4 ms·

I would call this a 'novel flying contraption', or maybe a 'flying jetski' as the article calls it. Not a flying car.

by phreeza 10y ago

elmar 10y ago
they call it "flying car" because technically could replace the "car functionality" on this case more a "motorcycle functionality" with an aerial vehicle. Probably should be called flying motorcycle but on a marketing level doesn't have the same impact.
- JKCalhoun 10y ago
  If by car functionality, you mean those 5 minutes trips you take in the car ... to the corner grocery store? (At least this is what I understand the range to be.)
  - elmar 10y ago
    the range is expected to double every 10 years so in a couple of decades you will have similar range to cars :)
    - JKCalhoun 10y ago
      Are we talking about battery technology leading to that range doubling? Because I was under the impression that energy densities of our current battery technology were already pushing the limits. To double the range I suspect you need to quadruple the energy density. Sounds like the making of a bomb. :/
      - elmar 10y ago
        yes, battery power to weight ratio is the factor that increases range, you are correct current technology is on is limit, the increase on range is based on speculation that new chemistries will evolve in the future.
scld 10y ago
Unless absolutely necessary, putting drive motor mechanisms and flying mechanisms on the same package is a waste of efficiency. Why have your engine pull the extra weight of your propellers...and why have your propellers lift a drivetrain? I get your point that "flying car" may be a tad misleading, but my guess is that they made this first iteration a "water vehicle" to get around the majority of regulations while still getting a product into the field to test and (perhaps) make some money while they're at it.
- CamelCaseName 10y ago
  Regulations could be one reason. Perhaps you can for your car over bodies of water, but not over land. Since it is impractical, and even less efficient, to have three vehicles (car on each side + a plane) then a flying car is better. You may be right technically, but there are practical reasons why flying cars may not travel over land for a very long time. I suspect noise is one of those reasons, it's why planes are limited to certain speeds despite being able to travel faster at higher efficiencies. It would be a great disturbance to the residents living below.

I would call this a 'novel flying contraption', or maybe a 'flying jetski' as the article calls it. Not a flying car.

by phreeza 10y ago

I would call this a 'novel flying contraption', or maybe a 'flying jetski' as the article calls it. Not a flying car.

elmar 10y ago

they call it "flying car" because technically could replace the "car functionality" on this case more a "motorcycle functionality" with an aerial vehicle. Probably should be called flying motorcycle but on a marketing level doesn't have the same impact.

JKCalhoun 10y ago
If by car functionality, you mean those 5 minutes trips you take in the car ... to the corner grocery store? (At least this is what I understand the range to be.)
- elmar 10y ago
  the range is expected to double every 10 years so in a couple of decades you will have similar range to cars :)
  - JKCalhoun 10y ago
    Are we talking about battery technology leading to that range doubling? Because I was under the impression that energy densities of our current battery technology were already pushing the limits. To double the range I suspect you need to quadruple the energy density. Sounds like the making of a bomb. :/
    - elmar 10y ago
      yes, battery power to weight ratio is the factor that increases range, you are correct current technology is on is limit, the increase on range is based on speculation that new chemistries will evolve in the future.

scld 10y ago

Unless absolutely necessary, putting drive motor mechanisms and flying mechanisms on the same package is a waste of efficiency. Why have your engine pull the extra weight of your propellers...and why have your propellers lift a drivetrain? I get your point that "flying car" may be a tad misleading, but my guess is that they made this first iteration a "water vehicle" to get around the majority of regulations while still getting a product into the field to test and (perhaps) make some money while they're at it.

CamelCaseName 10y ago
Regulations could be one reason. Perhaps you can for your car over bodies of water, but not over land. Since it is impractical, and even less efficient, to have three vehicles (car on each side + a plane) then a flying car is better. You may be right technically, but there are practical reasons why flying cars may not travel over land for a very long time. I suspect noise is one of those reasons, it's why planes are limited to certain speeds despite being able to travel faster at higher efficiencies. It would be a great disturbance to the residents living below.