Slashdot Mirror
Open Source Car — 20 Year Lease, Free Fuel For Life
ruphus13 writes "The race for a hyper-fuel-efficient car is on in a big way. Now, Riversimple has tried to leverage the knowledge of the masses to bring its vision to reality soon with a car that gives the equivalent of 300 miles to the gallon. 'The idea to build an open source car isn't a new one, but you've got to give vehicle design company Riversimple credit for originality. The company plans to unveil its first car in London later this month, a small two-seater that weighs roughly 700 pounds. If you agree to lease one for 20 years (yes, 20), Riversimple will throw in the cost of fuel for the lifetime of the lease...The team decided to release the car's designs under an open source license in order to speed up the time it takes to develop the vehicle while also driving down the cost of its components.'"
I don't see the point of very small cars like this. If I don't need to carry anything I will ride my bike. If I do then I use my big, inefficient van. A small car wouldn't be much use to me because it can't carry much.
Yes, it certainly is a total piece of crap because it doesn't suit your lifestyle.
Many countries are full of tiny cars, where they serve as the primary (and inexpensive) vehicle for many people, some of who either can't afford a full-size car or are moving up from scooters and motorcycles. It might sound strange to you, but there are many countries where automobiles are not a religion, and paying a fixed lump sum a month to own a car is an attractive option. Plus, if you've ever seen the tiny winding streets of many European cities, you'll realize that this car isn't all that impractical in the right setting.
Of course, forget about it in the US, except maybe in Oregon.
An old-timer with old-timey ideas.
If you RTA you'll see that the bodywork is made from carbon composite. I don't think it's that unreallistic for a car to still be going after 20 years - how many cars are there around on the roads from 1989/1990? Still quite a few (esp. Japanese made), in some parts of the world the majority of cars are that old or older.
But this post is a great illustration of how many people view cars as throwaway, disposable products, good for only 10 years. Cars don't just impact the environment with CO2 emissions, the material and energy cost of production, maintenance and disposal have to be taken into account, and it's about time seeing a manufacturer taking responsibility in this regard, rather than cashing in on the easy profits of throwaway consumerism
I call shenanigans on this. Australia has a population density of 2.6/sq. km. The USA has a population density of 31/sq. km. That means that the US is nearly 1200% more densely populated than Australia. With the exception of rural folk like farmers and miners (who need them), "Soccer Moms", and other types that have their heads filled with The American Dream, almost no-one drives American-style big cars here. Quite a few of my friends get around without cars at all - bikes, public transport, motorbikes/scooters, etc. Many of them own unnecessarily big houses, just because they're cheap, and yet they're doing fine getting around. I'm sorry that your automotive industry have ignored your needs and pushed a bunch of expensive and unnecessary cars on you, but please don't try and pretend America's natural geography somehow requires a car, much less the SUVs that are dominant. It's everything BUT geography at play here.
And before you start criticising me for taking your comment out of context, keep in mind that GRANDPARENT was discussing both cars and car sizes.