3 ms·

Because is not safe to drive. Wouldn't never pass the technical exam for vehicles each 6 months. You can't drive a car in a public road without it.

chrismorgan 5y ago
What specifically might they be likely to complain about? I’m unfamiliar with the idea of regular tests (in Australia I don’t think you ever need a roadworthiness check if you keep the vehicle’s registration) and don’t know what they’d be looking at. “Because it’s not safe to drive” is nebulous; I’m interested in details.
- pvaldes 5y ago
  The safety concept is pretty clear in fact: "Your extravaganza and attention craving, puts my life in risk". To start, all car makers must destroy several vehicles in crash tests before are allowed to touch any public space. The analysis of the damages in dummies proves that they are safe in the most common types of collisions. This car has not passed it. Would end the steering pedal buried in your belly in an accident? Nobody knows. Was built with 1950' technology. Technology from the Korean war!. Early 90's maximum. Totally outdated in terms of safety. The structure could accumulate easily 50 years of stress over the materials or even more. Wasn't designed to hold airbags or points able to support attachments for pyrotechnic seat belts. They would never work correctly with that structure. The airplane part don't includes modern extra weak points designed and arranged in the structure to bend in a safe way and absorb the energy. Is a total mess in this sense. The pointy end probably guarantees, in my non expert opinion, that the cabin would be stripped off from the truck and pushed back against the driver in a frontal crash. The brake system wasn't designed for this weight and center masses so could stop the vehicle too late, bend the brake disk or work in an unpredictable way. The center mass looks higher than normal. The vehicle could turn upside down in a closed curve In case of collision against somebody walking on the street the front of the vehicle is clearly unsuitable to protect human lives from serious injuries in spinal cord, head or legs. They wouldn't even see it coming with this tiny windows And is so ugly that even hurts my eyes. If you drive a sofa or a two-story bicycle you basically accept the risk over your life, not mine. A truckenstein is a different issue. I don't want this experiments allowed to be in the same road as me, ever. For more details ask an engineer
  - chrismorgan 5y ago
    I’ll address only a couple of points, but am sceptical of the relevance of most of it for roadworthiness certification. In at least AU/NZ/US, I believe crash testing is only required for production vehicles above a certain number of units produced. Prototypes and experimental (one-off) vehicles don’t require it. > So ugly that even hurts my eyes. I would be deeply amused if this could actually be presented as grounds for disqualifying roadworthiness because it’s so intensely subjective and opinion-based.
fy20 5y ago
Someone in the UK made a drivable sofa and was able to have it legally registered: https://youtu.be/CTgLnUgzZYk https://youtu.be/CTgLnUgzZYk The requirements for custom vehicles are much less than for mass produced vehicles. Of course it is going to vary by country though. My country is very strict and doesn't even allow retrofitted LED license plate lights...
- Stevvo 5y ago
  The requirements for vehicles go up with each weight category. Take the sofa as an example; it's registered as a motorcycle with sidecar. If it was a car instead of a 'motorcycle', it would need to meet additional requirements starting with a windshield. Heavy vehicles are strictest.
- pvaldes 5y ago
  Clown vehicles for clown politician times. I'm not surprised really.

chrismorgan 5y ago

What specifically might they be likely to complain about? I’m unfamiliar with the idea of regular tests (in Australia I don’t think you ever need a roadworthiness check if you keep the vehicle’s registration) and don’t know what they’d be looking at. “Because it’s not safe to drive” is nebulous; I’m interested in details.

pvaldes 5y ago
The safety concept is pretty clear in fact: "Your extravaganza and attention craving, puts my life in risk". To start, all car makers must destroy several vehicles in crash tests before are allowed to touch any public space. The analysis of the damages in dummies proves that they are safe in the most common types of collisions. This car has not passed it. Would end the steering pedal buried in your belly in an accident? Nobody knows. Was built with 1950' technology. Technology from the Korean war!. Early 90's maximum. Totally outdated in terms of safety. The structure could accumulate easily 50 years of stress over the materials or even more. Wasn't designed to hold airbags or points able to support attachments for pyrotechnic seat belts. They would never work correctly with that structure. The airplane part don't includes modern extra weak points designed and arranged in the structure to bend in a safe way and absorb the energy. Is a total mess in this sense. The pointy end probably guarantees, in my non expert opinion, that the cabin would be stripped off from the truck and pushed back against the driver in a frontal crash. The brake system wasn't designed for this weight and center masses so could stop the vehicle too late, bend the brake disk or work in an unpredictable way. The center mass looks higher than normal. The vehicle could turn upside down in a closed curve In case of collision against somebody walking on the street the front of the vehicle is clearly unsuitable to protect human lives from serious injuries in spinal cord, head or legs. They wouldn't even see it coming with this tiny windows And is so ugly that even hurts my eyes. If you drive a sofa or a two-story bicycle you basically accept the risk over your life, not mine. A truckenstein is a different issue. I don't want this experiments allowed to be in the same road as me, ever. For more details ask an engineer
- chrismorgan 5y ago
  I’ll address only a couple of points, but am sceptical of the relevance of most of it for roadworthiness certification. In at least AU/NZ/US, I believe crash testing is only required for production vehicles above a certain number of units produced. Prototypes and experimental (one-off) vehicles don’t require it. > So ugly that even hurts my eyes. I would be deeply amused if this could actually be presented as grounds for disqualifying roadworthiness because it’s so intensely subjective and opinion-based.

fy20 5y ago

Someone in the UK made a drivable sofa and was able to have it legally registered: https://youtu.be/CTgLnUgzZYk https://youtu.be/CTgLnUgzZYk The requirements for custom vehicles are much less than for mass produced vehicles. Of course it is going to vary by country though. My country is very strict and doesn't even allow retrofitted LED license plate lights...

Stevvo 5y ago
The requirements for vehicles go up with each weight category. Take the sofa as an example; it's registered as a motorcycle with sidecar. If it was a car instead of a 'motorcycle', it would need to meet additional requirements starting with a windshield. Heavy vehicles are strictest.
pvaldes 5y ago
Clown vehicles for clown politician times. I'm not surprised really.