10 ms·

I keep seeing people say this. Maybe flying cars just don’t make sense? Wheels work really well when your engine dies. Have you seen people drive in 2d space

I keep seeing people say this. Maybe flying cars just don’t make sense? Wheels work really well when your engine dies. Have you seen people drive in 2d space? You want to add a z axis? What’s the efficiency of a small plane? Surely not better than a Prius. Edit: I looked it up and a Cessna gets ~15 mpg.

mountainb 6y ago
You ever fly over a mountain? It saves a lot of time.
- Mediterraneo10 6y ago
  Developed countries tend to build tunnels for lengthy mountain routes for which there is serious demand, so there is less a case for flying cars here.
  - magicalhippo 6y ago
    Here in Norway we have a lot of fjords with small communities all over. The roads are narrow, twisty and often at high risk of falling rocks[1]. Due to the many roads and relatively few people using a lot of these high-risk roads, maybe flying cars would be a more cost-effective option here... would possibly also reduce the need for expensive ferries[2]. [1]: https://www.nrk.no/vestland/ras-i-roldal-isolerer-ti-fastboende-og-flere-hyttefolk_-_-det-gir-en-stokk-1.15305472 https://www.nrk.no/vestland/ras-i-roldal-isolerer-ti-fastboe... [2]: https://www.nrk.no/nordland/bjornar-skjaeran-i-arbeiderpartiet-lover-a-halvere-fergeprisene-1.15349651 https://www.nrk.no/nordland/bjornar-skjaeran-i-arbeiderparti...
- africanboy 6y ago
  I can drive from Como to Lugano in Switzerland in 30 minutes. I guess the Alps are not a big issue.
- jodrellblank 6y ago
  Top Gear did a race from Italy to the UK. Clarkson driving a Bugatti Veyron, Hammond and May flying in a Cessna 182. They couldn't fly over the mountains, and May wasn't qualified to fly at night. It didn't save a lot of time. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yoK4QYwixDc https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yoK4QYwixDc Not sure which bits you could cut with a flying car - the safety checks, air traffic control involvement, runways, refuelling stop, qualifications/licenses, but it would have to be a lot to make a large difference.
nemothekid 6y ago
I would look at flying cars are a metaphor, not as a literal thing people are opining over.
- afarrell 6y ago
  Indeed. In a conversation about being insufficiently thoughtful in deciding what you really want to build, flying cars are an excellent metaphor.
christoph 6y ago
The average person does virtually no regular maintenance / checking of their car, even basics like tyre pressures and oil levels not being checked regularly, happy to leave as much as they possibly can for an annual check at the garage. There’s a shocking amount of people also happy to drive around ignoring warning lights flashing. Imagine that scenario with tons of metal that could fall out of the sky when something fails.
- weaksauce 6y ago
  > There’s a shocking amount of people also happy to drive around ignoring warning lights flashing. ...or can't afford the basic maintenance
  - wcarron 6y ago
    In other words, can't afford to own/operate a car. Note, that's not a put down on said people. I think it's a shame such situations exist. But, if you can't afford to pay for insurance/gas/maintenance, then you can't afford the vehicle. But, regarding flying cars: I absolutely do not want more people operating airborne spinny death machines capable of destroying considering we've already established many people don't/can't perform basic maintenance on a much simpler and safer mode of transportation. It wouldn't go well.
    - robocat 6y ago
      > In other words, can't afford to own/operate a car. Or they know it isn’t worth fixing. I had an engine light on for about 20000km, and sold the vehicle like that, because it wasn’t worth fixing. One competent mechanic talked me into trying to fix it before I tried to sell it, and that wasted $1000. Another friend had an engine light on, and the workshop said that happened with that model sometimes and it wasn’t worth fixing. Both of us could afford to fix the vehicles. That said, if an oil light comes on I stop the vehicle immediately.
      - eric-hu 6y ago
PicassoCTs 6y ago
The reason you don't get flying cars, is the very same, you cant make a lot of other technology. People will want to invent the flying car parking house. And they kind of did - on the 11 of September 2001. You can not hand technology over a certain level to a infantile (nicer sound then retarded) species. Its that simple. Its already madness to allow wealthy citizens into space. Tesla and Amazon are one freight flight to space, filled with tungsten rods, away from becoming there own nation - with non-nuclear deterrence. That somebody - whoever it is, out there is getting humankinds tech progress to a grinding halt, is a blessing in disguise. We actually do not even get a honest discussion about the risks on this path. Problem is though, we always scienced our way out of our problems with our volatile nature. Tap some energy here, create some fertilizer there, oversupply solves the problems we do not want to solve. Exponential supply for exponential unchecked demand. Enter social tech- in theory we could limit ourselves, could curb our demands, could become starving monks in the desert, hypnotized by coloured lights playing across enchanted stones. This seems to be the road we need to take, for the other road to be traverse-able.
- Guthur 6y ago
  Ok, you head on out to the desert, we'll be right behind you... promise.
  - PicassoCTs 6y ago
    I do not get it- why is exponential powerful tech, such a serious matter if somebody wants a nuke (Iran, North-Korea) or even just proliferate per-existing ones, considered a serious issue. But once a entity with clear interests in venturing outside the sphere of law (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_Oil#Breakup https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_Oil#Breakup) and the monetary/organizational power to acquire such tech, ventures towards something similar classifiable, such a threat is a joking matter? Also if you stream a movie tonight, like millions others, who just have a roof, food and a flickering screen that sand in the dessert might be very fine integrated - and already have gotten everywhere. So nobody is asking you or me, might as well discuss the scenarios.
    - 6y ago
bhupy 6y ago
> Maybe flying cars just don’t make sense? I think it's just a placeholder metaphor to represent <hypothetical futuristic "thing" that increases our quality of life as a society>
- bee_rider 6y ago
  But also, the fact that it was impractical is itself a metaphor -- it turns out many of the things they thought would be cool and futuristic were actually impractical when you get to the details.
  - bhupy 6y ago
    Sure, but that's besides the point. It's sort of like that meme about "The World If <my pet policy was implemented>" (example: https://i.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/original/001/394/070/7f2.jpg https://i.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/original/001/394/070/7f2...). It features over the top flying cars and infrastructure because it's trying to make a point. When one says "we could have had flying cars, but instead we got X", that's the underlying concept. Whether or not the flying car is "practical" is kind of besides the point. Either that, or we need to find some other generally agreed upon term to represent an actually practical but futuristic invention that represents human progress (or the lack thereof).
    - imtringued 6y ago
      >"The World If <my pet policy was implemented>">"The World If <my pet policy was implemented>" http://eduard-heindl.de/energy-storage/energy-storage-system.html http://eduard-heindl.de/energy-storage/energy-storage-system... Well, we would get cheap energy storage and cheap energy. No promises of a superior future, just a cheaper future.
    - deleted 6y ago
      [deleted]
    - bee_rider 6y ago
      I suggest "we could have had an all-nuclear grid."
jeltz 6y ago
While I generally agree I do not think they meant it literally in this case.
heelix 6y ago
The maths are about right for MPG. Time is what you (might) save. I'll get around that at cruise - 135kts or 155mph @ ~ 10gal/hour. Better fuel usage if you slow down a bit. Tempted to say if you slowed down to max Prius speeds on the autoban, the C182 might be more fuel efficient. I'm sure it gets 50mpg at 75mph, but doubt it gets that at 109mph.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]

