This week's book giveaways are in the Refactoring and Agile forums.
We're giving away four copies each of Re-engineering Legacy Software and Docker in Action and have the authors on-line!
See this thread and this one for details.
Win a copy of Re-engineering Legacy Software this week in the Refactoring forum
or Docker in Action in the Cloud/Virtualization forum!
  • Post Reply
  • Bookmark Topic Watch Topic
  • New Topic

Mercede-Benz has developed new Concept CAR inspired from Box Fish

 
Raghav Sam
Ranch Hand
Posts: 412
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
Concept CAR
[ June 14, 2005: Message edited by: Raghav Sam ]
 
Gerald Davis
Ranch Hand
Posts: 872
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
People do not care for aerodynamic futuristic concept cars like they once did back in the knightrider days. They want Mucho cars http://www.autoblog.com/entry/1234000917030884/
 
Jeroen Wenting
Ranch Hand
Posts: 5093
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
maybe in the US but in Europe fuel efficiency and weight are vitally important.
With gas costing close to $6 a gallon here and astronomical taxes based on weight we look for other things than do US customers who seem to want bigger cars with more and more toys never mind the economy or usefulness.
 
Dave Lenton
Ranch Hand
Posts: 1241
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
Originally posted by Jeroen Wenting:
US customers who seem to want bigger cars with more and more toys never mind the economy or usefulness.


This is one thing that always seems to stick out when I watch US TV programmes/films - the cars are huge. Even the two seater "sports" cars seem to be longer (not necessarily with a bigger passenger space, just a longer bonnet (hood) and boot(trunk)) than the average estate car in Europe. Could it be to do with the general American idea that bigger-is-better? Or is it just that petrol is so cheap there that they don't need to worry about having efficient cars? I wonder what they think of European cars - they must seem tiny!

Another difference that I've heard (ok, admittedly on Top Gear, not the most neutral of sources) is that American cars work differently from European cars. Apparantly American cars, being designed for looooong straight roads are very good at long distance journeys, but handle a lot worse then European cars when driven in slower bendy roads. The opposite is true - European cars are better for driving in cities, but worse for long distance journeys.
[ June 15, 2005: Message edited by: Dave Lenton ]
 
Jeroen Wenting
Ranch Hand
Posts: 5093
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
Yes, American cars are larger than their counterparts in Europe.
An American "compact" would in Europe be a large car. For example, a Ford Taurus (in the US a midsize compact, thus not a large car at all on the roads there) is about the size of a BMW 7 series.

Last year I drove a Mustang across the PNW, for American concepts a small car.
Room enough for 2 adults and 2 suitcases with a tiny backseat for either a kid or an overnighter bag. About the same internal room as maybe a Porsche 911 (to call a car which in Europe would perform a similar role).
It's the size of a BMW 5 series car, a 4 seat (easily, you can get 5 adults in there) sedan.

You're also right that those cars are more designed for the long open highways than for innercity traffic. Turning circles are relatively large, suspension is rather mushy, accelleration is poor compared to European cars with similar sized engines.
I've not encountered a US car without cruise control for some 15 years, a feature that's useless on the crowded European roads.
For longrange cruise, there are no better. For tight maneouvring in inner cities, I want something smaller and more responsive.

The low fuel prices mean there's little thought about fuel economy when deciding on a new vehicle, while here fuel economy may well be the deciding factor between different models.
 
Stan James
(instanceof Sidekick)
Ranch Hand
Posts: 8791
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
I'm waiting for the SUV backlash. Maybe take a lesson from the anti-furs. Just so I can throw red paint at an Escalade. Until then, make em bigger! There's still a huge tax break for a business to buy a SUV over 6,000 pounds. I want the Peterbuilt Migration or the Mack Exodus myself, room for a (smallish) race of people in the back. You need a Segue to get from the back rows to the bathrooms.

BTW: I really liked the Box Fish car! Great profile!
[ June 15, 2005: Message edited by: Stan James ]
 
Gerald Davis
Ranch Hand
Posts: 872
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
Originally posted by Stan James:

BTW: I really liked the Box Fish car! Great profile!


What is its name? , Aqueous or Delphi from the great goddess Delphi who lives below the sea. Or would they ask Kraftwark to dream up a name for it.

They would not give it a mucho name like Mustang , Pontiac, Mustang, Viper, Cutlass, Corvette, Challenger, Prowler.
 
Stan James
(instanceof Sidekick)
Ranch Hand
Posts: 8791
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
The article didn't give a name. Nemo, maybe.

Hey, I thought that shape looked familiar!
 
Randall Twede
Ranch Hand
Posts: 4363
2
Java
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
i think its pretty ugly..just like the new volkswagens..i wouldnt buy one just cause the look so dorky...unless it got like 100 miles/gallon or something then i would
[ June 15, 2005: Message edited by: Randall Twede ]
 
Randall Twede
Ranch Hand
Posts: 4363
2
Java
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
haha reminds me of a joke...a japaneese company came up with a new car and they asked the germans for a name for it...they said they needed the answer today...the germans said Dat soon?

