NationStates Jolt Archive

The Zero-Pollution MDI Air Car, invented in France and licensed by India's Tata Motors, will go on sale in the U.S. by 2010 (http://www.businessweek.com/lifestyle/content/mar2008/bw2008032_603456.htm?chan=autos_autos+--+lifestyle+subindex+page_top+stories)

The Zero-Pollution MDI Air Car, invented in France and licensed by Tata Motors in India, is coming to American shores. Zero Pollution Motors have announced they will begin taking reservations for the first U.S. deliveries in the next couple of months, but it will be 2010 before Americans get their first taste of the ingenious compressed-air motor, which runs to 35 mph entirely on air, or uses a trickle of petrol to heat and compress more air to reach higher speeds up to 90 mph. It'll cost next to nothing to run (how do 30,000 km service intervals sound?), have a range of up to 1000 miles, and retail for well under $20,000.

So, what do you think of this?

My only comment for it is: Neat.

According to the site, the car is a:

6-seater,
I don't have that many friends. :(

4-door,
Well, that's better than the 2-door I drive now.

75 hp,
Okay, I don't know much about cars, but even I know that 75 hp is crap.

dual-energy MDI Air Car.
Well, isn't that just magical.

I probably wouldn't be able to afford one anyways, but I'd certainly like to wait and see how this thing works out before I jump up and pre-order one.

Doesnt look like it'd meet US safety standards to me. Sort of like the Smart Car/Micro-Mini/whatever.
I bet its highway performance isnt too good either. And people in areas where it'd be useful probably either dont own cars, or are rich enough that global warming doesnt bother them.

Okay, I don't know much about cars, but even I know that 75 hp is crap.


Meh, crap... it depends. If you're going to use it to tow a roulotte at 130 km/h on a motorway, yes. If you have to commute within the city limits with top speed of 50 km/h, it's ok.

Anyway, I don't trust this air thingy too much, at least yet. I'd rather choose hydrogen-oxygen fuel cells and electric motors, or propane-fueled Otto cycle, or methane-fueled Diesel cycle.

Doesnt look like it'd meet US safety standards to me.

Doesn't matter the hippies will throw a fit if any sort of common sense or standards are used to "stop this car" from reaching the market.

Doesn't matter the hippies will throw a fit if any sort of common sense or standards are used to "stop this car" from reaching the market.

So according to you, anybody in favor of alternative fuel vehicles is a 'hippie'?

Basically... its a slightly improved golf cart.

Doesnt look like it'd meet US safety standards to me.

And you are basing this on what exactly?

Doesn't matter the hippies will throw a fit if any sort of common sense or standards are used to "stop this car" from reaching the market.
THE VAST JEWISH NSG CONSPIRACY REARS ITS UGLY HEAD ONCE AGAIN!

And you are basing this on what exactly?

Doesnt look like it'd meet US safety standards to me.
Emphasis mine.

And you are basing this on what exactly?

My guess would be that Tata isn't an approved importee and has no dealerships, so there's no reason to expect that they'd make anything to US safety specs. Even if they try to leverage the Jaguar and Land Rover dealerships they get with the deal from Ford, that's a SMALL footprint.

Then there are these reasons why it might have issues in the US:
http://www.popularmechanics.com/automotive/new_cars/4217016.html
* ALL GLUE CONSTRUCTION. (Do I need to comment?)
* The $12,700 CityCAT, one of a handful of planned Air Car models, can hit 68 mph and has a range of 125 miles. (That's 68 on a flat surface. Good luck on hills... ergo that 125 range in Kansas or Manhattan becomes 75 miles or less in Pennsylvania or San Francisco!)
* Needs 340 litres of air at 4350 psi. (That's *WAY* above what any gas station has right now.)
* Drivers also will be able to plug into the electrical grid and use the car’s built-in compressor to refill the tanks in about 4 hours. (Great if you're home, not so good for long distance driving).

