Slashdot Mirror
Amphibious Car Beats Urban Congestion
woodhouse writes "According to BBC News, a company in the UK have just tested a fully amphibious car on the Thames river. It can travel at up to 100 miles an hour on land, and its wheels fold up to allow it to speed across water at 30mph, propelled by a jet. The company responsible, Aquada, suggest it's a good way to avoid congestion."
I'm not sure it is. None of the pictures indicate that it actually ahs a roof...
Boat ramps are the first thing that come to mind, but then there are launch fee's ect that would make me not want to use one.
.com CEO was going to get us all some wing in ground effect vehicles to travel from Alviso to Alameda.
Which leaves only a choice.
Enter/Leave water by shore.
This car doesn't look like it has 4wd. So it looks like i'd have to gun it really fast to get over the muddy shoreline. Doesn't solve the problem of getting out of the water either. Another problem is most waterways are fenced in these days.
Dukes of Hazzard Jump.
I guess you could try jumping the thing off a bridge, but it seems a little dangerous, again, how are you going to get the thing back onto dry land?
It looks more like a toy for someone that can afford it, instead of a pratical solution for cutting down or avoiding traffic. Reminds me of when my
In fact, sir, the Krauts were at it long before the Brits. The had an interesting 4x4 volkswagen type 166 aka Schwimmwagen. I always wondered how the SUV's would look like in the "Nazis won WW2" alternative history. Since the Allies won, most 4x4 vehicles are more or less jeep-like. In the "Vaterland"/"Man From The High Castle" worlds, 4x4 vehicles would probably resemble the military volkswagens. And thus would have amphibious capability as early as in 1940's.
We have speed limits posted for all bodies of water here in the US.
Really?
What's the speed limit for your average Alaskan lake?
Is it high enough for all reasonable floatplanes to be able to take off?
If so, is there really anything that might want to go faster than that?
"Hovercraft"
Yes , their impracticality would be why they were used in passenger service cross-channel for 30 years and why so many military marine forces (including the US)
use them as landing craft.
"Concorde"
Twice the speed of sound and still not matched by anything built elsewhere. Nuff said.
"The Titanic"
A good ship with a lousy crew. Your point is?
"Nuclear waste reprocessing"
Yeah , why reprocess and reuse it when you could just toss it in the sea instead.
You're an idiot.
And only the americans could come up with something as pointless as an SUV. A 4 wheel drive vehicle that does 2 mpg, tips over in a tight swerve
has poor crash protection and if it does go off road it gets stuck. Compared to that an amphibious car sounds pretty sensible.
The UK has a long sad history of inventors producing things that are unaffordable, impractical, or both, owing to a cultural blindness that seems to prevent reality checks.
I think your interpretation is incorrect. The Brits have an amazing history of invention -- I think they could quite probably boast at being the greatest nation of inventors in the world. However, they are normally really crap at the business side of things.
Suggesting this could relieve congestion is just stupid.
MP3 Search Engine
If SUVs are safer then why do American road stats show that you are more likely to die in one? Mainly due to the fact that American SUVs are a con based on 1970s truck designs - half of them don't even have independant rear suspensions. Have you ever tried cornering in an Explorer? Compare that to an X5 and you will see how an SUV can handle when made in Germany.
As for the big vehicle vs. smaller vehicle argument where do you stop? Are you in some kind of arms race? The only reason the Toyota would get totalled is because some moron is driving 15 tons of SUV. If the other car was a normal sized vehicle then they would both be fine. Why not buy yourself an 18 wheeler - then the guy in the Hummer would be toast.