Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

DIY Hybrid Car Kit

ScuttleMonkey posted more than 5 years ago | from the elbow-grease-doesn't-pollute-but-may-cause-cancer dept.

Transportation 309

Hybride And The Groom writes "Building hybrids uses machinery that pollutes the environment. The solution? Ship the parts of a hybrid individually and get your customers to put the car together themselves. That's exactly what Robert Q Riley Enterprises is doing, according to a story on CNet today, with its XR-3 hybrid. It'll cost you $25,000 for the bits, plus zero dollars in manufacture, I hope. Better yet, cough up $200 for the blueprints and schematics and even build the parts yourself. It's no secret that many hybrid drivers are smug enough as it is. Allow them to brag about having built the damn cars themselves and we might be entering obscenely smug territory."

cancel ×

309 comments

Is this a first post? (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#24921729)

you bet your motherfucking hairy cock it is!

Re:Is this a first post? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#24921975)

Hey! I shave everyday thank you very much.

Re:Is this a first post? (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#24922261)

I endorse Veet [veet.com] .

Not that I remove hair above my waistline, no, that's something a Macfag(tm) would do.

Being a man, I have hair below my waistline which can be quite tuggingly and stinkily problematic during and after long bike rides or sexual encounters.

First, I tried shaving. It was the most temporary of the solutions but I found that post-exercise stink was down 87% and my bike seat tugged on my butt-hair no longer!

Advances in depilatory technology rendered my Mach-3 obsolete as I looked for a more elegant solution.

The first of the other family of solutions I tried was Nair. I found that it was more than adequate for the job with the exception of its problematic burning - using it on regular skin wasn't a problem but applying it to my testes and butthole felt like a squirt of lemon juice after a 40-grit sanding.

The aforementioned Veet is much like nair except that it is scrotum and anus-friendly. It also is easy to use on the "condom zone", that is, the hairy area at the base of the penis which may inhibit the application of certain prophylactics.

I tend to do everything below the waist and above mid-thigh and I leave a small triangle on my pubic region as removing more hair would be indicative of the dreaded MacFagDom(tm).

oh well (1)

ILuvRamen (1026668) | more than 5 years ago | (#24921733)

At least that way repair shops won't have to be all confused about fixing the new technology that they didn't have time to learn about yet cuz the owner can just swap anything out.

Re:oh well (3, Insightful)

roc97007 (608802) | more than 5 years ago | (#24922535)

> At least that way repair shops won't have to be all confused about fixing the new technology [...]

Yeah, they can be all confused trying to figure out what the user has done to the thing.

Let's take an example we can relate to. A company advertises that they can send you the parts to a PC and directions on putting it together. Many of the unwashed public take advantage of this. Local nerdshops are inundated with half-assed assembly jobs, and the natives get really unfriendly when they're told that the best thing to do is junk it as a bad investment and buy an assembled car, er, PC off the lot, er shelf.

One could argue that this deal is for people who know what they're doing. I submit that this is not exactly true -- it's for people with $25,000 who *think* they know what they're doing.

Neat idea... (2, Insightful)

KGIII (973947) | more than 5 years ago | (#24921737)

At least that one looks cool but, really, who has the time to do this? If they have the time then do they have the interest or the money?

Re:Neat idea... (2, Interesting)

Ethanol-fueled (1125189) | more than 5 years ago | (#24921867)

One could buy a new one of these [smartusa.com] for half of $25,000 for an even more smug satisfaction.

Or, one could buy 10 or more easy-to-DIY-fix old VW beetles with enough spare parts and earth-frendliness to last a lifetime.

Re:Lifetime of Beetle parts... (3, Insightful)

zmollusc (763634) | more than 5 years ago | (#24922131)

Crimeny, having had a VW Beetle I would estimate that you would have to factor in the cost of a barn to keep enough spare exhausts, wings, sills, filler, primer, welding rods etc to keep 10 of the damn things operative (at least in the UK).

Re:Lifetime of Beetle parts... (4, Funny)

gnick (1211984) | more than 5 years ago | (#24922451)

You don't keep all 10 operative. You keep 2 operative and put your 8 organ donors in the barn. 4-to-1 seems like about the right ratio to keep an old Beetle together.

Re:Lifetime of Beetle parts... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#24922633)

The intent is to only keep one operative using whatever you can strip off the other 9.

