New Car runs on Air

CptStern

suckmonkey
Joined
May 5, 2004
Messages
10,303
Reaction score
62
http://www.engadget.com/2007/05/27/indian-air-powered-city-cat-car-prepares-for-production-run/

city-cat-air-car-india.jpg


The first commercial car to be powered by compressed air could be about to hit the production lines, as Indian automaker Tata Motors prepares to build ex-Formula One engineer Guy N?gre's design. We're not certain if it's the same air car that we hit just under three years ago, but if it is, it's about time! The City Cat runs on nothing but compressed air -- which can be refueled at "air stations," and overnight using a built-in compressor -- with a not too shabby top speed of 68MPH and a range of 125 miles. The Air Car designers are working on a hybrid version that can compress air while it's operating, potentially making cross-India journeys possible

http://www.engadget.com/2007/05/27/indian-air-powered-city-cat-car-prepares-for-production-run/

I'd buy one


meanwhile the big 3 automakers in north america continue to spit out behemoths that requires you take out a second mortgage just to refuel it. ..it's fast becoming a trend where if you want innovation you dont go to the house of Ford, GM or Chrysler
 
68MPH is not too bad.....hehe. :p But can you imagine how noisy that thing would be at 68MPH (which is normal highway speed)?
 
Yeah. I've seen this on the discovery channel.

Guess what, it takes just as much energy to compress the air as it does to run a regular engine...
 
It's a technology still in it's infancy, first cars will be impractical and crap like early electric cars, but it has potential.
 
Yeah. I've seen this on the discovery channel.

Guess what, it takes just as much energy to compress the air as it does to run a regular engine...

it uses electricity so the energy use may be the same but the emmissions are not

I'll wait for the hybrid that compresses the air as you drive
 
Wait, does this use biodesil ro hydrogen or ethanol or sum eco-friendly thing? Or fossil fuels (use us and no-one gets hurt! - obscure simpsons refernece)
 
a plane that runs on air would be awesome.
*has enough air to take off*
-at 1000m-
*plane runs out of air, starts to descend*
-at 100m-
*plane has taken in enough air from vertical descent that it can run again*
-at 1000m-
*plane runs out of fuel*

would be SO awesome!
 
It's interesting to monitor the developments in experimental vehicles, but they're still a far cry from being practical.
The cost of filling up these days is bloody ridiculous, I can get about 150 miles out of 14 quid's worth of fuel if I can restrain myself from cracking open the throttle. When it costs that much to power something weighing 186 kilos, I wouldn't even entertain the running costs of a car.

Personally I find the env bike quite interesting...it runs on a fuel cell. It's still a long way off being practical though, with performance that doesn't even match a learner motorcycle (I feel 125cc bikes are dangerously slow and dangerously lacking in acceleration outside of the city...), no real provision for quick refuelling and a silent bike is a dead rider waiting to happen. Any progress is good progress, though.
 
Very interesting. I'm tempted to make a joke about Air the french band but to be honest it would be a bit lame, and there's little point when I could get by with a cop-out. Ha!

Cue 'a load of hot air' jokes or similar.

Aren't fuelcells still pretty inefficient?
 
Very interesting. I'm tempted to make a joke about Air the french band but to be honest it would be a bit lame, and there's little point when I could get by with a cop-out. Ha!

Cue 'a load of hot air' jokes or similar.

Aren't fuelcells still pretty inefficient?

I don't know, but four hours seems pretty impressive to me.
I got about 80 miles to the gallon out of the 125cc I rode for a couple of weeks, which is two or three hours I suppose...so if we're assuming that the fuel consumption is similar, that's the equivalent of about 9 litres. Not too shabby for a currently useless technology.
Then again, I don't know what kind of torque the env bike has. It could have all the acceleration of a 50cc scooter.
 
That's not bad at all. But in terms of energy consumption? Ah well, they can't be that bad if German buses use them (???).
 
But it uses electricity to generate the thing which turns the air into fuel right? Or have I got this completly wrong. Anyway, it looks awesome.
The important difference is, fossil fuels create far more pollution than nuclear power plants and the like. So while you're using the same amount of energy, the energy used in the compressed air car is coming from a source that causes less pollution.
 
That's not bad at all. But in terms of energy consumption? Ah well, they can't be that bad if German buses use them (???).

