TGIF
This is a street-legal jet car on full afterburner. The car has two engines: the production gasoline engine in the front driving the front wheels and the jet engine in the back.
In a country with a general speed limit of lovely 60 mph ... but, there are other advantages of this model: "Hmmm, the car has two engines making the car a hybrid so maybe we can drive in the commuter lanes along with the Toyota Priuses."
Enjoy...
In a country with a general speed limit of lovely 60 mph ... but, there are other advantages of this model: "Hmmm, the car has two engines making the car a hybrid so maybe we can drive in the commuter lanes along with the Toyota Priuses."
Enjoy...
posted by Thomas at 2:34 PM
13 Comments:
This post has been removed by a blog administrator.
10:42 PM
Too damn slow man. Go for a ride in a RUF Porsche or on a R1 SP :-)
10:44 PM
How comforting that in the face of increasing climate change and dwindling energy resources we so easily find more completely vacuous forms of entertainment that spur us further and faster towards the end.
10:58 PM
if you read the site carefully, then you'd realise that it is just a project of some nerdy engineer. private pleasure. and he says that he rarely uses the jet engine because it's too dangerous ;)
I agree strongly with you when it comes to regular "sports car models" for the mass market. I see no need and very little understanding for 300hp+ cars on the streets ... but the way to go is to increase gasoline prices. +3 EUR/litre would be a good start.
7:46 AM
I'm affraid I have to disagree here.
"Climate change" has little or nothing to do with what humans do. Plus we're not going to run out of oil in the next 100 years or so. Easy oil, yes. Oil in general? No. We haven't even burned 20% of what we have found. I know it's fashionable to to think we actually are killing the world. We're not. Plain and simple.
And Thomas, go out in a 300hp+ car once. You'll understand why they exist. They give joy. Not only to their drivers, but also to people seeing them. Watch a 4 year-olds eyes light up the first time he sees a Ferrari and then tell me you don't understand.
5:12 PM
Almost the entire scientific and political community agrees that much of the current climate change is human induced. This is a fact.
The issue of future oil supply is irrelevant. Under the current trend, we'll run out of clean air well before oil supply dries up.
I'll enter any bet that the probability for finding a four-year-old who is more fascinated by pristine nature and living animals than pollution-intensive sportscars is significantly higher.
10:10 AM
Read my blog posting of April 21st. Inform yourself better, and you'll see that what Greenpeace et al. tell you are just plain and simple ignorant lies.
All they are interested in is in slowing progress, disrupting lives and telling everybody else what to do. They don't give a flying f**k about nature.
And I'll take that bet. There's a reason why 1 BILLION people watch every Formula 1 race every 2nd weekend 16 times a year. Why there are toy cars in the toy shops. Why there's a movie "Cars" in the theatre right now. They make people happy.
12:20 PM
"Climate change" has little or nothing to do with what humans do.
thats one of the most ignorant things I have ever heard someone say. No one said humans alone cause climate change but to argue that our actions do no contribute to it is even worse.
4:47 PM
No need to inform myself better. I've been working in this field, both for research organisations and for "big oil". I've read the reports and checked the calculations (as far as I was able to follow them). Have you?
Niek, if you want to believe a sectarian minority, you're free to do so. Denying the human influence on current climate change is like accepting creationism: It's a myth, a religious believe or a fairy-tale, choose one. But it's not scientific consensus; in fact, it's wrong.
There's hardly any serious proposal on the table that aims at telling people what to do and tries to "disrupt progress". E.g. the proposal to introduce emissions trading is very much in line with neo-classical (or, neo-liberal, if you want to call it like this) economics. It is being promoted even by the hardcore free market warriors of The Economist and alike.
Of course, proposals like that aim at introducing fair pricing for activities which are at your personal discretion. If you want to drive your Ferrari, you are free to do so but don't let others pay for the environmental damage. (Homework for you: external effects, market failure, Pigou-Tax)
I can understand that some people try to portray such principles as authoritarian rule, because it punishes the polluters who need to adapt their behavior and they think that it sucks. "Beggar my neighbour" they cry ... but why should we, if they are ones to blame?
In that line, I do not want ban cars, neither from the roads or from toy shops. I am, too, sometimes fascinated by what's possible (see the origin of this debate). But that's not an excuse for making others pay for my enjoying this fascination.
5:07 PM
Thomas, have you read my blog posting?
To say I'm wrong when I say that climate change caused by humans and that I am somehow part of a minority is very funny to me.
The climate has been changing since the dawn of time, quite extremely so, with or without us and now to all over sudden believe that in 200 years (since the industrial revalution) humans have harmed the world in some way is almost unbelievably arrogant in my eyes.
Only 30 years ago "scientists" first started claiming we're headed for disaster. In those 30 years, more cars, more people and more industry has arrived. And the hole is the ozone layer is much smaller now. Strange......
And nobody else "pays" for my hobby. I think you will find a cow produces more toxic gasses in a day than a Hummer/Ferrari/Porsche does in a year.
So : kill all the cows first, and then we'll talk ;-)
11:18 PM
And BTW:
"Denying the human influence on current climate change is like accepting creationism: It's a myth, a religious believe or a fairy-tale, choose one."
I always liken environmentalism to religious fanatism. Based on a believe, without any conclusive proof, extreme actions are taken which influance everybody's way of life. Non-believers have to be 'converted' and not believing makes you ignorant (see anynymous). Also, you have extremists who burn farms, slash tyres, release test animals etc. (and those are the nice ones) All in the name of the 'environment'.
7:15 AM
Niek, I seriously recommend that you check the facts and the science first.
There is little relationship between global warming and the ozone hole. So, your point about it is irrelevant.
I (and others) certainly pay for your hobby because my taxes are used to finance the health system for those killed by cars, suffering for respiratory diseases and to finance measures to mitigate the adverse environmental effects of your hobby. I know, there is vehicle and petrol taxation, but this does not cover the entire social cost of your hobby.
Cows are a socially and economically much more useful good (think of subsistence farming in developing countries) than pollution-intensive sportscars and SUVs. However, the issue of methane-emissions from agriculture is being tackled.
You have the right to deny widely accepted scientific evidence and I will accept your right. But please show me that you know and accept the difference between science and "religious fanaticism".
Last comment from me on this matter.
11:06 AM
Ok, my last one as well.
About the taxation : The taxation of fuel brings in so much money that without it most countries are LOST . Hospitals, universities, unemplyment benefits etc. would all but half wihout car taxes. The car driver is the biggest cash-cow of ANY tax payer. Fuel tax, registration tax, yearly tax for actually having bought a car in the first place, VAT. They pay for everything they 'cause' 20 times over.
And BTW: the cleanest car in the world? The new Porsche 911 Turbo, not the Prius (ever wonder how big the environment damage of producing all those batteries is?). Just to let you know.
But I see we'll never agree. No worries. :-)
3:17 PM
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home