Re:Neat idea... (2, Interesting)

morgan_greywolf (835522) | more than 5 years ago | (#24922161)

Which is not a hybrid, but a standard gasoline engine (albeit a 1.0L gasoline engine)

Re:Neat idea... (4, Informative)

Rei (128717) | more than 5 years ago | (#24922235)

Smarts aren't actually that fuel efficient -- 35mpg hwy/31mpg city if I remember correctly. It's not even a regular hybrid, let alone a *plug-in hybrid*, like this vehicle. Of course, for this vehicle, ignore the BS mileage figures; most EV and PHEV manufacturers come up with fake "mpg" figures that assume you drive X miles on electricity and Y miles on gasoline, where X is much greater than Y, and then ignore the electricity. Still, it's hugely beneficial. Even from our current grid, according to a DOE study, due to the greater efficiency of power plants, you get a third lower CO2 emissions by going electric.

For those who are interested in going electric, and aren't into novelty kit cars, here's a list of 33 upcoming EVs and PHEVs [dailykos.com] , excluding motorcycles and commercial vans/semis, not counting concept cars, and not counting cars from new companies that haven't shown compelling evidence of working toward production.

Re:Neat idea... (1)

SydShamino (547793) | more than 5 years ago | (#24922363)

I have an old Miata that I will retire soon in favor of a car with a back seat. I plan to keep the car, and I've been seriously thinking about trying to convert it to electric. If I leave the transmission in place and just replace the engine, and use lead-acid batteries, I should be able to get a 25-mile range with overnight recharges.

More importantly, it would give me a chance to feel things that aren't plastic, something that bothers me about modern life. I missed the opportunity to learn car work when my grandfather died young, and I've always regretted that. I already garden and have made a choice to devote more time to the acquisition and preparation of the foods I eat. Mechanical work is just an extension of that.

----------

All that said, for $10,000 I could get a kit to build this car as electric only (lead-acid), and add the diesel engine later? Or I could get the car with a diesel engine and 125 MPG and add the electric system later when lithium ion batteries become cheaper? Both of those sound like pretty good deals to me.

Re:Neat idea... (1, Troll)

bytedoyen (1356799) | more than 5 years ago | (#24922441)

1. Based on the speed at which most Prius drivers go, they have plenty of time on their hands. and 2. wouldn't it be better to spend the money on retro-fitting older cars. Better to reuse than recycle.

buy an old S10 and convert it to electric (5, Informative)

scarbelly (56894) | more than 5 years ago | (#24921743)

there are plenty of people doing nice electric S10's for under $10k including the donor car. The 40 miles round trip per charge is almost twice what I need.

Re:buy an old S10 and convert it to electric (1)

BitterOldGUy (1330491) | more than 5 years ago | (#24921801)

there are plenty of people doing nice electric S10's for under $10k including the donor car. The 40 miles round trip per charge is almost twice what I need.

I had the same thought. Or at least a kit to put the hybrid guts in an old VW or old Hyundai - for less than $25,000 which I'm sure a lot of that cost is for that fancy ugly looking body and frame.

Re:buy an old S10 and convert it to electric (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#24922063)

That is what I am doing. It is a fun project to design and build. Plus, I needed a truck to haul stuff around town anyway. It's also safe and practical to drive, and other people wouldn't be scared to ride in it on the highway going 70 mph.

And if you do it right, most people wouldn't be able to tell from looking at it that it is an electric vehicle. It looks the same as any other truck.

Re:buy an old S10 and convert it to electric (1)

Rei (128717) | more than 5 years ago | (#24922323)

Sure, if a used vehicle, 40 miles range, 60mph top speed, very poor power, and having to replace your lead-acid batteries every 3-6 years is acceptable to you, then yes, you can do that. As for me, I need 100+ miles range, 80-90mph top speed, reasonable acceleration, and a battery pack that lasts the life of the vehicle. Hence, I'm on the waiting list for a $27k Aptera [daughtersoftiresias.org] . However, it's hardly the only such vehicle that's coming out in the next couple years; there are dozens. If, for some reason, Aptera weren't to work out, I'd probably go with a Mitsubishi i-MiEV. I just prefer the Aptera because of its extreme efficiency.

Re:buy an old S10 and convert it to electric (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#24922703)

Nuclear power is the way to go. Will the LHC come to our recue by finding a safe and cheap solution?

