Slashdot Mirror


Flying Jet-Powered Hoverboard Now a Reality (theverge.com)

Zapata Racing has begun testing prototypes of a new jet-powered hoverboard called the "Flyboard Air". The Verge published a new interview with the company's CEO, who confirms that a backpack full of kerosene-grade fuel powers the flying hoverboard's four 250-horsepower turboengines, with two more engines used for stabilizaton. Capable of flying up to 100 miles per hour, the jet-powered hoverboard uses an internal algorithm to adjust the thrust and angle of each turboengine, so "It's like we have six systems working together plus my brain and my legs." The company hopes to ultimately interest the military and security sectors in the technology, but they're also working on a smaller version that could be piloted while sitting, which the CEO describes as "extremely small, extremely stable, and something that you can take to go and buy your bread in the morning."

93 comments

  1. Still no antigravity hoverboard by ickleberry · · Score: 3, Funny

    As showcased in BTTF. 2016 tech disappoints.

  2. Economics 101 by AchilleTalon · · Score: 4, Insightful

    "...something that you can take to go and buy your bread in the morning."

    That makes plenty of sense to burn 10 gallons of kerosene to get a loaf of bread.

    --
    Achille Talon
    Hop!
    1. Re:Economics 101 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Must be a hoax. You couldn't make this thing safe.

    2. Re:Economics 101 by fluffernutter · · Score: 1

      You can use it to buy bread in the morning, but they wouldn't recommend riding it anywhere near an open flame.

      --
      Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
    3. Re: Economics 101 by jsh1972 · · Score: 1

      You'd think soldiers and security forces might encounter open flames from time to time...

    4. Re: Economics 101 by WarJolt · · Score: 2

      For the adrenaline junkies out there that's not the point. There are folks that would commit suicide if they can't get their next fix. It's hard for the more rationally minded /. audience to understand.

    5. Re:Economics 101 by rgbatduke · · Score: 3, Funny

      No, no, no. You can use it to buy bread in the morning, but you can toast it on the way home!

      --
      Even when the experts all agree, they may well be mistaken. --- Bertrand Russell.
    6. Re:Economics 101 by wonkey_monkey · · Score: 1

      You can't make wingsuits "safe" either.

      --
      systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
    7. Re:Economics 101 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I just use my bread maker.....

    8. Re:Economics 101 by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · · Score: 1

      Whether this particular incident is a hoax, the goal is computer-controlled versions which can indeed act like Jetsons stuff, AKA jet-powered big drone type things you can ride.

      --
      (-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
    9. Re: Economics 101 by Agent0013 · · Score: 1

      For the adrenaline junkies out there that's not the point. There are folks that would commit suicide if they can't get their next fix. It's hard for the more rationally minded /. audience to understand.

      It's ok. The rationally minded folks just need to get infected with the toxoplasmosis parasite from a house cat. Then they will become adrenaline junkies and cat lovers like the other 30% of the population.

      --

      -- ssoorrrryy,, dduupplleexx sswwiittcchh oonn.. -Quote found on actual fortune cookie.
  3. Link 404's by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Anybody know if they deleted it, or if it's just bad.

    Wasn't able to find the one referenced, but I did find this one

    http://www.theverge.com/2016/4/15/11439798/franky-zapata-racing-jet-powered-flying-hoverboard-interview

    1. Re: Link 404's by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The company was acquired by Oscorp yesterday, who promptly pulled all marketing and sent out C&D orders to the press.

    2. Re:Link 404's by AchilleTalon · · Score: 1

      Well, I believe it is an hoax anyway.

      --
      Achille Talon
      Hop!
    3. Re:Link 404's by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The link next to the title was the correct one

    4. Re:Link 404's by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Flying Jet-Powered Website Now a Reality!

      Spoiler: It flew away.

    5. Re:Link 404's by Foresto · · Score: 2

      Doesn't look like a hoax.

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

    6. Re:Link 404's by QuantumLeaper · · Score: 0

      Are You really that dumb? It a fake, you can tell when some of the shots don't have water flying, and others that do, if not a fake explain why some of the shot have a mist below and others that don't? Simple question to someone who believe it not a hoax.

