We need ultra light four wheeled cars

[freebeard]

Authoritary systems give power to a few, in general to a politic leaders. Unless a corporate sociopath reachs political leadership, he could not be a authoritary.

Aren't sociopaths sucked upward by any power structure?

Simple people will have no power to defends thenselves against large bussinessman, corporation.

As Lionel likes to say "We can drown them in our urine."

That's why the hippies failed, because they imagined, in their fairy tale dopped minds, that humans were good and just the evil politics who start vietinan war was evil. And the hippies, today dressed as left wing radicals mostly, failed once again due the same reason.

Please don't equate the hippys to the racist, Puritanical left today. They were open and accepting. That was their downfall, they were coopted by the government spooks in Laurel Canyon. Hippys were necessary for their time. They got us out of the NPC 1950s and invented the personal computer.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/What_the_Dormouse_Said

edit:
This is probably off-topic outside The Lounge.

[redpoint5]

Authority by definition is held by a few. It's like saying wealthy people have more money than less wealthy. If everyone has authority, then nobody has authority, and likewise, the term wealthy has no meaning if everyone has the same.

Besides all that, authority is not inherently bad. In fact, it's an obligation. If I have authority of something, that means I have an obligation.

There's plenty of ways to obtain authority, some of which are good, and some of which are bad. Authority can be taken by force, or it can be obtained through competency, for example.

We've developed better and better systems over time. Setting law as the authority and placing the judges under it was a huge improvement. Though it's not practiced perfectly, it at least attempts to place everyone equally subject to shared rules.

[All Darc]

Ok, like this picture, with both guys having the same right to fight :



What a nice system...

Originally Posted by redpoint5

Authority by definition is held by a few. It's like saying wealthy people have more money than less wealthy. If everyone has authority, then nobody has authority, and likewise, the term wealthy has no meaning if everyone has the same.

Besides all that, authority is not inherently bad. In fact, it's an obligation. If I have authority of something, that means I have an obligation.

There's plenty of ways to obtain authority, some of which are good, and some of which are bad. Authority can be taken by force, or it can be obtained through competency, for example.

We've developed better and better systems over time. Setting law as the authority and placing the judges under it was a huge improvement. Though it's not practiced perfectly, it at least attempts to place everyone equally subject to shared rules.

[redpoint5]

Exactly!

One of those guys clearly has more competence and should be the authority of sumo, and the other should not.

I mean, children clearly shouldn't have authority because they haven't had time to develop skill or wisdom.

[All Darc]

Please don't distort my metaphor...

The powerfull corporations will domain the world if libertarianism get reality. There will be no authority to fight for people's rights, environment issues or to care about future generations. If the market will rule, the greed powerfull people will domain. And they use to don't care about anything than themselves.

Originally Posted by redpoint5

Exactly!

One of those guys clearly has more competence and should be the authority of sumo, and the other should not.

I mean, children clearly shouldn't have authority because they haven't had time to develop skill or wisdom.

[redpoint5]

Corporations depend on customers, not the other way around. Customers are not powerless to fight them, just not motivated to do anything meaningful to further regulate them so long as they are reasonably satiated.

I'm not Libertarian, so I would never argue for an extreme Libertarian position, though we're far from enjoying the ideal level of liberty. To that end, I would be in favor if Libertarians had a bit more influence.

[cRiPpLe_rOoStEr]

Originally Posted by redpoint5

I'd never build a trike that seats less than 2 passengers. Seems like a small amount of work to accommodate a 2nd person behind the first, and keeping the weight bias close to where it needs to be should be achievable.

I'd also consider accomodation for at least 2 passengers

[AJI]

Originally Posted by Hersbird

More and more I am starting to long for the essence of simplicity in a car. All of this expense and complexity for what seems like minimal returns. I wonder where the sweet spot was. Cars from the 70s and 80s had complex emissions and fuel systems prone to fail but today's cars put the first space shuttle to shame with wiring and computers also glitchy as could be when old. Maybe late 90s early 2000s.

I think unfortunately the sweet spot doesn't really exist. In theory, it'd be a brand new car, with engines built to stricter emissions standards and with better understanding of materials and aerodynamics potentially allowing for lighter and sleeker vehicles.