mountainb 6y ago

You ever fly over a mountain? It saves a lot of time.

Mediterraneo10 6y ago
Developed countries tend to build tunnels for lengthy mountain routes for which there is serious demand, so there is less a case for flying cars here.
- magicalhippo 6y ago
  Here in Norway we have a lot of fjords with small communities all over. The roads are narrow, twisty and often at high risk of falling rocks[1]. Due to the many roads and relatively few people using a lot of these high-risk roads, maybe flying cars would be a more cost-effective option here... would possibly also reduce the need for expensive ferries[2]. [1]: https://www.nrk.no/vestland/ras-i-roldal-isolerer-ti-fastboende-og-flere-hyttefolk_-_-det-gir-en-stokk-1.15305472 https://www.nrk.no/vestland/ras-i-roldal-isolerer-ti-fastboe... [2]: https://www.nrk.no/nordland/bjornar-skjaeran-i-arbeiderpartiet-lover-a-halvere-fergeprisene-1.15349651 https://www.nrk.no/nordland/bjornar-skjaeran-i-arbeiderparti...
africanboy 6y ago
I can drive from Como to Lugano in Switzerland in 30 minutes. I guess the Alps are not a big issue.
jodrellblank 6y ago
Top Gear did a race from Italy to the UK. Clarkson driving a Bugatti Veyron, Hammond and May flying in a Cessna 182. They couldn't fly over the mountains, and May wasn't qualified to fly at night. It didn't save a lot of time. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yoK4QYwixDc https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yoK4QYwixDc Not sure which bits you could cut with a flying car - the safety checks, air traffic control involvement, runways, refuelling stop, qualifications/licenses, but it would have to be a lot to make a large difference.

nemothekid 6y ago

I would look at flying cars are a metaphor, not as a literal thing people are opining over.

afarrell 6y ago
Indeed. In a conversation about being insufficiently thoughtful in deciding what you really want to build, flying cars are an excellent metaphor.

christoph 6y ago

The average person does virtually no regular maintenance / checking of their car, even basics like tyre pressures and oil levels not being checked regularly, happy to leave as much as they possibly can for an annual check at the garage. There’s a shocking amount of people also happy to drive around ignoring warning lights flashing. Imagine that scenario with tons of metal that could fall out of the sky when something fails.