    7. Re:Link 404's by wonkey_monkey · · Score: 1

      It a fake, you can tell when some of the shots don't have water flying, and others that do, if not a fake explain why some of the shot have a mist below and others that don't?

      Because his height above the water varies. Sometimes he's close enough to kick up mist, sometimes he isn't.

      --
      systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
    8. Re:Link 404's by Thumper_SVX · · Score: 1

      No, parent poster is right; it's fake. Just watch carefully. I did and noticed way too many incongruous or inconsistent moments. For example there's a moment when you see the hoverboard turn to the right with the pilot on top... the pilot literally doesn't move. It's quite obvious this is a jet-powered quad drone with a mannequin on top. At other times I suspect a crane, and the footage is very carefully cut and cropped to not show it.

      Seriously, the video is crap. I am not a pro and I could probably put together something close to it using Premiere. Hell, even shooting the footage I can think of a dozen different ways to actually get the footage that don't involve a working hoverboard... could probably put the entire thing together in about a week on a budget of less than $5K if I rope some of my friends into the scam.

      Just watch... they'll fire off an Indiegogo or Kickstarter based on the footage, raise loads of money and then pull a "Coolest Cooler" where they suddenly claim they need more money... and more money... and more money... and then vanish. While Coolest haven't done that yet, I predict that's what's going to happen. It's not hard to hide investments and file bankruptcy... yeah, it's fraud but some people only care about making money.

      Oh, and since when has "horsepower" been a measure of jet power? Yeah, the whole thing just reeks of scam.

    9. Re:Link 404's by wonkey_monkey · · Score: 1

      Just watch carefully. I did and noticed way too many incongruous or inconsistent moments.

      I just watched carefully and didn't notice anything incongruous.

      For example there's a moment when you see the hoverboard turn to the right with the pilot on top... the pilot literally doesn't move.

      At what timecode? I didn't see any shot were the pilot literally doesn't move. What would you like to do as he flies 20m in the air - wave his arms around, maybe dance a jig?

      I'm not sure why everyone's screaming hoax so vociferously. We've had jetpacks since the 60s. This is just a jetpack stuck under someone's feet instead of attached to their back.

      Here's another flight, single shot: https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
      And possibly the same flight, certainly the same location, different angle: https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

      --
      systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
    10. Re:Link 404's by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Jet Fuel Can't Melt Steel Beams!

    11. Re: Link 404's by Locke2005 · · Score: 1

      For those of you that didn't catch it, "Oscorp" is a Green Goblin reference. (Captain Obvious, at your service!)

      --
      I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
    12. Re:Link 404's by Locke2005 · · Score: 1

      The Moller Skycar kept the scam going for 30 years. The irony is that it is now _technically_ possible to build a working skycar, but the licensing and liability issues make it economically infeasible -- just like this foot-strapped jetpack. It looks fake, as in it doesn't appear to produce near enough thrust to counter the 200 pounds of weight. Interesting question, whether a computer feedback loop could divert thrust fast enough to balance the pilot flailing around; I suspect the computer could handle it, but not the mechanical components. You can't really instantly change the amount of thrust coming out of a jet.

      --
      I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
  4. Actual URL by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    http://www.theverge.com/2016/4...

    URL in posted item has too many hyphens between hoverboard and interview

  5. Only 45 years late by OzPeter · · Score: 2

    Williams did this with the WASP in the 1970's. No fancy electronics needed either.

    They also tried to sell it to the military, but the military decided that choppers were the go instead.

    --
    I am Slashdot. Are you Slashdot as well?
    1. Re:Only 45 years late by BrookHarty · · Score: 1

      Was also going to mention the wasp. The flying pulpit. They have on display at the Boeing museum in Seattle. It amazes me, that the this almost 50 year old machine hasn't been replicated.

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

    2. Re: Only 45 years late by iggymanz · · Score: 1

      It's a death trap far more dangerous than helicopter. A helicopter doesn't drop like rock if engine fails

    3. Re: Only 45 years late by OzPeter · · Score: 1

      It's a potential death trap far more dangerous than helicopter.

