4 ms·

Bridge choke points, mountain ranges and other small body of water crossings is where electric flying cars / taxis will shine. It would be very useful in citi

by mahyarm 10y ago

Bridge choke points, mountain ranges and other small body of water crossings is where electric flying cars / taxis will shine. It would be very useful in cities such as Seattle, SF or NYC. It would also be useful for places like Victoria-Vancouver or Victoria-Seattle. You either take an inconvenient ferry for ~3 hours or you could take an on demand air taxi for 30m.

fisherjeff 10y ago
But we already have point-to-point 4-seater "air taxis". They're way more expensive than a ferry otherwise they'd be everywhere, and there's no reason to think a flying car would be cheaper.
- refulgentis 10y ago
  ...I hate to be aggressive here, but did you read the darn article? It's the reason we're even on this page, and it directly addresses your point. That's even underselling it, the entire purpose of the article is to ask and answer your point.
  - fisherjeff 10y ago
    My fault; I should've elaborated. I absolutely do believe that underlying technology will improve and get cheaper. I don't think that the cost of getting that technology in the air (FCC certification, maintenance, etc.) will come down significantly. Small aircraft are already not a whole lot more sophisticated than a production car - and often less so. But nonetheless they're still an order of magnitude more expensive.
  - mannykannot 10y ago
    It does not so much address the issues as it glosses over them. For example, it assumes that past battery performance trends can be extrapolated, but the battery-makers, -engineers and -chemists themselves do not expect this. Nor does the article attempt to address the noise problem.
    - refulgentis 10y ago
      I walked away with the impression that trends couldn't be extrapolated, thanks to various snippets from the article, but there's no pull quote that clearly proves it, so, sure. The noise problem you brought up apropos of nothing. You're responding to a comment responding to a comment that had concerns that were already addressed by the article, to let me know your concerns weren't addressed by the article. Surely there's a better place in the comment hierarchy for this? You'll get ignored down here.
      - mannykannot 10y ago
        There are four consecutive paragraphs saying that battery technology is almost there and improving rapidly, and nothing more on the topic, so it is interesting that you got the impression that trends could not be extrapolated.
closeparen 10y ago
> You either take an inconvenient ferry for ~3 hours or you could take an on demand air taxi for 30m. The SF-Alameda-Oakland ferry is already 30 minutes :).
- mahyarm 10y ago
  Sorry I was unclear. I was talking about the Victoria-Vancouver ferry, which is about 3hrs. Same with the Seattle-Victoria Ferry. The SF ferry is also slower than driving with no traffic or bart :)

by mahyarm 10y ago

fisherjeff 10y ago

But we already have point-to-point 4-seater "air taxis". They're way more expensive than a ferry otherwise they'd be everywhere, and there's no reason to think a flying car would be cheaper.

refulgentis 10y ago
...I hate to be aggressive here, but did you read the darn article? It's the reason we're even on this page, and it directly addresses your point. That's even underselling it, the entire purpose of the article is to ask and answer your point.
- fisherjeff 10y ago
  My fault; I should've elaborated. I absolutely do believe that underlying technology will improve and get cheaper. I don't think that the cost of getting that technology in the air (FCC certification, maintenance, etc.) will come down significantly. Small aircraft are already not a whole lot more sophisticated than a production car - and often less so. But nonetheless they're still an order of magnitude more expensive.
- mannykannot 10y ago
  It does not so much address the issues as it glosses over them. For example, it assumes that past battery performance trends can be extrapolated, but the battery-makers, -engineers and -chemists themselves do not expect this. Nor does the article attempt to address the noise problem.
  - refulgentis 10y ago
    I walked away with the impression that trends couldn't be extrapolated, thanks to various snippets from the article, but there's no pull quote that clearly proves it, so, sure. The noise problem you brought up apropos of nothing. You're responding to a comment responding to a comment that had concerns that were already addressed by the article, to let me know your concerns weren't addressed by the article. Surely there's a better place in the comment hierarchy for this? You'll get ignored down here.
    - mannykannot 10y ago
      There are four consecutive paragraphs saying that battery technology is almost there and improving rapidly, and nothing more on the topic, so it is interesting that you got the impression that trends could not be extrapolated.

closeparen 10y ago

> You either take an inconvenient ferry for ~3 hours or you could take an on demand air taxi for 30m. The SF-Alameda-Oakland ferry is already 30 minutes :).

mahyarm 10y ago
Sorry I was unclear. I was talking about the Victoria-Vancouver ferry, which is about 3hrs. Same with the Seattle-Victoria Ferry. The SF ferry is also slower than driving with no traffic or bart :)