Air Cars: A New Wind for America's Roads?

[JohnWxy]

Air Cars: A New Wind for America's Roads?




The air car can tool along at a top speed of 35 mph for some 60 miles or so on a tank of compressed air, a sufficient distance for 80% of consumers to commute to work and back and complete daily chores.


Courtesy of MDI

On highways, the CAV can cruise at interstate speeds for nearly 800 miles with a small motor that compresses outside air to keep the tank filled. The motor isn't finicky about fuel. It will burn gasoline or diesel as well as biodiesel, ethanol or vegetable oil.

This car leaves the highest-mpg vehicles you can buy right now in the dust. Even if it used only regular gasoline, the air car would average 106 mpg, more than double today's fuel sipping champ, the Toyota Prius. The air tank also can be refilled when it's not in use by being plugged into a wall socket and recharged with electricity as the motor compresses air.

Automakers aren't quite ready yet to gear up huge assembly line operations churning out air cars or set up glitzy dealer showrooms where you can ooh and aah over the color or style. But the vehicles will be built in factories that will make up to 8,000 vehicles a year, likely starting in 2011, and be sold directly to consumers.

[Botany]

1. this car has been around for years

[chknltl]

3. Any Idea why it's not marketed yet then?

Do you know what the hold-up has been? The article at the link stated that:

"The technology goes back decades, but is coming together courtesy of two converging forces. First, new laws are likely to be enacted in a few years that will limit carbon dioxide emissions and force automakers to develop ultra-high mileage cars and those that emit minuscule amounts of or no gases linked with global warming. Second, the relatively high cost of gas has expedited the air car's development. Yes, pump prices have plunged since July from record levels, but remain way higher than just a few years ago and continue to take a bite out of disposable income."

But neither factor seems enough to have prevented the vehicles from coming out earlier>

[MercutioATC]

2. They say they're not concerned, but I want to see it pass U.S. crash tests...

It has to be light to work, but light can be fragile.

I'll start to get optimistic if it can pass the crash tests.

[chknltl]

5. Question about that:

I understand that this is no motorcycle but couldn't it be regulated under newly designed safety standards to fit this type of vehicle? If it's top speed were 35 mph and it was limited to only operating on suitable city roads, wouldn't it make sense to design regulations for it that were say somewhere between a motor cycle and a golf cart?

[MercutioATC]

6. Possibly. I'd still hate to see the occupants if it tangled with an SUV.

It's cool, but it looks a little skimpy in the safety department.

(it DOES travel at highway speeds using combustible fuel)

[chknltl]

7. ... and that would of course suck but...

motorcycles would fair little better in such an entanglement. I understand that motorcycles have better options of avoiding such a crash: nimbleness and speed, but safety wise they would have equal amounts of protection as this air car. My thinking is that safety standards for motor vehicles are dependent upon the type of vehicle and this type of vehicle may qualify for safety standards different than a normal car or a motorcycle.

[Omnibus]

4. They're so CUTE!

I know everyone would laugh at me for driving one, but I want one anyway.

[Terry in Austin]

8. Cool! ...but "car" keeps us inside the box

(Cross-posted GD)

Probably the best thing about this vehicle is the fact that somebody's thinking about the basic problem of how we get around, whether it looks like a car or not. True, compressed air has its pluses and minuses -- as does electric.

But let's scratch the surface a little. In alt.transportation discussions, the very term "car" frames the issue in a particular way, and not necessarily a good one. "Electric car," for example, gives us the most restrictive set of expectations; "electric vehicle," less so; "zero-emission vehicle" even less, and on up to "appropriate transportation," which gives us the widest range in which to find a solution to the fossil-fueled, car-bound mess we find ourselves in.

It may be that the most viable outcome involves a shift in land use patterns and public infrastructure that make it unnecessary, or even burdensome, to own a two-ton, mile-a-minute Industrial Age artifact known as a "car." Who knows?

Getting to a cleaner, more sustainable world will take a lot of imagination, among other things, and the terms that we use to imagine with will very much affect the steps we take and their chances of success!

[NNadir]

9. Particularly wasteful is the thermodynamic penalty, not mentioned 34 years ago by the dangerous

natural gas apologetic, Amory Lovins, car CULTure asshole.

His "compressed air" distributed energy scheme was ridiculous and absurd back then, and it has spent the last 34 years being absurd.

I personally get sick of people who are so uneducated and deluded as to think any of this crap is new.