      FTFY

      As far as I know, no-one every died from flying the WASP. And Williams has way more flight time than these people (who brag about flying 275 metres). But these jokers don't seem to know or admit their flying machine history and seem totally enamored with the quad-copter as a platform for personal use.

        Likewise this device is also a potential death trap as well. Just flip it upside down and you are screwed.

      --
      I am Slashdot. Are you Slashdot as well?
    4. Re:Only 45 years late by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ... in the 1970's.

      They tried to sell it to Belgium in the 1980s, which is when I heard of it.

      ... that choppers were the go ...

      Armed forces tend towards 'bigger is better' but, imagine, a platoon of these surrounding you.

    5. Re:Only 45 years late by alvinrod · · Score: 2

      Copters were a better choice for a variety of reasons, among them that you can carry a lot of reasonably heavy ordinance as well as several passengers who can focus on firing weapons while someone else handles the flying. These are the kind of thing that looks cool on paper or sounds like it might be a good idea, but just don't work out in the real world for a variety of reasons.

    6. Re:Only 45 years late by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      holy fuck my 80s gi-joe now start to make sense !!!!

      it was real tech

    7. Re:Only 45 years late by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Get to the flyboard!" doesn't quite have the same ring to it either.

    8. Re: Only 45 years late by iggymanz · · Score: 1

      and you're an idiot whose not getting any sex, therefore even worse off than a fucking idiot.

  6. Welcome to the future of America by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    If getting in the car to drive 3 minutes to McDonalds - as one does - is getting boring, then why not just fuel up the hoverboard and hover to the store to buy your bread. Forget about saving money by spending a few minutes now and then baking your own bread. The store-bought bread also has all the HFCS and chemical additives you need.

    What's next, paying other people to actually bring your breakfast to the door for you?

    1. Re:Welcome to the future of America by vtcodger · · Score: 1

      Maybe you can use the hoverboard exhaust to bake your own bread.

      --
      You can't see ANYTHING from a car, You've got to get out of the goddamned contraption and walk...Edward Abbey
    2. Re: Welcome to the future of America by Type44Q · · Score: 2

      The store-bought bread also has all the HFCS and chemical additives you need.

      I can't believe you left out the best part!

    3. Re:Welcome to the future of America by Dashiva+Dan · · Score: 1

      If getting in the car to drive 3 minutes to McDonalds - as one does - is getting boring, then why not just fuel up the hoverboard and hover to the store to buy your bread. Forget about saving money by spending a few minutes now and then baking your own bread. The store-bought bread also has all the HFCS and chemical additives you need.

      What's next, paying other people to actually bring your breakfast to the door for you?

      next ?
      Been around for ages, mate :) (But yeah, mostly only in the cities)

      (I was going to provide a link, but realised that in the google app store in Australia alone there's over half a dozen different options)

      (p.s. save me editing this later possibly: Am I just low on caffeine and anon above was just being sarcastic?)

      --
      "lt;dr" is the correct response to most of my posts.
    4. Re: Welcome to the future of America by BoogieChile · · Score: 1

      > Most of the hair used to make L-cysteine is gathered from the floors of barbershops and hair salons in China, by the way.

      Oh, bullshit!

      You would have me believe that the L-cysteine market is served by sweeping up the cut hair off the floor of Chinese barbershops, rather than say...oohhh, I dunno...the trillions of feathers from the billions of chickens that the US goes through every year?

    5. Re: Welcome to the future of America by michelcolman · · Score: 1

      Oh, that's OK then.

      Human hair, yuck!
      Chicken feathers, yummy!

      People are weird when you think about it...

  7. Roman candle by PopeRatzo · · Score: 2

    a backpack full of kerosene-grade fuel powers the flying hoverboard's four 250-horsepower turboengines

    Fuck yeah!

    --
    You are welcome on my lawn.
    1. Re:Roman candle by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Too bad the link in the article gets a 404 not found (as of this posting).

