon 3,119]

>Okay make the billion payable to the people who come up with a
>way to produce the car for $25,000.

Then they'd produce the car and no one would buy it because it "looked funny" or something.

A few years back Toyota was selling an electric SUV. Range of about 120 miles, went 80mph on highways. It got the equivalent of about 110 miles per gallon. It sold for about $30,000 after rebates. Very few people bought them.

[AggieDave 6]

Quote

I think the money might be better spent fixing up our dreadful traffic management systems to reduce congestion.

I don't know, teaching your average citizen how to actually drive would help a whole lot as well. A lot of the problems come from people just not knowing how to drive well and then not driving curtiously.

Your typical person who thinks they're a "good driver" usually isn't that good of a driver.

With better traffic management in place, the ending result wouldn't be that much better then what we have now without training.

--"When I die, may I be surrounded by scattered chrome and burning gasoline."

[NewGuy2005 53]

Quote

Just got to thinking, what if Buffett put a billion up for a car that got 300 miles to a gallon, 0-60 in 10 seconds, can hold four adults..... ect, ect.

And goes to 14,000' in 5 minutes.

[Gawain 0]

Quote

I think the money might be better spent fixing up our dreadful traffic management systems to reduce congestion.

Would that include roads too? Traffic management systems can only handle so much.

So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh
Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright
'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life
Make light!

[kallend 2,150]

Quote

Quote

I think the money might be better spent fixing up our dreadful traffic management systems to reduce congestion.

At least you can use the CTA or Metra. Damned suburbs have none of the former, and very little of the latter.

I am a suburban dweller...

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[kallend 2,150]

Quote

Quote

I think the money might be better spent fixing up our dreadful traffic management systems to reduce congestion.

Would that include roads too? Traffic management systems can only handle so much.

I meant roads. Things like properly sequencing traffic lights, eliminating traffic lights just put in for political/commercial purposes (we have them around here), "smart" traffic lights that don't leave you waiting 60 seconds burning fuel and making CO2 while nothing goes the other way...

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[mirage62 0]

Bill, I don't know a thing about that car, but I bet there was more to it than it was ugly.

Seriously do you think a car that could get "just" a 100 mpg and have the performance of let's say a Honda Civic is possible right now - at $25,000?

Kevin Keenan is my hero, a double FUP, he does so much with so little

[billvon 3,119]

>Seriously do you think a car that could get "just" a 100 mpg and
> have the performance of let's say a Honda Civic is possible right
> now - at $25,000?

A Corbin Sparrow (now named the Myers NmG) gets the equivalent of about 150mpg, carries one person, parks anywhere (it can park straight in in parallel-parking spots) has a top speed over 70mph and costs under $25,000. They won't sell because they look funny and they don't use gas, and their range is about 30 miles. (which is shorter than 90% of the trips people take.)

[AggieDave 6]

Quote

Powered by thirteen 12 volt batteries, the NmG-1 provides an effective range of 35 to 45 miles
and a top speed of 70-75 mph.

That's from this site: http://www.hightechscience.org/myers_motors_nmg1.htm

With an effective range of 35-45 miles and only carrying one person, whats the point? Even ugly cars get sold if they're practical. Cars that aren't practical, no matter what kind of MPG they get, don't sell...unless they go very very fast or can play offroad.

My motorcycle gets about 45mpg, but atleast I can carry two people.

--"When I die, may I be surrounded by scattered chrome and burning gasoline."

[billvon 3,119]

>With an effective range of 35-45 miles and only carrying one person,
> whats the point?

It would get 90% of the people in LA to work and back every day. That would have a bit of utility, no?

[AggieDave 6]

Quote

It would get 90% of the people in LA to work and back every day. That would have a bit of utility, no?

Doesn't LA have a good bus system?

Well, if it would work for LA that would be good for them. Would it be worth the hassle for $25k for all of those people? Probably not. If it was $5-10k there would probably be a number of takers.

--"When I die, may I be surrounded by scattered chrome and burning gasoline."