My guess would be that Tata isn't an approved importee and has no dealerships, so there's no reason to expect that they'd make anything to US safety specs. Even if they try to leverage the Jaguar and Land Rover dealerships they get with the deal from Ford, that's a SMALL footprint.

Then there are these reasons why it might have issues in the US:
http://www.popularmechanics.com/automotive/new_cars/4217016.html
* ALL GLUE CONSTRUCTION. (Do I need to comment?)
* The $12,700 CityCAT, one of a handful of planned Air Car models, can hit 68 mph and has a range of 125 miles. (That's 68 on a flat surface. Good luck on hills... ergo that 125 range in Kansas or Manhattan becomes 75 miles or less in Pennsylvania or San Francisco!)
* Needs 340 litres of air at 4350 psi. (That's *WAY* above what any gas station has right now.)
* Drivers also will be able to plug into the electrical grid and use the car’s built-in compressor to refill the tanks in about 4 hours. (Great if you're home, not so good for long distance driving).

Thank you, that is rather questionable at best.

i wonder how it handles in snow. i have to deal with that a lot. i'm all for it anyway, since i know there are plenty of places that snow isn't an issue.

(mind you, i don't think you need a 4wd suv in snow either. my best snow driving car was my honda civic with 5 spd manual transmission.)

wait, so this is a magical car that emits no noise, is invisible along with the roads it runs on, makes the peoples bums who ride in it not only slender but also well formed and lets not forget never runs over anything?

by God what an age we live in :)

* ALL GLUE CONSTRUCTION. (Do I need to comment?)

you may be slightly surprised with what they do with glue these days (and you could buy a cheap model and drive high on hot days!)

My guess would be that Tata isn't an approved importee and has no dealerships, so there's no reason to expect that they'd make anything to US safety specs. Even if they try to leverage the Jaguar and Land Rover dealerships they get with the deal from Ford, that's a SMALL footprint.

Then there are these reasons why it might have issues in the US:
http://www.popularmechanics.com/automotive/new_cars/4217016.html
* ALL GLUE CONSTRUCTION. (Do I need to comment?)
* The $12,700 CityCAT, one of a handful of planned Air Car models, can hit 68 mph and has a range of 125 miles. (That's 68 on a flat surface. Good luck on hills... ergo that 125 range in Kansas or Manhattan becomes 75 miles or less in Pennsylvania or San Francisco!)
* Needs 340 litres of air at 4350 psi. (That's *WAY* above what any gas station has right now.)
* Drivers also will be able to plug into the electrical grid and use the car’s built-in compressor to refill the tanks in about 4 hours. (Great if you're home, not so good for long distance driving).

"Glue" can be significantly stronger than steel.

I think that in general the American people are prepared to make little to no sacrifices to become more enviromentally friendly. If you can give people the same cars at the same price but with zero pollution they may be interested, but otherwise not so much.

Basically... its a slightly improved golf cart.

meh, if it was street legal I'd probably buy one. My commute doesn't include the highway or need of a lot of horses. Getting enough room to carpool and being able to afford to carpool are pretty much it.

I think that in general the American people are prepared to make little to no sacrifices to become more enviromentally friendly. If you can give people the same cars at the same price but with zero pollution they may be interested, but otherwise not so much.

Well, I'm certainly not going to spend extra money for an "eco-friendly" car. My budget is seriously limited as it is, and at this point I couldn't afford a new car anyways.
Most of these sacrifices usually invole spending more cash, and the [shocking] truth is that most people can't afford environmentally friendly lives. Besides, I'm content with harming the environment so long as I can still pay for the stuff I want/need (though it's been a lot less of want lately).

I think that in general the American people are prepared to make little to no sacrifices to become more enviromentally friendly. If you can give people the same cars at the same price but with zero pollution they may be interested, but otherwise not so much.

what we need is say 5 easy ways to save the planet ;) (http://youtube.com/watch?v=oPkOFwaGKG0)

The problem with this car is that, for the first several years of its existence, it's going to be a piece of junk. Japanese cars sucked when they first hit the market; they got better and can keep pace with other cars. Same with Korean cars. People will buy them to avoid paying through the nose for gas, but they won't be praised for anything else at first.