    2. Re:Roman candle by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Use the link next to the title

  8. Far superior to quadrocopters by Zibodiz · · Score: 2

    Okay, call me crazy, but I imagine that you could build a vehicle body similar to George Jetson's car, and mount it onto a board just slightly larger than that board. The fuel tank could be much larger, and the vehicle would be substantially less 'X-Games', opening it up to a significantly larger potential market. Such a vehicle would blow electric quadrocopter-based personal transport out of the proverbial water.

    1. Re:Far superior to quadrocopters by SuricouRaven · · Score: 3, Insightful

      You could, yes. But there's still a fundamental problem. Flying demands a great deal of power, which is why drones have such short battery life and why this thing is going to guzzle fuel. It might have a niche as a recreational vehicle for the suitably rich, but the running cost means flight is not a viable means of personal transport. If it were, we'd all be commuting in helicopters - they are already mass-produced, but the running cost is just too high for you to built a helepad on your driveway and avoid the traffic jams.

    2. Re: Far superior to quadrocopters by iggymanz · · Score: 1

      No it is far inferior, failure means plummeting. Helicopter or quad copter engine failure at least leaves possible controlled descent as option, a chance to survive

    3. Re: Far superior to quadrocopters by Jeremi · · Score: 1

      Having your center of mass above the lifting part makes for very interesting failure modes... just ask anyone who has tried to ride a unicycle. ;)

      --


      I don't care if it's 90,000 hectares. That lake was not my doing.
    4. Re: Far superior to quadrocopters by michelcolman · · Score: 1

      Having the center of mass below the lifting part is just as interesting, ask anyone who has tried to make a rocket with the engine at the top.

  9. Again, by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    A jet-powered hoverboard != a true hoverboard. There, I said it.

    1. Re:Again, by Dashiva+Dan · · Score: 1

      A jet-powered hoverboard != a true hoverboard. There, I said it.

      How are most traditional "hovercraft" powered?
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
      Why do jets void the description?

      --
      "lt;dr" is the correct response to most of my posts.
    2. Re:Again, by alva_edison · · Score: 1

      He said "Hoverboard" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... not "Hovercraft", they are not related devices.

      --
      He effected a bored affect.
    3. Re:Again, by Dashiva+Dan · · Score: 1

      He said "Hoverboard" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... not "Hovercraft", they are not related devices.

      And how is a hoverboard not a hovercraft?
      I think you'll find they're related quite a lot...
      Regardless, hovering is hovering, and there're multiple ways to achieve it:) (Hint: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...)

      --
      "lt;dr" is the correct response to most of my posts.
  10. Of course, you could go buy bread on this thing... by 140Mandak262Jamuna · · Score: 4, Informative

    ...The only caveat is, no one else should be out at that time, or come closer than 150 feet to you. Jet exhaust of 1000 HP, and a couple of stability thrusters so close to ground will kick up so much of small debris, anything down stream of the jet wash is going to suffer greatly. Foreign object reingestion, got to hand it to the military to come up with three word terms, is a major problem in the Harrier jump jets. Harrier also has a few thrust nozzles for stabilization at low air speeds. Harrier landing has to be excruciatingly precise, and zones cleared of small debris.

    --
    sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
  11. Problems by currently_awake · · Score: 4, Insightful

    If you hit a micro-burst (sudden change in air speed) you will get blown off and fall to your death. Having a drone deliver your bread would be more convenient. Flying into a house at a hundred miles per hour would hurt. A bird strike would hurt. You think you'll see power lines at that speed? Ensure you have a backup fuel gauge.

    1. Re: Problems by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Fucking powerlines. Everytime I have the "holy shit I can fly" dream it turns into a nightmare of powerlines.

    2. Re: Problems by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's why I generally go to at least 100 ft. before attempting ranged flight. I'm still not good at controlling it. Oddly, I couldn't fly in dreams until Kakarot gave me a lesson. I don't even like DBZ lol!

    3. Re: Problems by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I could fly in my dreams, until I started skydiving. Now I have skydiving dreams instead :)

    4. Re: Problems by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Snap, but with surfing! Once you catch a wave that feeling follows you into your dreams.

