| |
Main
Date: 01 Mar 2007 06:45:08
From:
Subject: What? No Futurebents??
|
A television show: Futurecars (athon today and Saturday in my
area), is discussing transportation. Mainly it discusses cars, but has
many outstanding sleek body styles that are showing up on the road.
These same designs are showing up in recumbents, which is thrilling to
me. It may be a US show since we are so car addicted over here.
Hopefully- it will become mainstream; like Monster Garage, Pimp Your
Ride, etc.
|
|
| |
Date: 05 Mar 2007 20:33:20
From: Johnny Sunset aka Tom Sherman
Subject: Re: What? No Futurebents??
|
On 5, 8:54 pm, Edward Dolan wrote:
> ...
> If and when we do revert to the Dark Ages, I will be there with the Spanish
> Inquisition ever ready to take on all unbelievers and heretics.
<JARRING CHORD >
NOBODY expects the Spanish Inquisition! Our chief weapon is
suprise...surprise and fear...fear and surprise.... Our two weapons
are fear and surprise...and ruthless efficiency.... Our *three*
weapons are fear, surprise, and ruthless efficiency...and an almost
fanatical devotion to the Pope.... Our *four*...no... *Amongst* our
weapons.... Amongst our weaponry...are such elements as fear,
surprise....
--
Cardinal Ximinez
|
| | |
Date: 06 Mar 2007 02:20:14
From: Edward Dolan
Subject: Re: What? No Futurebents??
|
"Johnny Sunset aka Tom Sherman" <sunsetss0003@yahoo.com > wrote in message
news:1173155600.531392.256360@p10g2000cwp.googlegroups.com...
> On 5, 8:54 pm, Edward Dolan wrote:
>> ...
>> If and when we do revert to the Dark Ages, I will be there with the
>> Spanish
>> Inquisition ever ready to take on all unbelievers and heretics.
>
> <JARRING CHORD>
Not really. Wind power and biomass energy are absurd. We would have to
colonize s to get enough acreage for either of them to ever kick in. Land
for food production is a thousand times more important than land for energy
production.
> NOBODY expects the Spanish Inquisition! Our chief weapon is
> suprise...surprise and fear...fear and surprise.... Our two weapons
> are fear and surprise...and ruthless efficiency.... Our *three*
> weapons are fear, surprise, and ruthless efficiency...and an almost
> fanatical devotion to the Pope.... Our *four*...no... *Amongst* our
> weapons.... Amongst our weaponry...are such elements as fear,
> surprise....
>
> Cardinal Ximinez
I think the above is from the Monty Python show. British humor does not
travel at all well - except to types like Mr. Sherman who, despite his
recumbent knowledge, remains a jerk, a nerd and a dork. I think it comes
with being an engineer. The truth is there is no substitute for a liberal
arts education.
Regards,
Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota
aka
Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota
|
| |
Date: 02 Mar 2007 18:52:23
From: Johnny Sunset aka Tom Sherman
Subject: Re: What? No Futurebents??
|
On 2, 12:18 pm, "Dan B." <dan.blumenf...@gmail.com > wrote:
> On 2, 1:15 pm, Curtis L. Russell <cur...@md-bicycling.org> wrote:
> <snip>
>
> > Even minor urban
> > redesign can have more impact on gas useage than any expected increase
> > in bike use for transportation. In some areas, just changing the
> > zoning regulations would have a greater long term impact.
>
> > Curtis L. Russell
> > Odenton, MD (USA)
> > Just someone on two wheels...
>
> Interesting notion...what kind of regulation changes and redesigns
> would you suggest? Links would be fine, if you don't care to expound
> at length :-)
The only solution that will work is mass sterilization. As a group, we
have no more sense than snowshoe hares that over breed, over consume
their food, and then die in large numbers, only to repeat the cycles
every few years.
If everyone lived in an energy efficient apartment and rode their
bicycles to work, there would still only be enough resources for a
couple of billion (2,000,000,000) people to live well and we are over
three (3) times than already.
A hundred (100) years from now, the human population will in all
likelihood be between zero (0) and five-hundred million (500,000,000).
Hubbert's Peak will arrive within the decade, and the oil based
economy will eventually collapse.
--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
The weather is here, wish you were beautiful
|
| | |
Date: 05 Mar 2007 20:54:43
From: Edward Dolan
Subject: Re: What? No Futurebents??
|
"Johnny Sunset aka Tom Sherman" <sunsetss0003@yahoo.com > wrote in message
news:1172890343.367555.298630@8g2000cwh.googlegroups.com...