I wasn't aware that German buses used them.
What you have to laugh about though is that the diesel-spewing buses they use in this country create 128 times more emissions than your average car. So Red Ken is busy dragging people out of their cars by creating stupid bus lanes and unncessary traffic lights that cause untold congestion, and the Kengestion charge when actually the environment would be healthier if everyone drove instead of taking the bus!
Transport policy under New Labour never ceases to amaze me.
 
The important difference is, fossil fuels create far more pollution than nuclear power plants and the like. So while you're using the same amount of energy, the energy used in the compressed air car is coming from a source that causes less pollution.

I think you'll find that a fossil-fuel power station is hardly a paragon of efficiency, moreso when you factor losses in transmission into the equation.

And Carbon Dioxide isn't a pollutant.
 
I wasn't aware that German buses used them.
What you have to laugh about though is that the diesel-spewing buses they use in this country create 128 times more emissions than your average car. So Red Ken is busy dragging people out of their cars by creating stupid bus lanes and unncessary traffic lights that cause untold congestion, and the Kengestion charge when actually the environment would be healthier if everyone drove instead of taking the bus!
Transport policy under New Labour never ceases to amaze me.
So a bus would have to carry 128 people to balance it out? I'm slightly skeptical, but wouldn't be all that surprised if it were true.

Frankly, buses are shit anyway. Liable to be held up in traffic or suchlike. It's the collapsing railway infrastructure I'm most worried about.
 
CO2 is a pollutant. I don't know why that's one of your points against me.
 
So a bus would have to carry 128 people to balance it out? I'm slightly skeptical, but wouldn't be all that surprised if it were true.

Yup. And that's a best case scenario, considering that cars can carry multiple occupants.

Frankly, buses are shit anyway. Liable to be held up in traffic or suchlike. It's the collapsing railway infrastructure I'm most worried about.

Public transport is important, but it shouldn't be at the expense of motorists. Bus lanes are everywhere in London, they're more of a punishment to drivers than a benefit to buses.
If you took out all the traffic lights, traffic calming moronity, priority lanes, artifically low speed limits and speed cameras you'd probably have solved the congestion problem once and for all. Most of it is created by idiotic road planning which restricts traffic flow, rather than the volume of traffic itself.
Prime example, the Target roundabout where the A406 North Circular meets the A40. The roundabout has traffic lights at every exit!
Result? The once free flowing traffic on the North Circular becomes stationary about a mile before actually reaching the roundabout. I would get so immensely frustrated if I had to sit in that queue; filtering through it is stressful enough.
It's insane. I mean, the whole point of a roundabout is to keep the traffic flowing. There are few concepts more stupid than a roundabout with traffic lights (scameras and talivans might just edge them out, though).
 
the car is useful only if there is a cheap, efficient and clean way of getting energy (nuclear plant) to compress the air.

the hybrid proposed, which would run a normal motor to compress the air is just stupid. the more energy conversions the greater the loses.

but as a city car it would be just awesome. small speeds and distances.

actually such a system would be much more efficient than a electric or hydrogen. compressing air is cheaper than making a battery and filling it or electrolyze hydrogen. not only cheaper, but more clean and safe.
 
I just wish these cars looked like normaly everday cars. That's one of the biggest things holding back these hybrid/different fuel types of cars. They all have these weird designs that turn people off.
 
it uses electricity so the energy use may be the same but the emmissions are not

I'll wait for the hybrid that compresses the air as you drive

I was thinking about that point after I posted.

However, if you were to compress air as you drive, you would need another sort of engine to compress the air. It can't be a closed system of energy.

An electric/air hybrid could be feasible but it wouldn't get you much farther. The cost of power cells big enough to power something like that would be immense.
 
The important difference is, fossil fuels create far more pollution than nuclear power plants and the like. So while you're using the same amount of energy, the energy used in the compressed air car is coming from a source that causes less pollution.

You got that right !
People are missing the point.
More flexibility by shifting one form of energy to another.
not just regular fuel --> getting from A to B.
More like:
getting from A to B <-- compressed air <-- electricity/nuclear/wind/water/dams/etc.

