are these changes better for all of us?

[GreyGoose006]

dont speak to me anymore.

[TheSilentChamber]

I dont believe I'v ever spoken to you anyway, this is a forum, if you dont want to get called on your views an opinions, dont post them.

[GreyGoose006]

you know, there is a saying.
it goes along these lines.
"give up whatever you must to keep the peace, but dont give up your guns"
meaning that once a free nation gives up its freedom to bear arms, the govt has won. cars are much the same.
once we give up the ability to pilot our own vehicles, it is a slippery slope down to complete automation of everything in our lives.
we talked about other things in this class i was in.
among them was the NFL.
i kno, ur thinking, what does the NFL have to do with automatic cars
atheletes are currently the highest paid in history, and their salaries keep going up up up. if this trend continues, soon, pro football players may price themselves out of the game.
wouldnt it suck to have a football game played by robots. robots programmed to do certain things and interact with other "players" on the field.
there would be no injuries, but there would also be no excitment. NFL would go the way of NASCAR, in that it would be restricted to within an INCH of its life.
obviously this would never happen, but it makes you think.
are these changes really better for all of us?
I dont think so.
the only peole that would benifit from automated cars is the company that had a monopoly on producing them.

p.s.
did you even read my post (the one where i called you an ass) or did you just make ignorant replies?
i find it hard to believe that someone who has posted over 6,000 times in an automotive forum would so willingly let the automobile go.
cars are my passion, and it would kill me to see them reduced to simple appliances.
tell me you dont agree?

[TheSilentChamber]

I completely agree that cars are a form of expression, an artform, a passion, stress reliever, ect. But it doesnt take many close friends being lost in wrecks that were completely avoidable to understand the rationalization behind such movement. Do I think it will ever happen? no, not in the least bit- but I believe there will be many steps tward safer highway comutes in the future (as well as alternative fuels, which is what this thread is really about).

[curtis73]

I can see it both ways. I enjoy driving, but if there is a way to improve quality of life by avoiding accidents, its a bonus.

Be nice gentlemen, you're both pretty.

[psychopathicdude]

Cars are like guns.....

A well-designed gun (even the most powerful gun on the planet) is only as dangerous as the finger on the trigger. And throughout the development of the gun, there have been other ideas that branched off and became their own. Tasers, for instance. Beanbag rounds, rubber bullets...but we still have GUNS. Big scary guns. Because as useful as all those other derivative tools are, sometimes you need A BIG SCARY GUN.

Even if "they" can convince the voiceless masses to sit in driverless cars to "commute" on driverless highways, (because they're safer!! ha ha) I hope that cars (as in VROOM, VROOM, SQUEEEEEEEEEEEEEL!!!!!!) will remain so long as there are those who will buy and maintain them. You don't need an M16 to hunt rabbits, but they still serve their purpose, and thus remain.

I believe that all these "derivative" forms of automobilia are good healthy development. They may well replace the "zoom zoom va-rooom machine" for most, but I don't forsee the bleak future laid out in the opening post (and in subsequent references)

[KiwiBacon]

Originally Posted by GreyGoose006

i was sitting in my engineering lecture class today and heard the scariest thing i have ever heard.
the class was a mechanical engineering class, and we were talking about automotive technology.
the professor mentioned how automotive technology was advancing so fast that in 30-40 years, cars as we now know them would be obscelete...

Are cars from 30-40 years ago obsolete?
Far from it.

I doubt your professors visions will come (the nuclear part is ridiculous). But I hope it encourages his students to think outside the box.

[Dyno247365]

Originally Posted by GreyGoose006

i was sitting in my engineering lecture class today and heard the scariest thing i have ever heard.
the class was a mechanical engineering class, and we were talking about automotive technology.
the professor mentioned how automotive technology was advancing so fast that in 30-40 years, cars as we now know them would be obscelete...
the idea is "Smart Cars" that drive on computerized highways, and run on automated GPS guided information. these cars would be safe. nearly ELIMINATING all traffic colisions and fatalities due to these collisions.
these cars would be electric, and have a nuclear battery pack located in a "Trunk-like" area. you wouldnt need to drive the car, just get in and say the name of the place you want to go. there would be no humans driving. just a bunch of automated vehicles driving around. worst prt of it is, when the technology is widespread, it will be impossible for a human driver to drive on these "Smart" roads. the computers will likely trim following distances to mere feet. there may not be turn signals, or headlights, or brake lights. it would be illegal to "drive" your car manualy due to the enormous risk.

this must not happen.
it would be bad enough to have an electric or hydrogen car, but i could live with it if i knew that it is still possible for me to push the clutch, jam the e-brake, floor the throttle, and sidestep the clutch while my car does donuts in the wal-mart parking lot.
as long as i can go to the autoparts store and buy extra capacity batteries and larger electric motors to put in my electric car, i'm OK.
but when cars become a means of simply getting from A - B, and are no longer an american passion, i dont know what i will do.

Watch the anime Ex-Driver if you're into this idea. The problem in the future is that computerized cars have their ai failures and run amok and that's why there's ex-driver. a good show, even if all of the main racers are kids.