> On 2, 12:18 pm, "Dan B." <dan.blumenf...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 2, 1:15 pm, Curtis L. Russell <cur...@md-bicycling.org> wrote:
>> <snip>
>>
>> > Even minor urban
>> > redesign can have more impact on gas useage than any expected increase
>> > in bike use for transportation. In some areas, just changing the
>> > zoning regulations would have a greater long term impact.
>>
>> > Curtis L. Russell
>> > Odenton, MD (USA)
>> > Just someone on two wheels...
>>
>> Interesting notion...what kind of regulation changes and redesigns
>> would you suggest? Links would be fine, if you don't care to expound
>> at length :-)
>
> The only solution that will work is mass sterilization. As a group, we
> have no more sense than snowshoe hares that over breed, over consume
> their food, and then die in large numbers, only to repeat the cycles
> every few years.
>
> If everyone lived in an energy efficient apartment and rode their
> bicycles to work, there would still only be enough resources for a
> couple of billion (2,000,000,000) people to live well and we are over
> three (3) times than already.
>
> A hundred (100) years from now, the human population will in all
> likelihood be between zero (0) and five-hundred million (500,000,000).
> Hubbert's Peak will arrive within the decade, and the oil based
> economy will eventually collapse.
We are eventually going to run out of oil and that will be that. All the
other alternative energies are nothing but pie in the sky and totally
impractical except for nuclear energy. That will be how we will have to go -
unless we want to revert to the Dark Ages.
If and when we do revert to the Dark Ages, I will be there with the Spanish
Inquisition ever ready to take on all unbelievers and heretics. Yea, it will
be my pleasure to scourge their miserable bodies in order to save their
immortal souls.
Regards,
Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota
aka
Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota
|
| |
Date: 02 Mar 2007 10:18:50
From: Dan B.
Subject: Re: What? No Futurebents??
|
On 2, 1:15 pm, Curtis L. Russell <cur...@md-bicycling.org > wrote:
<snip >
> Even minor urban
> redesign can have more impact on gas useage than any expected increase
> in bike use for transportation. In some areas, just changing the
> zoning regulations would have a greater long term impact.
>
> Curtis L. Russell
> Odenton, MD (USA)
> Just someone on two wheels...
Interesting notion...what kind of regulation changes and redesigns
would you suggest? Links would be fine, if you don't care to expound
at length :-)
Best,
Dan
|
| | |
Date: 02 Mar 2007 14:07:57
From: Curtis L. Russell
Subject: Re: What? No Futurebents??
|
On 2 2007 10:18:50 -0800, "Dan B." <dan.blumenfeld@gmail.com >
wrote:
>Interesting notion...what kind of regulation changes and redesigns
>would you suggest? Links would be fine, if you don't care to expound
>at length :-)
You could start with www.cnu.org, although I don't remember what is
for members and what isn't anymore. The impact of building and zoning
requirements, especially in the U.S., as they apply to mix use is one
of the most pernicious factors in forcing the unnecessary use of
automobiles, starting with moving destinations out of walking range,
to forcing longer trip lengths (encouraging consolidation
destinations, such as larger schools and regional libraries and sports
centers to the over use of cul de sac developments).
Cul de sac developments not only impact walking and cycling by
funneling travel to overloaded connectors, but they create situations
where you can see the connector from the edge of the cul de sac, but
have to travel a mile or more to actually get there. Cul de sac
developments actually put in deliberate features to discourage short
cuts by bike or pedestrians.
And some of the so-called model communities are the worst. Columbia,
MD started with a good idea - destination clusters near or within the
communities. Unfortunately, their general overuse of cul de sacs meant
that a mistake meant back tracking literally miles to find that
destination.
Cul de sacs are one of the worst city planning features for cycling.
And it is zoning with ridiculous minimum parking allowances that
create the ugly single buildings surrounded by asphalt, which in turn
discourage pedestrian use (lierally a hundred feet of asphalt between
each business). The same zoning creates the big mall with island mall
situations where the island malls are so far from the priy mall
that people get back in their cars and drive to them. But all those
parking spaces are required by zoning.
Zoning is what makes living over your own shop illegal in many cities.
The very features that people find cute in made-up communities, like
Disneyland, that mimic old European cities, are actually illegal in
'real life'. In fact, the very downtowns that U.S. residents see as
unfortunately disappearing are simply against code when too close to a
metropolitan center. The developers have to get exceptions made to
make a completely new community with all the features that are deemed
desirable - and reduce the need to get in a car and drive.