I think that in general the American people are prepared to make little to no sacrifices to become more enviromentally friendly. If you can give people the same cars at the same price but with zero pollution they may be interested, but otherwise not so much.

Because most 'eco-friendly' cars are rather expensive, IE: Out of the budget of your average American driver.
Sure its short sighted, but if YOU have to choose between, say, food, and reducing global automobile emissions by 1/1,000,000,000th, its really no contest.

Now, in a few years, though, I imagine that if it isnt the standard, hybrid cars will at least be more common. And we'll be paying $10 per gallon for gas here in the US.
And Europeans will be paying the standard x4 markup.

"Glue" can be significantly stronger than steel.

True, but not at this pricepoint. ;)

I think that in general the American people are prepared to make little to no sacrifices to become more enviromentally friendly. If you can give people the same cars at the same price but with zero pollution they may be interested, but otherwise not so much.

As opposed to whom? That's a trait of HUMANITY. People will usually try for the better, not the greener.

...now, I'm not saying that America is a paragon of energy efficiency, but it's way above many other countries. Likewise, Europe has seen a 10 year REDUCTION in train usage in favor of automobiles. Let's not leverage the world's energy problems on the mom with 3 kids in a GMC Yukon. Sure, that's a factor, but it's hardly the only one, let alone a major one.

The Zero-Pollution MDI Air Car, invented in France and licensed by India's Tata Motors, will go on sale in the U.S. by 2010 (http://www.businessweek.com/lifestyle/content/mar2008/bw2008032_603456.htm?chan=autos_autos+--+lifestyle+subindex+page_top+stories)



So, what do you think of this?

My only comment for it is: Neat.

I bet it will be as successful as cars made by this company
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phoenix_Motorcars

they even got SUT's and other cars that actually meet safety standards and have some sort of leg room.

[QUOTE=Subistratica;13630334]

Okay, I don't know much about cars, but even I know that 75 hp is crap.
QUOTE]

It's not a question of power, it's the power-to-weight ratio. It'll probably perform poorly above 35-45 mph, but for commuting it should work fine. What concerns me is the extreme low weight and lack of structure. Some of these experimental cars are little more than cardboard.

As opposed to whom? That's a trait of HUMANITY. People will usually try for the better, not the greener.


Opposed to nothing. This is a thread about the U.S market.


...now, I'm not saying that America is a paragon of energy efficiency, but it's way above many other countries.

Like who?

Zero pollution my arse.

...now, I'm not saying that America is a paragon of energy efficiency, but it's way above many other countries.

Hmm. I actually have trouble thinking of a single country where the general population is more energy inefficient than the USA. The USSR was - but that does not exist anymore. Most 3rd world countries cannot afford the luxury of being inefficient. In most smaller European countries commuting is usually done over small distances, often involving public transport or even bikes, since people tend to live relatively close to their job.

Can you specify a few ?

If i could afford one, i would SO buy one...

Hmm. I actually have trouble thinking of a single country where the general population is more energy inefficient than the USA. The USSR was - but that does not exist anymore. Most 3rd world countries cannot afford the luxury of being inefficient. In most smaller European countries commuting is usually done over small distances, often involving public transport or even bikes, since people tend to live relatively close to their job.

Can you specify a few ?

China, India, Korea, Russian Federation...those are the only ones I can think of, and thats just because theyre copying our Template for their Energy Needs...

All we need to do is build more highly efficient electric cars and get some solar power going at gas stations in case people need to 'charge up' on the go.

My guess is that charging the battery is a slow process however.

When I scrolled down the page, I thought the topic read "Zero Point Energy Field Manipulator". I was disappointed.

I mean, I guess this is kinda cool. But I'd still rather have a Gravity gun.