[ June 15, 2005: Message edited by: Randall Twede ]
[ June 15, 2005: Message edited by: Randall Twede ]
 
Dave Lenton
Ranch Hand
Posts: 1241
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
Originally posted by Stan James:
There's still a huge tax break for a business to buy a SUV over 6,000 pounds.


What?! You mean the government reward people for driving these environmentally damaging monstrosities? Are they trying to make global warming worse?
 
Jeroen Wenting
Ranch Hand
Posts: 5093
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
"Global warming" is a complete and utter myth, at least if you mean the supposed massive change in the earth's climate supposedly caused by human beings by our supposed massive production of CO2.

Of course the climate is changing, but that's a purely natural phenomenon that happens despite human actions and on which human action has no measurable influence.
For example the entire effect of the Kyoto disaster (IF it works as advertised and doesn't first ruin the economies of the signatories to the point where they have to pull out and resort to burning wood and coal to stay warm) will be a puny 0.07 degrees Celcius over 50 years, less than the margin of error in determining temperature averages. And that effect will be a lot larger than the total effect of the industrial revolution since the late 1700s.
 
Thomas Paul
mister krabs
Ranch Hand
Posts: 13974
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
Most Americans are more concerned about crash survivability than they are gas mileage.
 
Gerald Davis
Ranch Hand
Posts: 872
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
Originally posted by Jeroen Wenting:
[QB]"Global warming" is a complete and utter myth[QB]


Nobody can be hundred percent certain about the effects man has on the environment; do you want to take a change with the environment. Fuel efficiency and a long turn alternative should be the top of the agenda. Also more investment in research is needed.
I do know that there are too many people who are hundred percent sure of too many things.
 
Jeroen Wenting
Ranch Hand
Posts: 5093
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
In this yes, because the math is too clearcut.
The effect of CO2 on the earth's climate is small, very small.
The heat retention of the atmosphere is influenced to only a fraction of a degree by the CO2 content of that atmosphere.
The potential human influence on that CO2 content is itself only a small fraction of the total CO2 content (in fact the eruption of a major volcano like St Helens or Pinatubo puts more CO2 into the atmosphere in a few days than the entire industrial revolution has over a period of more than 200 years).

The total human effect on the climate is negligible on anything larger than a very local scale (like heat island effects around cities causing changes in wind patterns over a small area, effects which are caused more by having a large number of tall buildings with many people in them all radiating heat directly than by emissions from vehicles and industry).

But all that aside the entire Kyoto madness leads to a massive misuse of funding.
Instead of investing in longterm solutions to potential future energy problems (like running out of coal and oil, which will some day happen), that money is wasted on short term solutions like wind generators (which can't provide more than a fraction of the energy needed) and ways to burry CO2 in old mineshafts and oilfields for no effect on the environment at all (never mind that it's not at all certain we won't regret the intended effect if and when we might mysteriously get it after all).

The earth exists at the end of an interglacial period. During such periods the earth's climate is extremely unstable, with temperature averages often changing 10 or more degrees over a century or less.
 
Gerald Davis
Ranch Hand
Posts: 872
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
If I was PM, I might not of signed up to the Kyoto, It wouldn�t mean that I would take environmental issues sitting down. There are many small things that could be done to save energy benefiting the economy also.

I would invest in a advanced transport system, like theirs no tomorrow. With better transport there would be less of a need for cars. I would tax SUV drivers to pay for better transport in return the status symbol of having an SUV will increase because it would be so expansive to own one. I would not however make SUV drivers feel persecuted because they would be a big source of revenue.
 
Thomas Paul
mister krabs
Ranch Hand
Posts: 13974
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
Originally posted by Gerald Davis:
Nobody can be hundred percent certain about the effects man has on the environment; do you want to take a change with the environment. Fuel efficiency and a long turn alternative should be the top of the agenda.
Really? How about providing vaccines for children thorughout the third world? Where does that fit into the agenda? How about medical care and food for the poor? Does that fall just below "get better gas mileage"?
 
Steven Bell
Ranch Hand
Posts: 1071
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
We simply need to move to a nuclear based energy grid. Then we can slowly transition to hydrogen fueled cars.
 
Steven Bell
Ranch Hand
Posts: 1071
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
Originally posted by Gerald Davis:

I would invest in a advanced transport system, like theirs no tomorrow. With better transport there would be less of a need for cars. I would tax SUV drivers to pay for better transport in return the status symbol of having an SUV will increase because it would be so expansive to own one. I would not however make SUV drivers feel persecuted because they would be a big source of revenue.


So you'll tax SUV enough to pay for a massive transportation system that will carry a small fraction of the population without making SUV drivers feel persecuted. You must be one hell of a diplomat. I bet you can pick up any chick you want.
 
Gerald Davis
Ranch Hand
Posts: 872
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
Originally posted by Thomas Paul:
Really? How about providing vaccines for children thorughout the third world? Where does that fit into the agenda? How about medical care and food for the poor? Does that fall just below "get better gas mileage"?