Curtis L. Russell
Odenton, MD (USA)
Just someone on two wheels...
|
| |
Date: 02 Mar 2007 09:21:30
From:
Subject: Re: What? No Futurebents??
|
What Me Worry? wrote:
> FutureCars is/was quite a disappointment, IMO. I get very tired of hearing
> about the "carbon-free hydrogen future," without a single mention of the
> fact that there's not nearly enough palladium on the planet to make GM's
> "Autonomy" platform a practical reality. Ain't gonna happen. Oh, but there I
> go again, trying to be practical instead of hopping aboard the impossibly
> sleek stainless steel Maglev Supertrain Future Express.
> It's kinda funny that these are so streamlined, because they're only have to
> go 15 MPH. I'm assuming that they don't burn anywhere near a full gallon of
> gasoline. Man, that would be a *lot* of driving!
>
> Ok, now who sez American car mfr's can't make a 100 MPG hybrid? That's
> 1/100th the energy efficiency of the Microjoule!!
>
> WM
Overrall- quite disappointing, but very useful and thought-provoking.
>From the emphasis of the GM skateboard (yawn), to the go-kart (yawn),
to the "pie-in-the-sky" Mollers Sky-Car (yawn). Get through that, and
the show is more "now" or "tomorrow".
The extremely streamlined Coloni designed vehicles are fascinating
(except that 18 wheeler; IMO!) and seeing that three wheel (tadpole)
Coloni designed motorcycle being driven was outstanding- ideal to
cover a recumbent trike. I also liked another Coloni designed vehicle
in the background with bicycle wheels- not featured. Looked just like
a Mango velomobile to me!
Pininfarina usually design the sleek exotic car, but his design of
something like the unimpressive St-sized car was a surprise- a
moving interior allowing 14" movement. Just another useful idea for
cycle design, like helmet in a (possibly silicon shrouded) helmet.
The leaning tandem motorcycle trike is pretty old-school. The leaning
GM failed and so did the similar Mercedes, but it is still in a
designers mind, and no one would know without shows like this! I
think this trike appears on the 'net somewhere, and is restyled even
sleeker.
A person has to wonder; how much corn can we grow? Or how much french-
fry oil is there? But TV shows like this give ideas to use in what we
already know is the solution to gas mileage problems- which is: bikes/
recumbents/human-powered-vehicles!
|
| | |
Date: 02 Mar 2007 13:15:27
From: Curtis L. Russell
Subject: Re: What? No Futurebents??
|
On 2 2007 09:21:30 -0800, eco_milage_buster_2005@yahoo.com wrote:
> But TV shows like this give ideas to use in what we
>already know is the solution to gas mileage problems- which is: bikes/
>recumbents/human-powered-vehicles!
No, we don't know that. I, for one, don't expect it. Even minor urban
redesign can have more impact on gas useage than any expected increase
in bike use for transportation. In some areas, just changing the
zoning regulations would have a greater long term impact.
Curtis L. Russell
Odenton, MD (USA)
Just someone on two wheels...
|
| |
Date: 01 Mar 2007 22:57:54
From: What Me Worry?
Subject: Re: What? No Futurebents??
|
<eco_milage_buster_2005@yahoo.com > wrote in message
news:1172760308.459371.148350@n33g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
>A television show: Futurecars (athon today and Saturday in my
> area), is discussing transportation. Mainly it discusses cars, but has
> many outstanding sleek body styles that are showing up on the road.
> These same designs are showing up in recumbents, which is thrilling to
> me. It may be a US show since we are so car addicted over here.
> Hopefully- it will become mainstream; like Monster Garage, Pimp Your
> Ride, etc.
FutureCars is/was quite a disappointment, IMO. I get very tired of hearing
about the "carbon-free hydrogen future," without a single mention of the
fact that there's not nearly enough palladium on the planet to make GM's
"Autonomy" platform a practical reality. Ain't gonna happen. Oh, but there I
go again, trying to be practical instead of hopping aboard the impossibly
sleek stainless steel Maglev Supertrain Future Express.
As for future bents: The most exciting thing *I've* seen in "future car"
engineering is the Microjoule experimental car that achieved - are you ready
for this? 10,705 MPG!! Seriously. It looks like a recumbent tadpole
trike streamliner.
Here's a photo:
http://staff.bath.ac.uk/ensajg/tg/2001rock3.gif
And an article about the competition:
http://www.gizmag.com/go/2946/\
It's kinda funny that these are so streamlined, because they're only have to
go 15 MPH. I'm assuming that they don't burn anywhere near a full gallon of
gasoline. Man, that would be a *lot* of driving!
Ok, now who sez American car mfr's can't make a 100 MPG hybrid? That's
1/100th the energy efficiency of the Microjoule!!
WMW
|
|
