You annoying little electric ****!!!
Discussion
Prius looks different so w*nker actor types can point to it and say 'see look it's electric and different aren't I brilliant?'
They could in fact buy an RX400h SUV but then they wouldn't get any kudos for it since it looks like a normal SUV unless you can spot the small h on the badge.
You can also get a hybrid Civic, and the hybrid LS sedan is coming soon and so are the sports cars. It's just noone can tell, so why bother if you want to flaunt your 'beardiness'?
They could in fact buy an RX400h SUV but then they wouldn't get any kudos for it since it looks like a normal SUV unless you can spot the small h on the badge.
You can also get a hybrid Civic, and the hybrid LS sedan is coming soon and so are the sports cars. It's just noone can tell, so why bother if you want to flaunt your 'beardiness'?
BliarOut said:
To me it's about being seen to be environmentally friendly without actually being environmentally friendly
Quite, in real terms you seem to get better MPG from a small diesel car rather than a hybrid. They're not cool and they're not obviously different though, so people buy the Prius...
I have actually driven a Prius 
and believe it or not it was quite an entertaining experience
For a start when they're forced into 'electric only mode' they are totaly silent. This means you can literally sneak up on cyclists then give them a quick blast on the horn and make them wobble all over they place
The car doesn't go fast enough on battery mode to be dangerous - about 15mph IRC.
The downside is they depreciate twice as badly as a Range Rover from new, and the power-pack thingy will cost you thousands to replace when it ceases to work (as all batteries do after time). As much as they sound like a great idea, you would end up doing more damage to the environment by buying one than you would using an economical petrol only engined car.
Also the novelty would soon wear off.
and believe it or not it was quite an entertaining experience For a start when they're forced into 'electric only mode' they are totaly silent. This means you can literally sneak up on cyclists then give them a quick blast on the horn and make them wobble all over they place
The car doesn't go fast enough on battery mode to be dangerous - about 15mph IRC. The downside is they depreciate twice as badly as a Range Rover from new, and the power-pack thingy will cost you thousands to replace when it ceases to work (as all batteries do after time). As much as they sound like a great idea, you would end up doing more damage to the environment by buying one than you would using an economical petrol only engined car.
Also the novelty would soon wear off.
nubbin said:
A nucular car - now that's progress!
They had that idea in the 1950s
Nuclear Enrgy website said:
Q. Are we ever likely to have nuclear powered cars?
Alas, no, if present nuclear physics is all there is to say about the possibility. A nuclear reactor engine that would provide the right amount of energy for a car could be built and would run fine and would require refuelling only every 5 or 10 years. The only problem is that it would kill the driver, the passengers, and perhaps bystanders. Nuclear reactors, as described above, produce neutrons, which are very penetrating particles and give people radiation sickness if the exposure is substantial. (All our bodies are penetrated all the time by small numbers of neutrons.) Power reactors have several feet of concrete shielding between the active part of the reactor and the operators. A big enough vehicle like an aircraft carrier or a big submarine can afford the shielding. In the 1950s some thought that nuclear nuclear aircraft were feasible. Maybe they were, but the projects were abandoned.
here is said nuclear aircraft engine
FourWheelDrift said:
We should go back to steam engines, I'm sure some bright spark can develop a compact engine, running on trees and coal of course 
BMW to the rescue!
www.pistonheads.com/news/default.asp?storyId=12717
Phew - i thought it was just me. The Prius is definitely 'in' for fashion-conscious tree-huggers.
I was following one from Putney to Guildford on the A3 this weekend. When i say following, i mean i was in the nearside lane, trying to stay behind Prius boy in the outside lane, whilst he wiggled his fat ar*e about at 10mph below the speed limit. Now i understand the need to drive economically, but to hold up other drivers is just being a d*ck, and i know it was bad but i just couldn't resist the urge to burn past him on the inside as he tried to block off an overtaking car when we got to the 3-lane bit...
P.S. my runabout is an 8-year old petrol civic that does 59mpg and looks like a normal saloon, more than that stupid Prius can manage with all it's electric gizmos.
r988 said:
A nucular car - now that's progress!
They had that idea in the 1950s
Nuclear Enrgy website said:
Q. Are we ever likely to have nuclear powered cars?
Alas, no, if present nuclear physics is all there is to say about the possibility. A nuclear reactor engine that would provide the right amount of energy for a car could be built and would run fine and would require refuelling only every 5 or 10 years. The only problem is that it would kill the driver, the passengers, and perhaps bystanders. Nuclear reactors, as described above, produce neutrons, which are very penetrating particles and give people radiation sickness if the exposure is substantial. (All our bodies are penetrated all the time by small numbers of neutrons.) Power reactors have several feet of concrete shielding between the active part of the reactor and the operators. A big enough vehicle like an aircraft carrier or a big submarine can afford the shielding. In the 1950s some thought that nuclear nuclear aircraft were feasible. Maybe they were, but the projects were abandoned.
here is said nuclear aircraft engine
Nuclear car:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ford_Nucleon
http://davidszondy.com/future/atomic/ford.htm
Neutron shielding can be done well with some substance containing a lot of light nuclei. Boron-containing paraffin wax is one good substance. So it doesn't have to weigh that much, but it's still bulky.
Parrot of Doom said:
This means you can literally sneak up on cyclists then give them a quick blast on the horn and make them wobble all over they place
Wonderful, how responsible of you.
quite, if you did that to me when I was on my bike I would kick the **** out of your car as you went past, then blame it on the 'wobble' that you caused me to do, then ride off and leave you with a nice repair bill.
zebedee said:
This means you can literally sneak up on cyclists then give them a quick blast on the horn and make them wobble all over they place
Wonderful, how responsible of you.
quite, if you did that to me when I was on my bike I would kick the **** out of your car as you went past, then blame it on the 'wobble' that you caused me to do, then ride off and leave you with a nice repair bill.
How responsible of you then Zebedee. Nice to think you would willfully cause criminal damage.
What if the driver of the "silent" car behind wanted to alert you to his presence behind you in case you decided to pull across the road in front of him? He does you a service by using the horn as it was designed to be used for and gets a kick in the door for his troubles.
I'm sure Simon's post was tongue in cheek anyway
zebedee said:
quite, if you did that to me when I was on my bike I would kick the **** out of your car as you went past, then blame it on the 'wobble' that you caused me to do, then ride off and leave you with a nice repair bill.
So you're saying you are so unobservant whilst riding your bike that you wouldn't notice a car approaching behind you?
www.specsavers.com
Pushbikes dont have mirrors because cars tend to smash them off when passing. You rely on sound to help you. If you check behind you every 30 seconds that still leaves a long time for things to change. Prius guy was just being cheeky, nothing malicious. Cyclist kicking cars needs to take a pill.
Gassing Station | The Pie & Piston Archive | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff