THPorsche

Just a girl from the internet, her name is Sarah Karges

fast1

I hear you, but you can take that theory too far. IMO by far the best practice is to conserve fuel and at the same time agressively look for alternatives to oil. It's reckless to continue to use up as much oil as we have, and then expect that there will be some scientific breakthrough in the future to save us.

BTW Porsches aren't the problem. It's those low mileage SUVs and trucks that seem to comprise about half of the traffic in my area. Recently one of my neighbors had a birthday party for her ten year old son. I couldn't help but smile when I saw all of the soccer moms pulling up in their SUVs to attend the party. Out of the fourteen vehicles driven by the moms, two were cars and the rest were SUVs.

meaker

One of the biggest problems is here in the US everybody thinks bigger is better. Look how many Suburbans, Expedtions, Tahoes, and other huge trucks are on the road.. I mean does every soccer mom need that big of a car to haul a couple 3 foot tall kids around....NO

911Dave

How typically arrogant of humans to think they're invincible. I suppose the Roman Empire is still thriving, eh?

Le Chef

Fear of the unknown. We reject what we can't see or can't imagine. We mourn the loss of what we have before we "lose" it.

I don't believe we will lose performance, but we may end up redefining it. One thing I'm amazed about is how much fun older cars are on their skinny tires. You can have fun in an old Austin-Healy Sprite at 30mph where a 997 only begins to be fun at 80mph.

And yes safety is of course a paramount concern but why can't we have good economy, low emissions, fun and safety in a smallish package? Yes it will probably include strong and lightweight materials but Boeing and AI are making big steps in how materials like CF can be mass produced, thus lowering the cost substantially.

geof

Point taken. (Though it can be said that the descendants of the Roman Empire landed on the moon and built your 997! So they did eventually prevail! )

But the story that things are decaying is a story that is as old as history. Even the creation myths of the ancient Greeks described the first men as made of gold, the later made of less precious metals, and the "current" men as inferior in every way, seemingly also suggesting man's downward spiral. And also we all to often hear "thing's ain't what they used to be" with lament, when in reality we should be saying "thank God things ain't what they used to be" more often. The drug of lament is related to the drug of nostalgia!

Barring something like a total collapse of society, I think cars in 30 years from now will be much more capable than they are now, just maybe not in a way that satisfies the "purist".

dD/dt

Interesting point. In the 19th century, aluminum was so rare and expensive, it was made into jewelry. Rich families on the continent discarded their sterling flatware in favor of aluminum. Hopefully technology will allow CF to come down in price.

Marv

Actually, it my not be thriving, but historians can make a good case that it never really fell after all.

cello

That does appear to be the sine wave of our history unfortunately (in thankfully large time frames); Quoting Jay Farrer/Son Volt: .. from chaos to order and back again ...

Creativity will find a way but only if allowed. The wild card is governmental regulatory control. Enthusiasts, by definition push the envelope of their chosen hobby, and therefore must aways fear the 'we know whats better for you' mentality than runs rampant in most than seek to govern.

Marv

I am seriously thinking of building an electric car, either on my own chassis or a 911. It would be a technological challenge that I think would be fun and achievable. The requirements would be a parity in performance to an existing stock 996 or 997 with a lower overall top speed.

The overall driving experience would not be the same at all. You are spot on about that The big drawback is the loss of the wonderful engine sound. Apart from that (and limited range due to present battery designs), the rest would be a plus.

For instance, no clutch required, but you could still shift. Full torque at zero RPM up to max RPM, which is going to be about 13,000 RPM. So you only need 2 or 3 gears at most. Reverse can be done electrically.

You can use two motors to independently drive each rear wheel and have the ultimate in traction control. Regenerative braking for the rear wheels would cut down on rotor size and unsprung weight. Much, much lower center of gravity. For a first cut I am thinking of mounting two or more motors in-line; coupling the shafts together and mounting them inside the transmission tunnel.

Other perks are much, much lower maintenance costs. Virtually no wear on parts and the propulsion system is so much simpler than a gas engine with several order of magnitude less parts.

Never stop at a gas station again, except for food. Operational cost would be about 10% to 20% per mile compared to gasoline.

The biggest challenge is the battery system, but there are advances in this arena now and I think 5 or so years you will see some significant breakthroughs hit the markets. You can still use present technology and swap out for future technology when it arrives, so not that big of a deal.

I think the performance potential is enormous and it would be a fun project technologically. And the look on the guys face at the smog station as he tries to find the tail pipe - priceless.

However, I am loath to surrender my GT3 anytime soon!!!

nyca

the ability and power of government to regulate is endless.

just today, NHTSA will soon require rear radar on all cars to prevent parents from running over their children. can't those parents make their own decisions to purchase such an item if they need it? instead, Corvettes and 911s will have to get rear collision sensors someday.

Marv

That is lame. Try this. More and more cars come with black boxes (like those in aircraft) that log vehicle dynamics like speed, acceleration, and driving conditions. The police and insurance companies have impounded that data after crashes to be used in the investigation.

Given that 99.99% of motorists speed you can expect this data to be used against motorists by police and insurance companies.

Already insurance companies are offering their clients a discount on there auto insurance if they purchase a car with a black box and allow periodic monitoring of the data to insure that the owner does not drive in a way that is deemed unsafe. If you are caught, you "discount" goes away.

There is no reason to believe that police will be able to ask for this data on demand when you are stopped as further evidence of infractions.

Adding GPS can not only tell where you are, but at what vehicle speeds you are traveling, where, and any stop signs you may have violated in the process.

Most people are totally unaware of the black boxes existence sine auto makers are not advertising the potential of the systems and how they are being used.

I am sure the insurance companies, transportation department, and law enforcement see this as a panacea to curb speeding and accidents.

Welcome to the digital age.

ChipAZ

The thing that worries me is that they will lower speed limits back to 55. Which for Nixon was a political move to show he was doing something about the oil crisis. I could see either democratic candidates doing that especially Hillary. My C4S gets around 23mpg at 80, but driving it around at 55 would be like watching my nails grow.

Le Chef

Any smart government (note not whoever becomes President) will use the threat of the 55 mph against car manufacturers and gas companies to do more for the environment. It's all about horse trading.

cello

Sorry, but that is naive: It is always about revenue. The Reps have them as donors and will threaten only for more monies; the Dems may threaten and then will ultimately take the donations; the States, however, would love it as it would generate greater revenue from traffic tickets. There is your triune (and theres nothing environmentally friendly about any of it).