Unfortunately, technology is being squandered on SUVs, which is where the money is. The European and especially the Japanese manufacturers still offer lightweight, compact and efficient vehicles, but my problem with many of those (again, less so the Japanese ones, but kei vehicles are expensive personal-import only) is that they lack personality. Of the lightweight (ideally sub-1000kg), compact, fuel-efficient cars available currently in the UK, I'm interested in only a handful - the current Smart Fortwo (and its Renault Twingo cousin), the Suzuki Ignis, and the Fiat Panda. Of those the Smart stands out because it's a two-seater - and since I rarely use more than the seat I'm sitting in, I certainly don't need four or five seats.

Simplicity is more or less built-in with these cars too. Low-spec ones offer enough equipment for comfort but not so much the car is overrun by it, the engines are relatively simple, and manual transmissions are still prevalent. It's just a shame there aren't more like them - and with a bit more joie de vivre.

Originally Posted by Natalya

I can't like imagine driving something other than my 2000 Insight. The car weighs nothing, is super aerodynamic, and with only a few mods and a dead hybrid battery I'm still doing over 75 mpg IN THE RAIN. I don't think I ever want to go back to a steel bodied car. I'm even looking to sell my G2 Insight. The G2 is a good car, I can get over 50 mpg, and it's more utilitarian than the G1 of course, but it's not fun to drive like the G1.

It's too bad aluminum body manufacturing is so expensive. The CR-Z would have been a wonderful vehicle if it was made out of aluminum and the 6th gear was a taller.

I used to own a G1 Insight, and more and more recently the thought has crossed my mind of getting another. Whenever I think about getting a small, simple and reliable vehicle which isn't overburdened with size or seats, I'm not sure there's a better option. Can't deny the idea of a car that won't require rust repairs is appealing too.

It's definitely a shame the CR-Z wasn't lighter. I'd still consider one, as I enjoy driving them and they can still be fairly frugal, but it'd have been even more fun and even more efficient if it were lighter.

[Vman455]

Originally Posted by AJI

I think unfortunately the sweet spot doesn't really exist.

Oh, I think it exists; there just hasn't been a business case for it. We don't, as a whole, make rational decisions, and especially not when it comes to buying things like cars. Everyone wants more, bigger, and safer, so that's we get.

Something like the GM Ultralite, shown in 1992, was the sweet spot. 1400 lbs, Cd .19, a rear-mounted three cylinder engine, seats for 4. 100 mpg at 50 mph.



We're quite capable of making light weight and low drag cars. But the car-buying public doesn't want to purchase light weight and low drag cars, and until that changes we won't get them.

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by sendler

All of the start ups such as Electra Meccanica and Archimoto are relegated to building three wheelers in order to circumvent nanny state crash testing. Mandating every car to obviate user responsibility via 500 kg's and $5,000 of safety structure and equipment is regressive. It prohibits development of ultralight 4 wheeled transportation which would be much more sustainable than the 2,000 kg monsters we are stuck making now. This mandate killed Aptera.
.
3 billion people cannot all have a 2,000 kg car that costs $40,000.
.
.

.
.

If you can get rid of left turns and synchronize all traffic lights,mass becomes meaningless,as now you have the ability to remain in constant motion until you arrive at your destination.
Any low drag car could be of stamped-steel and glass construction,just like any entry-level vehicle.There's absolutely no reason for exotic weight reduction if you have zero transient operation.
To get there,you'll need to divorce states and federal government from fuel taxes and use a different mechanism to underwrite the Highway Trust Fund.Otherwise,there's absolutely zero incentive to save fuel.
You'll also need to forbid federal,state,county,and municipal government pension funds from investing in oil corporations and manufacturers of gas-guzzlers,as is presently done,in order to disincentivize fuel waste,which presently supports extra fuel sales, producing additional tax revenue.
You'll also want to have a moratorium on any new real state development (residential or commercial),where there exists any traffic congestion,which is the major driver for fuel waste in the US.
Burn the Civil Engineer's handbooks.
Demolish all corner real estate development and replace with cloverleafs,as existed at the dawn of the highway system.
Tell the tax appraisal districts to sit on it and rotate.