No one is gonna want to drive in this:

http://images.businessweek.com/story/08/370/0302_mdi_air_car.jpg

which is a shame since this technology looks very good.

[licensed by India's Tata Motors

Ok this is my 12 year old comment of the day but they call themselves Breast Motors? LOL.

Ok this is my 12 year old comment of the day but they call themselves Breast Motors? LOL.

That's the founders name

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tata_Motors#History

No one is gonna want to drive in this:

http://images.businessweek.com/story/08/370/0302_mdi_air_car.jpg

which is a shame since this technology looks very good.

Yeah, i would hope theyd come out with a more American Model before they attempt to sell it here...

When I scrolled down the page, I thought the topic read "Zero Point Energy Field Manipulator". I was disappointed.

I mean, I guess this is kinda cool. But I'd still rather have a Gravity gun.

Sorry :(

Hmm. I actually have trouble thinking of a single country where the general population is more energy inefficient than the USA. The USSR was - but that does not exist anymore. Most 3rd world countries cannot afford the luxury of being inefficient. In most smaller European countries commuting is usually done over small distances, often involving public transport or even bikes, since people tend to live relatively close to their job.

Can you specify a few ?

Good examples!

Sure. Given a per capita quotient, that's true. If we go by % of the global GNP, you'll find that the US, China and combined EU are about equal, and that MOST countries actually consume more than they produce -- extreme examples being North Korea or Belarus, more mainstream ones being Italy or The Netherlands.

IE: The Netherlands used 1,011,000 bbl/day oil consumption for a GDP of $638,900,000,000. The US used 20,800,000 bbl.day and has a GDP of 13,860,000,000,000. Ergo while the Netherlands used only 1/20th of the amount of oil as the US per diem, it only produced 4.6% of the GDP instead of the 5% it would have done to be as oil efficient as the US!

All data taken from:
https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2174rank.html
https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2001rank.html

Cool concept.

Lame ass results.

That is one of the lamest cars I've ever seen.

Plus, it only goes 45mph? Wtf?! That would be useless where I live! I drive up to 70mph every damn day!

I'd be run off the road and killed if I drove this little cardboard deathbox!

They should make the car look better and go faster for cheap.

Maybe the 3rd or 4th generation will be acceptable...

Sorry :(

'Tis alright. Perhaps Half-Life 2 has spoiled me.

Tata Motors is actually a fairly large company. They just recently bought... I think it was either Jaguar or Land Rover from Ford recently. They're also the largest auto manufacturing company in India, if I remember correctly.

Unfortunately, there's a few problems here. For one, the car isn't truly a "zero-emissions vehicle." Sure, there's no emission at the tailpipe, but there's a great deal of electric energy needed to drive air compressors for the vehicle, which is created via (currently) fossil fuels. Also, 35 mph isn't quite quick enough for a good deal of streets and highways, and gas is still going to be needed. Finally, because there's a great deal of pressure that is let off from the air tank, the tank cools and decreases the air pressure in the tank (similar to taking a spray duster or the like and pulling the trigger - the can cools fairly rapidly, and pressure is lost), requiring another on board heater to be applied, along with heating and cooling equipment for the passengers. And, I'm sure, these figures obtained only include the weight of the driver and the vehicle, so the actual speed of the vehicle would vary on loading.


However, this isn't exactly a step in the wrong direction. I certainly prefer this type of vehicle to a hydrogen fuel cell car.

Zero pollution? Of course! No pollution was generated in the creating of the component of the car, and the air was compressed by millions of Indians blowing into really big ballons.:rolleyes:

China, India, Korea, Russian Federation...those are the only ones I can think of, and thats just because theyre copying our Template for their Energy Needs...

Isn't India the country that doesn't provide even electricity for anyone around the clock, no matter where you live or how rich you are?

