Had a glance through one of those christmas gift books in the bookshop today, something along the lines of "Cars what you Dad might've drove once" with the top gear name stuck to it. The striking thing is that average, slow family cars used to be economical if they managed more than 30mpg. Absolutely unbelievable.
I dream of cars that manage more than 30 mpg...
Carbs, mechanical ignition, less than optimal combustion chambers, four speed gearboxes or 2 or 3 speed autos. It's not really very surprising.
It'd also be interesting to know what the petrol price to income ratio was back then.
Do you remember the early 1980s, when cars were being fitted with Econ gauges, annoying "change up" lights, and suchlike?
They appear to be back.
If they had kept the performance at a reasonable level we might have cars that would manage 100mpg plus. Instead they (the manufacturers) went for the sexy high performance side of the force to sell cars.
If the Dymaxion had been pushed more , things would be very different, instead it was shelved after one accident, it is also rumoured that it would kill off normal car sales so the finacial backers of the big car producers had it axed. At the time (1933) it had 120mph top end and 30mpg , so with a modern engine goodness knows what it could have achieved.
Mrcheerful
Somewhat bizarrely, the Mk3 Escort RS1600i (the only decent handling Mk3) had the economy lights. They weren't wired up though. I could never work out why they were there.
Because people are heading for being skint again.
As seen in a 1 Series. :-(
Buckminster Fuller, like Tesla, has attracted a huge number of nutcases who grossly overexaggerate his (their) work. Where did you get those figures for the Dymaxion, and what makes you believe them?
Ian
I can only go by reported figures obtained from the internet, I expect they are in published works too, I can think of no reason not to believe they are true except natural scepticism of something I cannot examine.
Why would you disbelieve them off hand?
My point is that design had the chance to go in two directions, yet went in one, probably due to massive financial considerations as opposed to 'green' ones.
Bucky Fuller, like some others such as Willhelm Reich and Victor Schauberger believed in natural forces as being very important in design and that sustainability was ultimately important.
I find 'Noble Gas Plasma' engines 'hard' to believe, yet I wouldn't discount them off hand.
Mrcheerful
& cultural ones, the 2cv happily exceeded 30mpg.
Well apart from nobodies ever built or explained how it's supposed to work. Unless they burn orgone energy.
The Citroen DS had exceptionally good aerodynamics for its day. In particular, Citroen realised the importance of a clean underside. By the end, a 141bhp DS23IE could just about do 120mph. On that basis, it seems unlikely that a huge lumbering lump (Cd reported at 0.25, but HUGE frontal area) like the Dymaxion could do 120mph on a 90bhp engine. So pretty good evidence is needed, I think.
What does "natural forces as being very important in design" mean? And in what way was a Dymaxion car more "sustainable" than a Ford Poular or an Austin 7?
Jesus, what a load of crap. I'll stick to the second law of thermodynamics, thanks.
Ian
supposedly Papp took the secret to the grave. I don't think he ever claimed Orgone was involved.
The Orgone explosion caused grave government (FDA) embarassment at the time, and led to an unprecedented destruction of his work, and notes. What were they scared of? if it didn't have any basis in fact, there was no reason to forbid it.
Mrcheerful
It is only a very few years since it was 'absolutely' certain that the earth was flat.
Mrcheerful
If it was close to 0.25 then it was amazingly ahead of its time since 0.3 is considered good (I believe) 75 years later.
I think that the 'shed' design of the two cars you mention is a clue to whether they will slip through the air easily and naturally.
The Dymaxion was planned to carry many people with minimal fuel. Most car designers plan their cars to be cheap to produce. Do you see the conceptual difference?
Mrcheerful
Funny that, you'd have thought he could have made a fortune.
Apart from selling medical cures that didn't work.
And? It's only been a few millenia that we've believed water's wet.
There was no proof that they didn't work, just that the devices didn't meet curent 'truths' , the present day scientific 'wave' would probably accept it all, but certainly not dismiss it outright.
There is still a strong following, particularly in Germany. If the devices didn't work what harm can they do, apart from raise false hopes? I reckon someone with life threatening cancer has a right to try anything.
Mrcheerful
exactly, we now know that everything is actually energy. So beliefs can only be the present day knowledge, which will automatically be outdated imediately.
But when the pseudocrapmongers persuade cancer patients to stop the chemo and try some "alternative" rubbish instead...
Ian
No it's not.
Ian
MotorsForum website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.