weaksauce 6y ago
> There’s a shocking amount of people also happy to drive around ignoring warning lights flashing. ...or can't afford the basic maintenance
- wcarron 6y ago
  In other words, can't afford to own/operate a car. Note, that's not a put down on said people. I think it's a shame such situations exist. But, if you can't afford to pay for insurance/gas/maintenance, then you can't afford the vehicle. But, regarding flying cars: I absolutely do not want more people operating airborne spinny death machines capable of destroying considering we've already established many people don't/can't perform basic maintenance on a much simpler and safer mode of transportation. It wouldn't go well.
  - robocat 6y ago
    > In other words, can't afford to own/operate a car. Or they know it isn’t worth fixing. I had an engine light on for about 20000km, and sold the vehicle like that, because it wasn’t worth fixing. One competent mechanic talked me into trying to fix it before I tried to sell it, and that wasted $1000. Another friend had an engine light on, and the workshop said that happened with that model sometimes and it wasn’t worth fixing. Both of us could afford to fix the vehicles. That said, if an oil light comes on I stop the vehicle immediately.
    - eric-hu 6y ago

PicassoCTs 6y ago

The reason you don't get flying cars, is the very same, you cant make a lot of other technology. People will want to invent the flying car parking house. And they kind of did - on the 11 of September 2001. You can not hand technology over a certain level to a infantile (nicer sound then retarded) species. Its that simple. Its already madness to allow wealthy citizens into space. Tesla and Amazon are one freight flight to space, filled with tungsten rods, away from becoming there own nation - with non-nuclear deterrence. That somebody - whoever it is, out there is getting humankinds tech progress to a grinding halt, is a blessing in disguise. We actually do not even get a honest discussion about the risks on this path. Problem is though, we always scienced our way out of our problems with our volatile nature. Tap some energy here, create some fertilizer there, oversupply solves the problems we do not want to solve. Exponential supply for exponential unchecked demand. Enter social tech- in theory we could limit ourselves, could curb our demands, could become starving monks in the desert, hypnotized by coloured lights playing across enchanted stones. This seems to be the road we need to take, for the other road to be traverse-able.

Guthur 6y ago
Ok, you head on out to the desert, we'll be right behind you... promise.
- PicassoCTs 6y ago
  I do not get it- why is exponential powerful tech, such a serious matter if somebody wants a nuke (Iran, North-Korea) or even just proliferate per-existing ones, considered a serious issue. But once a entity with clear interests in venturing outside the sphere of law (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_Oil#Breakup https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_Oil#Breakup) and the monetary/organizational power to acquire such tech, ventures towards something similar classifiable, such a threat is a joking matter? Also if you stream a movie tonight, like millions others, who just have a roof, food and a flickering screen that sand in the dessert might be very fine integrated - and already have gotten everywhere. So nobody is asking you or me, might as well discuss the scenarios.
  - 6y ago

bhupy 6y ago

> Maybe flying cars just don’t make sense? I think it's just a placeholder metaphor to represent <hypothetical futuristic "thing" that increases our quality of life as a society>

bee_rider 6y ago
But also, the fact that it was impractical is itself a metaphor -- it turns out many of the things they thought would be cool and futuristic were actually impractical when you get to the details.
- bhupy 6y ago
  Sure, but that's besides the point. It's sort of like that meme about "The World If <my pet policy was implemented>" (example: https://i.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/original/001/394/070/7f2.jpg https://i.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/original/001/394/070/7f2...). It features over the top flying cars and infrastructure because it's trying to make a point. When one says "we could have had flying cars, but instead we got X", that's the underlying concept. Whether or not the flying car is "practical" is kind of besides the point. Either that, or we need to find some other generally agreed upon term to represent an actually practical but futuristic invention that represents human progress (or the lack thereof).
  - imtringued 6y ago
    >"The World If <my pet policy was implemented>">"The World If <my pet policy was implemented>" http://eduard-heindl.de/energy-storage/energy-storage-system.html http://eduard-heindl.de/energy-storage/energy-storage-system... Well, we would get cheap energy storage and cheap energy. No promises of a superior future, just a cheaper future.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
  - bee_rider 6y ago
    I suggest "we could have had an all-nuclear grid."

jeltz 6y ago

While I generally agree I do not think they meant it literally in this case.

heelix 6y ago

The maths are about right for MPG. Time is what you (might) save. I'll get around that at cruise - 135kts or 155mph @ ~ 10gal/hour. Better fuel usage if you slow down a bit. Tempted to say if you slowed down to max Prius speeds on the autoban, the C182 might be more fuel efficient. I'm sure it gets 50mpg at 75mph, but doubt it gets that at 109mph.

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]