[UncleBob]

its an interesting question.

Lets take it from this point of view, if you took a modern hybrid car from today and plunked it down in the middle of a speed shop 20 years ago, what would they have done?

Ran away squealing like little girls. They would have recognised hardly anything on the car, and definitely wouldn't have had a clue how to modify it.

For the longest time, EFI was "bad" in the high performance business. If you wanted real power, you removed the EFI and put a carb on it. Many old timers still believe this is a fact.

Now, many of the forums I hang out in, all they talk about is ways of tweeking EFI to adapt to modifications made. Many of these....kids (did I just say that??) don't even know what a carberator is, other than some antique method of fueling that is sometimes dug up lodged in with dynosaur bones.

The industry is definitely moving. The more high tech it gets, the more controlled it gets. The new CVT trannies are very specific to the power plant they are designed for, for example. Changing the power output of the motor would cause havoc with the CVT. Same goes for variable cam timing, and looking into the future, solenoid actuated valves maybe?

I think eventually engines/drivetrains will be so highly specialized, there will be little to modify without changing huge portions of the system to compensate for the modifications.

But....performance will always be there, no doubt. Was just reading an article on an electric car made from 4000 laptop computer rechargable batteries, that had a 200 mile range and had a 0-60 in 4.0 seconds. You gotta respect that for some smart ass that threw a bunch of batteries in a car to see what it would do.

But the days of slapping a roots blower on a car that you dug out of junk yard for $50 are definitely coming to an end.

[GreyGoose006]

i agree that the professors time scale was off, but it could happen.
say we used up enough oil that the remnants would be cost in-effective to get. like $8+ a gallon.
only jay leno would be paying for gas at that price.

have you ever watched an old black and white movie, like annie or whatever?
dont you hate it when they colorize those movies?
it looks so fake and disney like. not to mention that they ruined a perfectly good thing by trying to make it better...
this is what i see happening with cars in the future.
they wil be ruined by the simple act of trying to improve them.
driving is dangerous. its a simple fact. the most dangerous thing most people do is drive. you cant change that unless you take the driver out of the equation, but then it really isnt driving, is it?
i hope it never comes to the point where manual operated cars are banned due to safety.
not saying i dont care about those lives lost in colisions, but personally, i am willing to take the risk of driving. some people arent. its their call.

[curtis73]

Well, as someone who grew up in the 70s and started driving in the 80s... trust me, I'm looking forward to whatever they offer. I used to think my friend's 84 Corvette was FAST.

Let's compare. The year I was born (73), the most power you could get in a GM product was 245 in a Camaro. They offered a 400 V8 that had 6.5:1 compression and made a wheezy 150 hp. By 1981, the most powerful engine you could get in a corvette was 190 hp. My friend's 84 vette had the "cross fire" 350 with a whopping 205 hp. My first car was an 83 chevy celebrity. At least it had the V6, so it was smacking down a pretty respectable 125 hp to the wrong wheels. My second car was a 91 Beretta GT with the 3.1. By the standards then, the 140 hp it put down was pathetic. My third car was 1966 Pontiac Bonneville. Sure, the 325 gross hp was nice, but the car weighs 5000 lbs. Then I had an 87 Olds Cutlass with the 307. A V8 with 140 hp... moving in the wrong direction.

In 1971 you could buy an LT-1 camaro. It idled rough, needed premium fuel, required frequent valve adjustments, wouldn't operate power brakes, and made about 250 net hp. But today, you can walk into a Chevy dealership (I did say Chevy, who's name is synonymous with "lowered expectations") and plop down a large chunk of cash for a showroom-stock car that makes nearly 500 hp, idles smoothly, pulls close to 1 lateral g, and gets 30 mpg.

I'd say this is a pretty exciting time. Combine that with the fact that E85 and biodiesel can accomplish the same feats renewably without devoiding the earth of any breathable air, and that makes me really want to jump up and down.

[GreyGoose006]

right, but if the cars we drive were to suddenly operate without us, and we became passengers, there would be no need to travel more than 65 mph, accelerate quickly, or have engines that made over 150 hp.
our daily ride to work would be like riding in the back of a limo. smooth and steady, nothing to upset the passengers comfort.
i'd love to see cars that are economical, have 4 doors, and make 500hp too.

[drunken monkey]

Originally Posted by GreyGoose006

right, but if the cars we drive were to suddenly operate without us, and we became passengers, there would be no need to travel more than 65 mph, accelerate quickly, or have engines that made over 150 hp.
our daily ride to work would be like riding in the back of a limo. smooth and steady, nothing to upset the passengers comfort.
i'd love to see cars that are economical, have 4 doors, and make 500hp too.

bit of an assumption don't you think?
and one that is flawed as well.

it could just as easily mean that if it was a 100% safe automated system, it could mean that we can all travel safely at 150mph to our destination.

[GreyGoose006]

it could but you and i both know that the law would never allow a bunch of automated cars to be whizzing around at 150 mph.
not for a long time at least IMO

[drunken monkey]

why and how do you come to that conclusion?

if some governments are allowing trains to go 100mph under the control of a person, why not a fully automatic system IF it has 0% failure rates?