No one is gonna want to drive in this:

http://images.businessweek.com/story/08/370/0302_mdi_air_car.jpg

which is a shame since this technology looks very good.
True that, I'm glad though that there áre cool clean cars, like this one: http://images.google.nl/imgres?imgurl=http://www.fuel-efficient-vehicles.org/energy-news/wp-content/uploads/tesla-roadster-at-pacific.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1980826/posts%3Fq%3D1%26%3Bpage%3D51&h=369&w=492&sz=68&hl=nl&start=3&um=1&tbnid=MTtt2js2nzv57M:&tbnh=97&tbnw=130&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dtesla%2Broadster%26um%3D1%26hl%3Dnl%26sa%3DN
I'm glad though, that we're setting steps to a cleaner society, even though it hurts my eyes :p

The Zero-Pollution MDI Air Car, invented in France and licensed by India's Tata Motors, will go on sale in the U.S. by 2010 (http://www.businessweek.com/lifestyle/content/mar2008/bw2008032_603456.htm?chan=autos_autos+--+lifestyle+subindex+page_top+stories)



So, what do you think of this?

Will these Tatas be bodacious? :D

I hope they go with the advertising slogan

Tata for now

Will these Tatas be bodacious? :D

Any guy driving one of these things better hope so, cause he certainly won't be getting the real thing.:p

20's plenty, on most roads so a car that can go over 80mph should be fine on any road. anyway if you go faster then that ur just get a speeding ticket, aside from police cars,abulances,fire trucks and race cars who needs to go that fast?
so most peolpe can use a air-car and if u need to go faster on a regular basis then buy a normal car.

No one is gonna want to drive in this:

http://images.businessweek.com/story/08/370/0302_mdi_air_car.jpg

which is a shame since this technology looks very good.

this is a early desgine, as it gets more popular peolpe will want desginer versions and car makers will make better looking ones to compete with them.

its all economics, it starts ugly, but som rich ecos will pimp it up, then start selling them, soon the car dealers loose bissness and make inproved versions,

but thier is a danger- what if peolpe get used to this look and all cars start lookinng sci-fi- it would be the end of fashion as we know it!:eek:

i think it looks cool, but a) i like my car's performance, and b) i do quite a lot of long(ish) distance driving and this may not do if its built for inner-city and short runs...

i get the better part of 50mpg anyway :) (ok, its not that eco-friendly, but its better than it could be)

The Zero-Pollution MDI Air Car, invented in France and licensed by India's Tata Motors, will go on sale in the U.S. by 2010 (http://www.businessweek.com/lifestyle/content/mar2008/bw2008032_603456.htm?chan=autos_autos+--+lifestyle+subindex+page_top+stories)



So, what do you think of this?

My only comment for it is: Neat.

sounds like a marketing spin on perpetual motion. the use of compressed air IS a very 'clean' way of storing energy, and other then noise polutions, a very clean way of propelling mechanical transportation with stored energy.

where you GET the compressed air to propell it with, like where you get the electricity to charge a battery, or wind a clockwork, or spin up a massive flywheel, is the other shoe side of the equasion.

that COULD be a completely clean grid fed by solar cells on everyone's roof and windmills in our own back yards and all the other noncombustion based tecnologies for collecting and storing energy fed into the same grid.

so i'm not totally panning the concept, just the extremity of hype, and what that extremity of hype encourages people to deceive themselves into assuming. that everyone will always own their own personal vehicule and that it is perfectly 'clean', which it is not, to base the vast majority of all mobility on our doing so.

road building and maintainence on the scale personal vehicules being the primary means of transportation requires is a very environmentally UNfriendly proposition entirely. and one that most people don't seem inclined to admit to themselves or even notice.

a perfectly clean car, if there were such a thing, wouldn't be a bad step, or in a completely wrong direction. it just still as alway, addresses only half of that half of the problem.

