FourBux

It’s 2007. Shouldn’t my car be flying by now?

Call me naïve. Call me unrealistic. But in this day of gas crises and oil prices and wars over fossil fuels, wouldn’t you think somebody could have developed a better car by now? Hybrids are nice, but when the car costs more than 30% more than a traditional car, it’s a tough pill to swallow.

I just paid another $31.00 to fill up my tank at the local QuickTrip. I filled it up last Thursday, too, and have to fill it twice a week on average. So, in a period of three and a half days, I blow through a substance that arguably took millions of years (depending on your school of thought) to create, not to mention a couple hundred bucks a month. And we all do it. Even mass transit still uses gasoline, unless it’s an electric train for instance, but where does the electricity come from? Most likely, it comes from burning coal. Hydro-electric power isn’t readily available yet, and is still cost-prohibitive for most areas. Not everyone is on board yet with nuclear power, but it seems to be the most viable, sustainable option. Mr. Fusion, where are you?

I think we’re a long way off from the Jetsons-era (go on, do the sound effect…you know you want to) transportation methods. Multiple levels of flying cars, all with the ability to dock at varying heights beside our home-pods in Orbit City – can you imagine it? We can’t figure out how to get to work on time while shaving, eating, and yapping on our cell phones during our commutes without killing someone, and we’re limited to one altitude – that of the road. Seriously, until the computer car takes the control out of the hands of the driver who’s usually too busy to pay attention anyway, there’s no hope of having a car that travels along the Y-axis.

I recently read on Scott Adams (of Dilbert fame) blog about his idea for a Google-supported GPS phone-based ridesharing system, which, in theory, sounds like a fine idea. He even came up with a way to screen out the psychos and killers, plus a security feature that would allow riders to alert the authorities if there is a problem. Works for me, except that I’m not all that crazy about sharing a car with strangers. Unless there was a way to not only filter out the undesirable folks, but maybe add in criteria that would make the ride more enjoyable: like syncing to the Hot-or-Not database, or maybe Match.com. Because it’s okay to look.

On his blog, Brian Hewitt (a hilarious social critic and cigar aficionado whose site I’ve become addicted to) addressed the fact that people don’t want to share rides, but expanded Adam’s idea to a CarPod idea where insanely small cars can travel to a larger docking station and be loaded onto a larger transport system. This road ferry then takes your Pod along major routes, allowing you to un-dock (or is it de-dock?) when you are close to your connection or destination. This idea is fine and good too, except for what about those times you have to head out as a family? Four CarPods? Or what about vacations or trips to rural areas? Even though I live in a big city and would be fine in a rolling telephone booth for the commute to work, my weekends are spent on the highways, and I’m not sure that I could get three days’ worth of camping gear, much less food, into a CarPod concept. We can barely fit it into the wife’s Malibu, but I blame Eddie Bauer and REI for that. Who knew we needed carbon fiber walking poles? We’re such losers, foolishly using sticks found in nature or nothing at all.

And then there is the SmartCar idea, which blends ultra-small car efficiency with high tech options – I even saw one the other day. Being used, in person. This was a Mercedes, and while it more closely resembled a golf cart than the typically luxurious Benz sedan, it was still pretty cool. Not much room in it, but at least it had two seats, and I’m sure it was comfortable. The car was filled with the driver and the roll of stamps she purchased, but I guess at 60 miles to the gallon, it’s got to be small. And look how many you can get into a parking spot! Even fully electric cars need to be small to allow their engines to push a thousand-pound object along, even though they would have almost zero emissions.

Chew on this: almost thirty years ago, someone from our nation walked on the moon. The freaking moon. In 1969. And they got home. Have you seen the cars they were driving in 1969? They were huge, heavy behemoths that guzzled gas like there was an unlimited supply. At least they were fast. Aside from some safety and relatively small fuel-efficiency improvements, we’re still basically driving the same cars today – internal combustion engines that drag around two tons of metal wrapped around our lazy selves.

My limited scientific knowledge tells me that the largest source of friction and hence, wasted energy, is the part where the car moves along the ground. Remember the first law of physics that states objects at rest tend to stay that way? That’s what we’re up against. If you could get the car off the ground, even by a few inches, the amount of fuel and energy required to propel and stop the thing would be greatly reduced. Whether it’s an electrical motor that drives turbines similar to a hovercraft, or magnets in the road and base of cars, or some new technology that I’ve not ever heard of, someone smarter than myself has got to be able to come up with a better solution. That way we could use the existing infrastructure of our splendid roadways, as well as allow older cars to still be used. Eventually they’ll phase themselves out, or perhaps convert via a retrograded hover option? A flying convertible? You know I’d be all over that. Point is, even without the whole “dependency on foreign oil” issue, there has to be a better way to get from point A to point B.

Somebody help me out. Maybe that two year-old genius kid can noodle on this one for a few minutes.