    5. Re:Problems by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Death is optional, a parachute takes care of that. Fall off, and the parachute deploys. Board lost, man saved.

      If the board can react fast enough, then it can take care of wind gusts too. The man suddenly leaning over becomes a very sharp turn, and he's upright again.

  12. So basically a Moller Skycar... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Without a body.

    Sounds legit.

  13. "backpack full of kerosene-grade fuel" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Sounds legit.

  14. 1,000 Horsepower? by Bartles · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I think something is wrong here. It would take nowhere near 1,000 horsepower plus two more engines of unknown output for stabilization to fly a human being. A PT6A turbine engine with 1000,hp output burns .69lb of fuel per horsepower per hour. And it is far more efficient than 6 small turbines. If he was flying on a single 1000hp turbine, he would have burned 50 lbs of fuel in that 4 minute flight. Something doesn't make sense.

    1. Re:1,000 Horsepower? by xQx · · Score: 1

      Agreed!

    2. Re:1,000 Horsepower? by Lumpy · · Score: 1

      AS in the whole thing is BS and not actually real.

      Yeah, it's been debunked on several sites, and one did an analysis of the video and concluded that he is on a wire from the motion profile.

      --
      Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
    3. Re: 1,000 Horsepower? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not only that but how the hell do you fit 4 turbines in that platform (why hp why not a more useful measurement for a jet? Like lbf thrust)

    4. Re:1,000 Horsepower? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Notice the "cutaway" as he lands. Not to mention the water is not disturbed as he comes in during the last shot.

      Fake, but why? This wouldn't get you money. A fake video would only drive away investors and poison public opinion. Who are you trying to impress/convince?

    5. Re:1,000 Horsepower? by torkus · · Score: 1

      50 lbs of fuel is ~7 gallons which is reasonable for a backpack fuel bladder.

      What's not reasonable, besides the 1000HP, is fitting 4x 250HP turbines into that tiny platform of the claim that they splashing down only required replacing the electronics but not a full overhaul of the 6 turbines. Not to mention the lack of exhaust and the fact that his 'controller' looks an awful lot like a contactless thermometer.

      --
      You can get rich if you own a politician, but you have to be rich to buy one in the first place.
    6. Re:1,000 Horsepower? by Bartles · · Score: 1

      I agree with you that 7 gallons is semi-reasonable. But look at the video, does it look like he has the equivalent of one and a half 5 gallon buckets strapped to his back? Plus that assumes they are getting the same efficiency as a Pratt and Whitney PT6A-42 Turbine. Which I guarantee they aren't. So call it more like 10 gallons for that 4 minute flight.

  15. William DaFoe by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Isn't this how the Green Goblin got his start?

    And if their was ever a Movie Actor who played a Villian more appropirately named.. I don't know of one.

    +1 to Da'Foe

  16. OK this did not start out as a pun, but... by tlambert · · Score: 1

    That makes plenty of sense to burn 10 gallons of kerosene to get a loaf of bread.

    OK this did not start out as a pun, but...

    Do we really think that anyone who wants a "hoverboard" gives a flying F*ck about safety?

    (The pun is in the "flying" part)

    It's a trade-off, and some people: the trade is worth it.

    "You can go live on Mars if you never plan on coming back; deeply troubling".

    "Uh... yeah... when's boarding again?"

  17. Zowie! by Opyros · · Score: 4, Insightful

    This may revolutionize everyday life as much as the Segway did!! Uh, wait a minute—

  18. FYI Redundant Systems Design by Press2ToContinue · · Score: 3, Informative

    From TFA:

    "the whole system should be able to land if you have one turboreactor fail. So I’m able to stabilize it even if I lost one engine and we had enough thrust to get down and land. If one turboreactor fails it’s fine, because we have four turboreactors, and we can fly with three. And inside the remote we have three different Wi-Fi channels, plus we have three sensors. Everything is threefold, and they speak together, so in case one fails, the two also know which one failed."

    --
    Sent from my ENIAC
    1. Re: FYI Redundant Systems Design by oobayly · · Score: 1

      Wi-Fi? They're controlling it via WiFi?