roadbuilding and power generation are still both as big elements, and as always compounded by a bloated human population. even if that power is stored and transmitted in the form of compressed air. which incidentally, still requires some lubricants, though perhapse not as much as completely mechanical means of storing energy, and does of course have a 'green' advantage over even the best of batteries, though electric traction motors require the least lubricants of all.

but then the're also talking about burning 'tiney amounts' (gee mom, its only just a little) of something to warm the compressed air (to squeze a few more miles per pounds per square inch out of it, or maintain them under extremely low ambient temperature conditions, no doubt.)

the're also talking about first costs in the range that people take out mortgages for.

compressed air as a means of storing energy to propel transportation IS an excellent approach. maybe the greenest of all.

but that transportation remaining primarily in the form of personal vehicules, is only optimal in vast expanses of extremely low population density, where more shared forms to mobility are least practical. and THAT is where a far smaller percentage of population actually live, then the dominant culture and its exploiters are yet willing to let most of us realize.

so fine, good, i'm certainly not against it, but dam, i'm not seeing it as some sort of cure all magical panacea.

i still see a future, one of high tecnology, but using it to live closer to nature, in which most transportation will NOT remain dependent on everyone being coerced into indenturing themselves to ownership of a personal motor vehicule.

there are too many reality factors contrary, and those intrests promoting so they can exploit coersing a majority into that indenture seem unlikely at some point to continue perpetually surviving those factors.

and it WILL be a cleaner world, when more of mechanical transportation is NOT of a personal vehicule nature.

=^^=
.../\...

This is amazing, but should I be worried about the engine exploding?

This is amazing, but should I be worried about the engine exploding?

probably not at all. ever use pneumatic power tools? you know the kind with a hose that's plugged into a compressor. that's what compressed air propulsion is. a bit noisy isn't it? but otherwise no less clean then its source of compressed air.

also engine? WHAT ENGINE? propulsion by stored energy, energy in the form of compressed air, involves pneumatic traction motors, like the air motors in pneumatic power tools. if we're talking STORED energy, there is NO "engine" as such. only the battery, in this case pressure vessle for holding the compressed air. regulatory mechanism to valve that to the pneumatic traction motor(s) and those pneumatic motors themselves.

if this thing has anything that can be properly called an "engine" i smell SCAM in really large letters.

=^^=
.../\...

this is a early desgine, as it gets more popular peolpe will want desginer versions and car makers will make better looking ones to compete with them.

its all economics, it starts ugly, but som rich ecos will pimp it up, then start selling them, soon the car dealers loose bissness and make inproved versions,

but thier is a danger- what if peolpe get used to this look and all cars start lookinng sci-fi- it would be the end of fashion as we know it!:eek:

please use a spell checker. Or get Firefox, it has one built-in AFAIK.

But I agree, at least with the parts I could kinda read, the design will surely change sooner or later.

No one is gonna want to drive in this:

http://images.businessweek.com/story/08/370/0302_mdi_air_car.jpg

which is a shame since this technology looks very good.

Personally, I think it looks neat.

20's plenty, on most roads so a car that can go over 80mph should be fine on any road. anyway if you go faster then that ur just get a speeding ticket, aside from police cars,abulances,fire trucks and race cars who needs to go that fast?
so most peolpe can use a air-car and if u need to go faster on a regular basis then buy a normal car.
It's a dick waving thing. The faster your car goes the bigger your cock.

The faster your car goes the smaller your cock.

Fixed :D

Until aviation, transportation, entertainers, corporate executives, politicians, diplomats, military, and any other entities upon the globe which cling to tried and proven technologies, begin to embrace (beyond the token amusement) such "new advancements", the majority of the populace will have a hard time swallowing a switch for themselves but not everyone else. Hypocracy can be a tough pill to swallow.

Besides, compressed gas engineering is hardly new; at such levels of power imagine the renovations upon infrastructure which would be necessitated (beginning with my driveway). Such renovations have a big non-green impact.