But you know, nothing like a roaring fuel engine of a little Harley.:cheese:
 
But you know, nothing like a roaring fuel engine of a little Harley.:cheese:

Dude, Harleys are a triumph of style over substance. They're poorly designed, shite bikes with mediocre performance which haven't really improved much since the 1970s and are incredibly overpriced.
Plus, virtually everyone who rides one is an idiot who only rides on a few of the sunniest weekends of the year, has a strange affinity for jeans, casual leather jackets with tassles which provide no protection whatsoever but apparently look cool, and open-face helmets. Then calls themselves a "biker" because they take their overpriced toy out a few times a year and follows some ridiculous American redneck image despite clearly being above that particular social strata by having so much money to waste on such a piece of crap which they barely use in the first place.

Buy Japanese. You'll thank me. ;)
 
He speaks truth.

repiV said:
Public transport is important, but it shouldn't be at the expense of motorists. Bus lanes are everywhere in London, they're more of a punishment to drivers than a benefit to buses.
If you took out all the traffic lights, traffic calming moronity, priority lanes, artifically low speed limits and speed cameras you'd probably have solved the congestion problem once and for all. Most of it is created by idiotic road planning which restricts traffic flow, rather than the volume of traffic itself.
Prime example, the Target roundabout where the A406 North Circular meets the A40. The roundabout has traffic lights at every exit!
Result? The once free flowing traffic on the North Circular becomes stationary about a mile before actually reaching the roundabout. I would get so immensely frustrated if I had to sit in that queue; filtering through it is stressful enough.
It's insane. I mean, the whole point of a roundabout is to keep the traffic flowing. There are few concepts more stupid than a roundabout with traffic lights (scameras and talivans might just edge them out, though).
Aye, which is why I'm unlikely to ever buy a car, let alone try to drive it into London. Walking does me fine.

Of course, you can't blame all London's traffic ills on idiotic planning - rather, much of it on no planning since the city grew organically. Wrenn's post-Great-Fire vision was never realised.
 
He speaks truth.

Aye, which is why I'm unlikely to ever buy a car, let alone try to drive it into London. Walking does me fine.

Of course, you can't blame all London's traffic ills on idiotic planning - rather, much of it on no planning since the city grew organically. Wrenn's post-Great-Fire vision was never realised.

Oh I agree, central London was evidently not designed for motorised transport. It's full of one way streets and narrow roads...it's really hard to find your way about. It's like a maze.
However, the traffic actually moves quite freely in town, it's the major trunk roads going from outer London inwards that are the most congested. There's plenty of space there, but the traffic is ground to a halt at every opportunity by traffic lights, hindered by speed cameras, speed bumps and bus lanes etc...

I would never drive in London either. I ride in London but I don't particularly enjoy it, it's very stressful and you have to have 150% concentration all the time. It's almost as quick as using the tube and a lot cheaper though, plus it gives you freedom and flexibility that public transport doesn't. And on my way home, I can unwind by taking a detour and going for a blast on the open road.
 
ya try bringing two baby strollers and all the supporting paraphernalia onto a bus
 
why everyone receive this technologies so negatively?
a lot of technologies whre not practical in the beginings
and oil will not last forever
 
And on my way home, I can unwind by taking a detour and going for a blast on the open road.
Which is why I love living in the Country, but next to a small city of 10,000 people.

There isn't a lot of public transportation around here... in fact I doubt we have a taxy service.. no buses. and walking is really out of the question cuz of the distances.

But there are tons of backroads with no marked speed limits(assumed 40 - 65), and I love driving on them because theres never cops, very very few people on them(even during our tourist season(right now(summer)), they stick to main roads). So I always take backroads for nice, relaxing, fast/slow drives. I've gone 80 on backgrounds, i've gone 20. It's nice.
 
why everyone receive this technologies so negatively?
a lot of technologies whre not practical in the beginings
and oil will not last forever

They don't.
But I'm still not going to use the technology until the benefits outweigh the problems. Why would I spend a huge amount of money on a crappy machine that can barely scrape 60mph with the wind behind you, can't be refuelled on the move, has no gears, looks like something out of Dexter's Laboratory and makes no noise (that's absolutely deadly as well as plain lame...) when the bike I have cost me just over a thousand and cruises comfortably at 125mph with plenty of acceleration left, can outaccelerate most sports cars, and doesn't come with any of the other disadvantages of the fuel cell powered bike, which range from grossly inconvinient to horrendously dangerous?
I recognise the potential, but I'm not going to embrace it for many years yet.
 
it uses electricity so the energy use may be the same but the emmissions are not

I'll wait for the hybrid that compresses the air as you drive
i believe he was refering to the energy required to compress the air at refueling stations.
edit:nvm... although the point still stands. the refueling stations would use up fossil fuels to compress the air.
 