[billvon 3,119]

>Doesn't LA have a good bus system?

Yep. And people have the same sorts of reasons why they can't take the bus. Which goes back to my original point - the technology, the infrastructure, heck even the buses are there. But people want big gas powered cars.

[AggieDave 6]

Quote

But people want big gas powered cars.

Honestly I think its because the proper alternative type of vehicle hasn't been produced yet.

I drive my large gas drinking truck when I need to haul gear or if the weather is *really* bad. Otherwise I ride my quite fuel efficent motorcycle.

"Ugly" cars have sold well in the US before and they will again, if they're practical. If the price is right and they actually accomplish something useful. All in all the VW Beetle as well as the VW Rabbit were both quite ugly cars. 1 or 2 Beetles were sold over the years if I remember correctly.

They were cheap, they were efficent (for the time) and they were able to carry more then just 1 person and a sammich.

--"When I die, may I be surrounded by scattered chrome and burning gasoline."

[kallend 2,150]

Quote

Quote

But people want big gas powered cars.

Honestly I think its because the proper alternative type of vehicle hasn't been produced yet.

I drive my large gas drinking truck when I need to haul gear or if the weather is *really* bad. Otherwise I ride my quite fuel efficent motorcycle.

"Ugly" cars have sold well in the US before and they will again, if they're practical. If the price is right and they actually accomplish something useful. All in all the VW Beetle as well as the VW Rabbit were both quite ugly cars. 1 or 2 Beetles were sold over the years if I remember correctly.

They were cheap, they were efficent (for the time) and they were able to carry more then just 1 person and a sammich.

The Element and Scion are as ugly as they come, and seem to be selling OK.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[AggieDave 6]

Quote

The Element and Scion are as ugly as they come, and seem to be selling OK.

Thus you prove my point. They're practical vehicles, even if they're ugly as sin.

They fit more then one person and a sammich and they're not very expensive (as cars go).

--"When I die, may I be surrounded by scattered chrome and burning gasoline."

[billvon 3,119]

>I think its because the proper alternative type of vehicle hasn't been produced yet.

Well, like I said above, all the pieces are available and in place, and vehicles have been produced with the technology - but no one wants them yet. It will take some basic engineering (and marketing) rather than any new breakthroughs at this point to make a significant change to automotive design.

[Gravitymaster 0]

Quote

>I think its because the proper alternative type of vehicle hasn't been produced yet.

Well, like I said above, all the pieces are available and in place, and vehicles have been produced with the technology - but no one wants them yet. It will take some basic engineering (and marketing) rather than any new breakthroughs at this point to make a significant change to automotive design.

Didn't someone post a link here a while back about either an electric car or hybrid that would go from 0 to 60 in something like 4 seconds?

[AggieDave 6]

Quote

Well, like I said above, all the pieces are available and in place, and vehicles have been produced with the technology - but no one wants them yet.

And for all practical purposes I have agreed with you on that point. The only "alternative" (even though it really isn't) vehicle that's been successful is the hybrid Japanese vehicles sold in the US. Even though they're not practical for all the US to drive yet.

The airconditioning won't run without the gas engine running. Try making it in a state below the mason-dixion line without AC in the summer. Sure it can be done (I did it for 5 years with my VW Beetle), but man does it suck.

That's the "funny" reason. The other reason is cost, which brings me back to the same arguement that I presented earlier to you. The cost of the vehicles are the crux. If that ugly-electric-shoe-car had been priced under 10k, it would have better, IMO, but it wasn't and it didn't.

--"When I die, may I be surrounded by scattered chrome and burning gasoline."

[skydyvr 0]

Quote

Well, like I said above, all the pieces are available and in place, and vehicles have been produced with the technology - but no one wants them yet.

Bullshit.

Plenty of people want Harley-Davidsons. 52/45.

With an HD, you can contribute to the cause of environmentalism, yet still have the Mindset of Dennis Leary.

. . =(_8^(1)