    2. Re:FYI Redundant Systems Design by iggymanz · · Score: 1

      from your FQ from TFA

      "should"

      so you're the type to believe marketing spew...

  19. Still catching on fire due to China Batteries.... by Lumpy · · Score: 1

    They keep trying to sell those crappy "hoverboards" in the usa....

    --
    Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
  20. Re: Of course, you could go buy bread on this thin by WarJolt · · Score: 1

    The problem isn't the people on the ground. It's the vehicle itself ingesting its own jet wash.

  21. Im sure the military are looking.... by vmaxxxed · · Score: 1

    This is awesome - I hope it does not end up like the segway.

    Im sure it can be made to be reliable for commercial / military purposes. This can allow soldiers to jump over any obstacle and attack from any angle- awesome -

    What I mean is that, as expensive as it looks, if it can replace some chores currently needing a helicopter it could be competitive. Like electric tower / bridge inspections, rescue in difficult terrain and, of curse, military scouting and attacking.

  22. It's legit, but... by transami · · Score: 1

    I saw the video. It looks legit. But it eats fuel like campers eat marshmallows. Flight time is mere minutes.

    --
    :T:R:A:N:S:
  23. *Health* 101. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Get up and jog to the bread shop in the morning. Dump the technology. You are born to run.

  24. Calculations by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Hoverboard + Human + 100mph = Deathtrap

  25. Re:Of course, you could go buy bread on this thing by eth1 · · Score: 1

    Not to mention they'd make so much noise, they'd be banned, well, everywhere.

  26. new market for Camelbak by BonThomme · · Score: 1

    you had me at "backpack full of kerosene-grade fuel "

  27. Not a backpack by gurps_npc · · Score: 1

    Not being a backpack means:

    1) You don't burn your legs.

    2) It doesn't have to be light enough to carry.

    3) You don't have to design so much for the human form.

    -------
    I do note they didn't tell us how long the flight lasts. The video shows him flying for only about 75 seconds. I bet that's about the maximum amount of time you can go without re-fueling.

    --
    excitingthingstodo.blogspot.com
  28. internal algorithms! by jlv · · Score: 1

    When I read the headline, I was immediately concerned that they might be using an external algorithm! What a disaster that would be! I was relieved to see that the editor pointed out that they are using an internal algorithm. Whew!

    My next worry was .... what if they only used one WiFi channel and one sensor!? That would be horrendous! But then I read TFA and saw a quote from CEO Franky Zapata saying "And inside the remote we have three different Wi-Fi channels, plus we have three sensors". Whew! Another design botch happily missed.

    1. Re:internal algorithms! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I would consider pilot control to be an external algorithm. In this case, internal is certainly preferable.

  29. More Suitable for the Green Goblin by eepok · · Score: 1

    That functions a lot less like a Back to the Future hoverboard (http://gph.is/14VEqAs) and more like the Green Goblin's glider (http://cdn.instructables.com/F36/11RQ/H994BU7B/F3611RQH994BU7B.LARGE.jpg)

  30. Security Risk by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Won't be significant until fat cat executives in skyscrapers are assassinated through their office windows :-(

  31. My bogosity meter has just pegged by whitroth · · Score: 1

    How can the thing in the picture have *four* 250hp engines on it? Where, in a bag of holding?

    And then there's how much fuel *four* 250hp engines would burn per minute.

    Go 100mph? Have any of you ever stood up in a convertible going 60mph?

    Finally, *why* would it need the four engines? I'd be less disbelieving if they said 25hp engines, and 25 mph; with their claims, he crashed because he was out of fuel in five minutes.

                          mark

  32. Zapata. Really? by tmjva · · Score: 1

    There's something odd about a "hoverboard" promotion where the promoter's last name translates to "shoe" in Spanish.

    --
    Tracy Johnson
    Old fashioned text games hosted below:
    http://empire.openmpe.com/
    BT
  33. Shhhh. by grumling · · Score: 1

    And it's whisper quiet!

    WHAT?

    I said, it's whisper quiet!

    --
    "Well, good luck finding a judge that doesn't run a bestiality site."