Looks like VW will be producing a limited number within the next 2 years...

http://blog.wired.com/cars/2008/07/laugh-at-high-g.html

Wow.

Incredible! Even if it's not a solution to our fuel problem, it's a great way to stall.

Meh. Never succeed, especially in the U.S. ESPECIALLY in the Western U.S.! The biggest conceptual progress problem with these kinds of vehicles is the attempt to appeal abroad instead of to city governments. These should be mandated city commuter cars. Basically, if you work in the city/downtown areas, you park your car, get in one of these provided by your employer, and drive to work. Unfortunately, that will never happen either as free-market capitalist minds would reject the idea of government controlling marginal spending habits. Also, I firmly believe that all vehicles in the U.S. should become automated by the year 2015. Only those willing to go through vigorous testing and lots of money get to actually pilot their vehicle. This would help in achieving "smaller carbon footprints" along with reducing the risk of fatality while on the road to your local market.

Let me ask you a question. Why is it that in 1990 you could buy a Honda CRX-HF with a plain old internal combustion engine and get over 50 mpg, but now you need a $25k prius with nifty hybrid technology to get similar numbers? I will give you a hint; the prius weighs 2900 lbs and the crx weighs 1900lbs.

There are 2 reasons fuel economy sucks: weight and aerodynamics. For a quick lesson on the benefits of aerodynamics, check this out: http://blogs.edmunds.com/straightline/2 ... civic.html
If automakers would break their head-to-anus connection and look at the big picture, it wouldn't be that hard to figure out. With a little free-time (something I seriously lack) I could probably build a car that got somewhere in the 50-60 mpg range on a basic Honda motor.

Why are new cars so heavy? safety and luxury. The crx did not have nearly the sound deadening of the newer cars, but sound deadening is a couple hundred pounds. I am not saying remove it completely, but you don't need Lexus-silence in your car. The rest is mostly safety stuff, which would not be as necessary if every %@$#@#$@#$#@ soccer mom didn't have a suburban. People need to realize that good handling, brakes, and acceleration are better safety equipment than 6000 lbs of Chevy steel. The fact is, a properly designed tube chassis (like in race cars and trucks) offers all of the safety you need, but without the weight. Essentially you build a cage of safety, slap on some suspension/steering, add a drivetrain, and then add lightweight body panels to create good aerodynamics. All you would need to add is some seats (simple race-type seats are cheaper and lighter than 8-way power adjustable leather) and other interior amenities.

BTW, for a quick number in determining the impact of weight to performance, ignoring aerodynamics, it requires about 1 horsepower to compensate for 10 lbs of weight. That means if 2 aerodynamically-identical cars were to race and one weighed 1900lbs and the other weighed 2900 lbs, the heavier car would need an extra 100HP to keep up. 100HP is the difference between a Honda civic and a Honda s2000.

On a related note, carbon fiber is awesome/amazing/wonderful, but fiberglass is cheap, easy to make, really light, and just about anyone can fix it themselves. It is not nearly as cool (or inherently stiff) as carbon fiber, but it will usually work just fine. Also, lexan is a whole lot lighter than glass (they use this for some windows on the corvette Z06).

But then they wouldn't be fun...

I agree that driver training blows in this country. In Cali, I was only required to have like 6-8 hours behind the wheel with an instructor. If people are serious about environmental impacts and gas prices, I have a REALLY simple solution: raise the minimum driving age to 18. With some exceptions (which could be handled as needed) people don't really need to drive in high school. I know that is not what people want to here, but it is true. Think of how much gas is wasted by 16-17 year olds driving in circles because they have a drivers license. Just a thought.

Lots of big plans floating around, and they all sound very, um, sound. Having recently lost my beautiful, steel child of the 70's to some wacked-out, jerkfaced kid in a '92 Mazda, I can't help but agree that the driver is the number one problem when it comes to safety. I was going straight, with my lights on, in a well-lit street. He was travelling the opposite direction, waiting in the left turn lane. Suddenly he realized that he needed to get into the trunk of my car in a very immediate fashion, and proceeded thusly as I passed through the intersection. I spun, I struck two parked cars and I stopped. The only thing that prevented his face from vanishing in the white hot fury that was my fist at the time was his utter and complete uselessness of appearance and personality. Barraged with apologies and confused remarks, I waited on the hood of my car for the cops to arrive. When they took his statement, what was his grand story explaining this tragedy of vehicular proportions?

"Dude, I totally didn't even see him! The light was green, so I turned, and there he was! Oopsies!"

Okay, that last part was an addendum on my part, but you get the point. And guess what? That blithering idiot of a kid represents the titanic number of youths who currently populate the streets of Salt Lake City! And it's not just the kids that do such stupid things on the road......

Which brings me to the main point: How can we have an effect on getting these things to come to pass? They're wonderful on paper, but how can we make a difference?

Automated vehicles are entirely costly right now. Current vehicular technology can be retrofitted to use automated technology as is proven by Cadillac and Mercedes producing vehicles that over-rule the driver during lane divergences, starting, and stopping. This kind of thing is cheap too. The aforementioned companies are using basic gps systems that cost only a few hundred dollars to have them wired into the car's multiple computers and take control of the vehicle in certain situations. I would like to make future cars that are designed to natively and exclusively utilize these systems. As I stated previously, the most costly component of the automated system is the roadways. They would have to be fitted with range detecting systems, speed detecting systems, inter-computer communication systems, and other costly electronic technologies. The country wouldn't want to pay for it. The hardest part of interring this system, is taking the cars out of the hands of people. We simply do not want to give them up; and rightly so. I suggest for those that REALLY want to command their vehicles, they pay in excess of 2 thousand dollars for the license, 1 thousand hours behind the wheel with a licensed, registered instructor, and racing style driving lessons (full race, not near). This means that that person is willing to put forth the sacrifice in order to achieve that singular independence.

Sounds good to me. I'm willing to give up my license for a greater assurance of safety. Bring on the tax-hike!