QOTD: Are You Happy With the State of the Art?
My father was always shocked that cars still ran on internal combustion engines. First patented in 1886 by Karl Benz, the automobile really hadn't changed that much in 100 years. Just like Benz's Fahrzeug mit Gasmotorenbetrieb, the coolest car in 1985 burned gas to move, rode on rubber and required that the driver exert force to stop. My dad would quickly contrast the history of the car with that of the airplane. Orville and Wilbur Wright made history on December 17, 1903 by flying a box covered in canvas three feet off the ground at 6.8 mph for 12 seconds. Compare that to December 22, 1964 when the SR-71 Blackbird debuted with a novel defensive maneuver; if the enemy fired a missile at you, speed up. My dad felt that cars should be rocket propelled, rocket braked and computer controlled so as to prevent accidents. Yet companies like Continental can't release new-tech brake-by-wire systems ( which offer 15% shorter stopping distances) because consumers are afraid. And we're still sucking oil out of the ground and burning it. And riding on air-filled rubber tubes. My question to you is, where should we be?
Cleanup driver for Team Black Metal V8olvo.
More by Jonny Lieberman
Comments
Join the conversation
No, way too much crappy electronics. Also , I wonder if all the airbags are necessary. My E-28 has none, and that model has proved to be quite crashworthy due to the well engineered crumple zones.
Luddites*, a 20+ year deficit of engineering students, and self-proclaimed environmentalists who object to anything that might harm the smallest flesh-eating bacteria. I am appalled at the state of the art. *In the original sense of the word http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luddite
Jonny: My father was always shocked that cars still ran on internal combustion engines. First patented in 1886 by Karl Benz, the automobile really hadn't changed that much in 100 years. But you seem to like the Honda FCX, powered by the kind of fuel cell Christian Friedrich Schönbein built in 1838?
Yes, I am very happy with the state of the art. There are people that view cars as appliances, and people that view them as toys. The people that view cars as appliances want them to be cheap and reliable, not state of the art (unless that means back seat DVD players). The people that view cars as toys don't want robots to take over the driving or shifting for them. Cars are relatively low tech. Making them good has a lot more to do with development and design than the latest technology. Or do you not like the Lotus/Caterham 7? Carbon Fiber is over rated plastic, and I predict a number of asbestos like carbon fiber worker lawsuits in the coming years (small fibers that do not dissolve are bad news). Effective storage of electric energy will be a huge leap forward, but until then I don't think much is going to impress me. If anything comparing current cars to the SR-71 shows how little the automotive industry has to do with the current defense industry. Detroit-Iron : If it wasn't for environmentalists cars would still be running carburetors with points distributors and 3-speed automatics. If it was not for environmental and safety regulations there would have been no technological advances in passenger cars since the 1970s, except for maybe fancier radios.