Which is why I love living in the Country, but next to a small city of 10,000 people.

There isn't a lot of public transportation around here... in fact I doubt we have a taxy service.. no buses. and walking is really out of the question cuz of the distances.

But there are tons of backroads with no marked speed limits(assumed 40 - 65), and I love driving on them because theres never cops, very very few people on them(even during our tourist season(right now(summer)), they stick to main roads). So I always take backroads for nice, relaxing, fast/slow drives. I've gone 80 on backgrounds, i've gone 20. It's nice.

Yeah, the country is where it's at. I wouldn't want to live there though.
I live just on the edge of London though so whenever I go out for a ride it's always to the countryside, which isn't far away. Our traffic police have basically been replaced by speed cameras now (a travesty of a policy which puts revenue before safety and police-public relations) so I go at whatever speed I feel is both fun and safe.
I love overtaking dawdlers on single carriageway roads especially - move over, nail the throttle and accelerate from 45 to about 80 in about three seconds and drop back in. :D
100-120 is my usual motorway speed.
 
It just occured to me - is it not true that the production of a car uses far more fossil fuels than all the petrol for it in its entire lifespan will?
 
Yeah, the country is where it's at. I wouldn't want to live there though.
I live just on the edge of London though so whenever I go out for a ride it's always to the countryside, which isn't far away. Our traffic police have basically been replaced by speed cameras now (a travesty of a policy which puts revenue before safety and police-public relations) so I go at whatever speed I feel is both fun and safe.
I love overtaking dawdlers on single carriageway roads especially - move over, nail the throttle and accelerate from 45 to about 80 in about three seconds and drop back in.
100-120 is my usual motorway speed.
I would prefer living in the city, but there are a lot more tree's and it's nicer looking around here. I live about 15 minutes away from the city, so it's not that bad. It's really quiet during the night.. I mean last night I got home at midnight... and it was nice being able to just sit down and look up at all the stars in pure quiet. We also own more land than we would if we lived in the city, which is a definite plus.

If gas prices wern't so high I would do a lot more running around, which is why I want to live in the city. City = no extra 15 minute drive.
 
We should use horses.

Hell, it'd create more jobs, too - as long as the unemployed don't mind working with horseshit.
 
i believe he was refering to the energy required to compress the air at refueling stations.
edit:nvm... although the point still stands. the refueling stations would use up fossil fuels to compress the air.



exactly; air compression technology requires energy, likely acquired through burning fossil fuels.
 
I would prefer living in the city, but there are a lot more tree's and it's nicer looking around here. I live about 15 minutes away from the city, so it's not that bad. It's really quiet during the night.. I mean last night I got home at midnight... and it was nice being able to just sit down and look up at all the stars in pure quiet. We also own more land than we would if we lived in the city, which is a definite plus.

If gas prices wern't so high I would do a lot more running around, which is why I want to live in the city. City = no extra 15 minute drive.

Man, you have it good with fuel prices over there. Unleaded is about $7.37 per gallon here - over 70% of that is tax, of course.
I'd quite like to live near London but not in it...probably much more of a sense of community out in one of the commuter towns. I may move out into the green belt one day.
 
Dude, Harleys are a triumph of style over substance. They're poorly designed, shite bikes with mediocre performance which haven't really improved much since the 1970s and are incredibly overpriced.
Plus, virtually everyone who rides one is an idiot who only rides on a few of the sunniest weekends of the year, has a strange affinity for jeans, casual leather jackets with tassles which provide no protection whatsoever but apparently look cool, and open-face helmets. Then calls themselves a "biker" because they take their overpriced toy out a few times a year and follows some ridiculous American redneck image despite clearly being above that particular social strata by having so much money to waste on such a piece of crap which they barely use in the first place.

Buy Japanese. You'll thank me. ;)

:| , are you implying that some of the people who ride crotch rockets at over 100mph and fly off their bikes rounding turns with no protection to their heads are making the wiser decision?

Harley Davidson is actually a more ethical company than most of the Japanese ones, rarely if ever outsourcing workers and providing jobs to many people in Milwaukee (I live in milw. though, so I'm a bit biased)

http://www.bus.wisc.edu/update/winter03/harley.asp <--
 
Back
Top