Twenty times more efficient electric vehicle with a top speed of 375 mph - Polidicks

Really seems like something that should be used for cheap and efficient computer-automated public transport, rather than a real drive-anywhere solution.

What an ugly vehicle. Money will drive those. Why even bother making electric cars when all the cars gets an ugly design?

I'd drive it, assuming it was more reasonably priced. I couldn't give a single fuck what people might think, enjoy your ~~really cool-looking 8)~~ money drains.

In the future, everyone drives a vibrator.

Now all they have to do is make it look twenty times less gay.

I don't think the shape is optional, it's designed that way to increase the efficiency and speed, which is the whole point of the car in the first place.

[quote]Acabion claims is 20 times more efficient than current Electric cars[/quote] Um, what? The fuck? Is that fuel efficiency, or engine efficiency?

[QUOTE=Contag;27830358]Um, what? The fuck? Is that fuel efficiency, or engine efficiency?[/QUOTE] I am pretty sure those boil down to the same thing.

[QUOTE=ChristopherB;27826972]This. If they ever want to sell a "revolutionary" car, it'd help to have it not look completely different from existing vehicles. This also doesn't look safe for crashes.[/QUOTE] Aeroplanes are not safe for crashes. You're not supposed to crash them. Safety is easily achieved by automated driving.

The problem with safety is not that the cars would drive into stuff themselves. What if someone wants to kill themself by climbing on one of those "super" highways. Unless the AI is powerful enough to calculate the best route to dodge the person, which is not an easy task with a 3m wide road, it will hit the person, killing him and probably the person in the car which is driving 375 mph. The good thing about airplanes, is the fact that there is not alot to crash into at an altitude of 10km or more.

Hah, I'd always think of cars in the future being stuck to highways either on rails or magnetically or something, and the off the highway you can drive normally.

[QUOTE=xxxkiller;27830578]The problem with safety is not that the cars would drive into stuff themselves. What if someone wants to kill themself by climbing on one of those "super" highways. Unless the AI is powerful enough to calculate the best route to dodge the person, which is not an easy task with a 3m wide road, it will hit the person, killing him and probably the person in the car which is driving 375 mph. The good thing about airplanes, is the fact that there is not alot to crash into at an altitude of 10km or more.[/QUOTE] How is that different from current cars? [editline]3rd February 2011[/editline] Jumping in front of traffic will kill you. And possibly the driver and other people, as the driver might swerve into someone else or crash and die. [editline]3rd February 2011[/editline] The reason cars are expected to crash is because humans suck at driving.

Good point. [editline]3rd February 2011[/editline] I now agree with you.

And another good ecological car that might have had a future ruined by it's fucking horrible look. If were lucky they'll remake it to not look stupid.

but its not COOL!!! ffs when will people realise

I don't know what's the matter with the looks. I think it looks good. Yeah, it looks different, but everything evolves, and so does transportation.

[QUOTE=Zeke129;27826604]Make them look like normal cars you stupid electric car manufacturer fuckwits[/QUOTE] This. I like how whenever you hear anything about an awesome new car that's extremely efficient and will save people $2000 (Note: numbers pulled out of my ass) a year while also being an environmentally friendly, they always look like absolute shit and that they'd be some kind of death trap that will basically kill you if you so much as touch a curb. Why can't they just make them look normal. Sure they'll lose a slight bit of efficiency from not having SUPER STREAMLINE designs, but at they wont look retarded and people will actually buy them. I'm all for environmentally friendly cars, but I'd choose a car I wont die in that's 50% more efficient, rather than the death trap that's 150% more efficient. [QUOTE=Griffith;27831001]I don't know what's the matter with the looks. I think it looks good. Yeah, it looks different, but everything evolves, and so does transportation.[/QUOTE] "Different" would be okay if it was still safe.

[QUOTE=LittleDogX;27831291]This. I like how whenever you hear anything about an awesome new car that's extremely efficient and will save people $2000 (Note: numbers pulled out of my ass) a year while also being an environmentally friendly, they always look like absolute shit and that they'd be some kind of death trap that will basically kill you if you so much as touch a curb. Why can't they just make them look normal. Sure they'll lose a slight bit of efficiency from not having SUPER STREAMLINE designs, but at they wont look retarded and people will actually buy them. I'm all for environmentally friendly cars, but I'd choose a car I wont die in that's 50% more efficient, rather than the death trap that's 150% more efficient. "Different" would be okay if it was still safe.[/QUOTE] Personal safety requires more weight and increases danger to everyone else on the street. Sleek design increases efficiency and comes at the cost of looking stupid. The reason it looks stupid is the reason it's more efficient than current cars.

It looks like a cheap plastic toy-rocket. WHY?

[QUOTE=Khaos-23;27830618]Hah, I'd always think of cars in the future being stuck to highways either on rails or magnetically or something, and the off the highway you can drive normally.[/QUOTE] Or you just have a system of High Speed Trains and Light Rail systems?

[QUOTE=xxxkiller;27830431]I am pretty sure those boil down to the same thing.[/QUOTE] Engine efficiency is the tank-to-wheel percentage of energy lost, fuel efficiency is the amount of fuel needed per distance.

I think this would probably turn over more often than a Reliant. Why can't it just look like a streamlined normal car? Even the smart car looks like a fucking bug.

what the hell is up with every futuristic electro car looking like shit couldn't they just make it normal with the same engine and stuff

They want me to ride a torpedo on what seems to be a road with no gaurd rails 20 feet off the ground. nope.avi

Alright. Now Put that... [img]http://www.examiner.com/images/blog/wysiwyg/image/teslax(1).jpg[/img] [B]in this.[/B]

It looks like a piece of sht.

Excuse me? Vacuum tubes? New form of suicide, great. Open your (door?) and die instantly.

We all live in the yellow submarine

Holy crap why are we not us- oh wait it's fucking hideous like all the other "more efficient electric vehicles."

[QUOTE=Koplje;27826610]Why do we always have to be dead when this cool stuff happens :mad:[/QUOTE] he said he hopes for it to be commercially available by 2015. Though this is probably gonna be like those super fast air planes that we were supposed to have like 5 years ago. [editline]3rd February 2011[/editline] And holy shit, 375 mph. If they do the the tunnel thing, it would be almost as fast as a plane.