Efficient machines could bring benefits to farmers and the economy of those third world countries. Gasoline is one of the planets natural resources; and not having enough resources will only bring more poverty. Limited resources and capitalism are not good bedfellows, I you. If we go down, we cannot help them.
 
Peter Rooke
Ranch Hand
Posts: 847
1
Java Linux Spring
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
I think that car is just too ugly (IMHO). How did Mercedes-Benz end up with this?

We simply need to move to a nuclear based energy grid
- I agree , but we are getting wind farms Wind Farm - thats at a cost of �50m.
 
Gerald Davis
Ranch Hand
Posts: 872
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
Originally posted by Steven Bell:


So you'll tax SUV enough to pay for a massive transportation system that will carry a small fraction of the population without making SUV drivers feel persecuted. You must be one hell of a diplomat. I bet you can pick up any chick you want.


More people use public transport then drive SUV, I just want to extend this more and bring bus routs, trains, and tram links to people who would otherwise need a car. There is much anti SUV feeling at the moment because they take up too much space and un environmentally friendly, with mayor Kan Livingston saying �SUV drivers are idiots�.
With revenue from taxes going into public transport, SUV driver need not feel that their vehicles are destroying the environment but helping it.
Driving posh cars is always been about displaying status, to be in the exclusive club and not so much about luxury. If luxury were more important we would spend that money on flotation tanks, massages and taking up the Zen way of life If cars was for practicality only, then 100 years of car evolution would have brought forth a super reliable, comfortable, fuel efficient, good value cars with very few modals on the market; Customers would only choose cars with the highest reviews the same way a company chooses machine with the least cost overhead. Just think about how many modals of modern trains are available and you get a good picture.
 
Steven Bell
Ranch Hand
Posts: 1071
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
I may only be speaking for my area (NW US), but there are far more SUV's driving than people riding mass transit, and we have busses and trains and lightrail and monorail. The mass transit sucks tons of money out of the state. I do ride the bus to and from work, but it is far more convinient to drive myself anywhere else. Why would I want to wait around for a bus that will take twice as long to get where I want to go? The reason I take the bus to work is my work pays for it, there is an express bus that goes almost right to work, and parking is expensive.

People buy alot of cars for alot of different reasons. The convergence your talking about has already happened about as much as it's going to. I can pick any two manufacturers and they will have the same basic set of cars for that year.

As someone who is in the process of buying a vehicle I ended up going with a minivan because of the number of people and amount of stuff I can pack into. It will seat 7 with room left over for whatever, and yes I do have occation to transport up to seven people. I almost went with a midsized SUV, but I found better features and more room in the minivan. I did lose out a bit on power, but just a bit.
 
Dave Lenton
Ranch Hand
Posts: 1241
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
Originally posted by Thomas Paul:
Most Americans are more concerned about crash survivability than they are gas mileage.


While SUV's (and other huge tractor like cars) do improve the safety of the passengers, they do reduce the overall level of safety:

* The size and shape of SUV's mean that if they hit a pedestrian the victim is far more likely to be badly hurt then if they got hit by a normal car (where they would roll across the bonnet).

* In crashes with other cars, the fact that many SUV's aren't designed to crumple (like most other cars) mean they are more likely to cause damage to things and people they hit

* The axel is higher in SUV's then in most cars, so in a "T" accident, where a car crashes into the side of a SUV, the other car is more likely to receive damage in the passenger compartment from impaling on the axel, then in the lower part of the car.

* SUV's put out a lot of exhaust. Ignoring the global warming effects of this (a bit like saying "ignoring the burning effects of fire"), pollution from car exhausts can significantly lower the air quality in urban areas, leading to increased deaths from breathing problems.

Yeah, they're great for the owners, but not so good for the rest of us... especially in cities.
 
Dave Lenton
Ranch Hand
Posts: 1241
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
Originally posted by Jeroen Wenting:
"Global warming" is a complete and utter myth, at least if you mean the supposed massive change in the earth's climate supposedly caused by human beings by our supposed massive production of CO2.

From previous experience, I guess there's not much point in arguing this, as we'll probably not agree . Suffice it to say that I believe that a large majority of the scientific community (except for those working for oil companies of course) do believe that human activity is contributing to changes in environment.

Of course the climate is changing,


The frightening thing is that some very powerful people disagree with this. In the run up to the G8 conference, the member states tried to put together a statement about global warming. They failed, because one of the members refused to agree with the statement "our world is getting warmer", something held as true just about everywhere else on the planet.

Its not really surprising though. In this same country that didn't agree with the obvious, its recently been revealed that the person appointed by the government to investigate global warming altered the results his report to give the impression that global warming isn't a problem. He was then hired by a large oil company.

Even if we disagree with why global warming is happening (in itself a potentially fatal mistake), the idea of a group of people sticking their head in the sand and refusing to admit that the clearly provable changes are occurring is very worrying indeed. We need to prepare for changes in the environment, especially to help countries like Bangladesh, where something like a third of the country is in danger of disappearing if the sea levels rise to widely predicted levels.
 
  • Post Reply
  • Bookmark Topic Watch Topic
  • New Topic