It sounds like more "feel-good" token greenness. We can feel great about doing our part in reducing emissions in our back yard...but somewhere, there will be pollution and waste to compress that gas for us and to get it to our air stations...waste which would not have existed if we hadn't felt some misguided need to feel better about our activities.

This essentially seems like feel good steam locomotion...feel good because the polluting gas compression mechanism is not on-board. Out of sight, out of mind, right?

Personally, I think it looks neat.

That's because you have bad taste.

That's because you have bad taste.

I like cars that look different.

It's a dick waving thing. The faster your car goes the bigger your cock.

Well most people want to drive faster than 20, as the other poster said it was fine.

20 miles an hour is NOT fine. It would take absolutely forever to get anywhere going 20mph.

Like I said before, this is a neat concept, but the car looks horrible and it doesn't go fast enough.

Well most people want to drive faster than 20, as the other poster said it was fine.

20 miles an hour is NOT fine. It would take absolutely forever to get anywhere going 20mph.

Like I said before, this is a neat concept, but the car looks horrible and it doesn't go fast enough.

Totally, this is very original and I am personally amazed that someone found a way to propel a car on compressed air that runs as well as this one does.

The inherent problem here is that an electric car will clean this car's clock in almost every category. speed, acceleration, range, possibly even electricity consumption I'm not sure. And a hybrid car will do even better than that. And, although a lot of us hate to admit it, a straight up gasoline engine will out preform all of the above.

Its an awesome concept but nobody should pay $13,000 for a car that goes 45 mph for 60-100 miles (depending on road elevation and number of stop signs) and then needs to be recharged for 4 hours.

On another note, Hybrid technology is sort of my main hobby right now. My senior research project is on hybrid technology. I think someone should make a steam/electric hybrid that weighs less than 800 kg (the original VW beetle weighed 550 I believe) and has a coefficient of drag less than .1 (requires a bullet shaped fiberglass exterior). If I did my math right, you could accelerate faster than a Honda Civic and cruise at 60mph for 4 hours using ONLY 2kw of power assuming you carried 36 kg of lithium-ion batteries aboard. And if the power is regenerated by a steam engine, you could run said vehicle off of gasoline, methane, charcoal, wood pellets, sticks that you find behind your house, anything really. Anyway, thats just my 2 sense.

My guess is that charging the battery is a slow process however.

Wait till you try filling your 'fuel tank' with compressed air.

Air heats up very fast when pressurized and increases in volume..so you can only fill the tank kinda slooooooooow.

Or we can have quick interchangeable mechanism where we can drop used tanks and pick full tanks.

Ok this is my 12 year old comment of the day but they call themselves Breast Motors? LOL.

Get used to it. You will be hearing about the Tata's more in the coming days.

I literally couldn't use it. There are no roads bordering my house that have a speed limit under 35 mph.

No one is gonna want to drive in this:

http://images.businessweek.com/story/08/370/0302_mdi_air_car.jpg

which is a shame since this technology looks very good.

There's some very good concerns about the practicality of the car in this thread, but are you seriously going to damn a car on the way it looks? Priorities seem to be a bit mixed up here.

There's some very good concerns about the practicality of the car in this thread, but are you seriously going to damn a car on the way it looks? Priorities seem to be a bit mixed up here.

Not so much the looks as the size.

I like cars that look different.

Again, That's because you have bad taste. (j/k)

Well most people want to drive faster than 20, as the other poster said it was fine.

20 miles an hour is NOT fine. It would take absolutely forever to get anywhere going 20mph.

Like I said before, this is a neat concept, but the car looks horrible and it doesn't go fast enough.

20 mph would be fine... for going about 500 feet up the street. But after that is a 40 mph zone, so this car definitely wouldn't work.
Also, there are a surprising number of 45-50 mph roads around me... and you can't get anywhere quickly without using a highway.

And since I live near the bottom of a hill (on a cul-de-sac street), I'd be wondering if this thing could make it up to the top... and not like The Little Engine That Could.

Again, That's because you have bad taste. (j/k)

I can live with that...