Re:buy an old S10 and convert it to electric (4, Interesting)

rhpenguin (655576) | more than 5 years ago | (#24922391)

Heck yes! I'm actually building an EV S-10 right now.. I'm coming in at around $7K total build costs after selling the ICE and other ICE related objects I don't need. However, my range is going to be around 150 miles.

You can get almost 100 miles from an S10 (3, Informative)

StCredZero (169093) | more than 5 years ago | (#24922587)

If you sacrifice the bed, you can get a 92 mile range commuter vehicle out of an old S10.

http://www.austinev.org/evinfo/build/eva-selectingavehicle.html [austinev.org]
http://www.evalbum.com/037 [evalbum.com]

That may be much more than what you need, but the less you draw down your batteries, the longer your batteries will last. If you never let your batteries drain below 95%, they will last much, much longer than if you're draining them halfway down every day. In the long run, this may save you a lot of money, as battery replacement is the majority of the cost per mile for running an electric vehicle.

Next... (-1, Offtopic)

Tumbleweed (3706) | more than 5 years ago | (#24921763)

on Sick, Sad World!

"Zero dollars in manufacture" (4, Insightful)

Mononoke (88668) | more than 5 years ago | (#24921767)

It'll cost you $25,000 for the bits, plus zero dollars in manufacture, I hope.

Only if your time is worth zero dollars.

Re:"Zero dollars in manufacture" (3, Funny)

pecosdave (536896) | more than 5 years ago | (#24921841)

I know some people like that. Unfortunately, since there time is actually worth close to zero dollars asking them to build it for me would get me close to zero progress wouldn't it? Actually my guess is they would screw it up so bad I would have to throw it all out and buy another kit if I tried to get them to build it for me.

Re:"Zero dollars in manufacture" (2, Interesting)

noidentity (188756) | more than 5 years ago | (#24921919)

Same goes for the zero pollution to manufacture; last time I checked, it takes food, shelter, diversions, etc. to "power" a human. I wouldn't be surprised if having people build things by hand polluted the environment more than by machine. Sure, the machine generates more obvious pollution, but it's building them tens to hundreds as times as fast as a human.

Re:"Zero dollars in manufacture" (2, Informative)

morgan_greywolf (835522) | more than 5 years ago | (#24922221)

Same goes for the zero pollution to manufacture; last time I checked, it takes food, shelter, diversions, etc. to "power" a human. I wouldn't be surprised if having people build things by hand polluted the environment more than by machine.

And that same human requires those same things regardless of whether or not he's building a car from a kit, right? At least until we can manage to make cryostasis actually work that is.

Re:"Zero dollars in manufacture" (3, Insightful)

Rei (128717) | more than 5 years ago | (#24922701)

Not exactly. Exercise increases the rate of burning calories (that's why people who want to lose weight do it). The human body is inefficient about turning food calories into kinetic energy, and plants are inefficient at turning sunlight into calories (photosynthesis is fairly efficient, but most of the energy doesn't end up stored in a way we can recover through digestion -- usually somewhere between a fraction of one percent and a few percent is). And there's all of the energy involved in growing, harvesting, processing, and transporting that food, which is often greater than the energy contained in the food.

Lastly, there's a value to time. The person could instead, for example, be building wind turbines or installing solar arrays. The biggest reason why this is a kit car is almost certainly because the maker didn't want to have to work out a cost-effective mass production system, not because it's somehow better for the environment that way.

Re:"Zero dollars in manufacture" (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#24922611)

Yeah but that human is already alive and using food, shelter, etc and polluting like you are saying. So would you rather have a machine which adds direct pollution or at least make the 'polluting' human productive. It's going to happen either way, unless you advocate killing people.

Re:"Zero dollars in manufacture" (5, Insightful)

Qzukk (229616) | more than 5 years ago | (#24922121)

Only if your time is worth zero dollars.

Or the entertainment you receive from putting together your own toys is greater than the cost of your time, in which case you might even "profit".

Re:"Zero dollars in manufacture" (4, Insightful)

Beardo the Bearded (321478) | more than 5 years ago | (#24922203)

It'll cost you $25,000 for the bits, plus zero dollars in manufacture, I hope.

Only if your time is worth zero dollars.

So just like Open Source Software, then.

It should go over very well here.

For the record, if my car wasn't under a very comprehensive warranty for the next five years, I'd order the parts and do the conversion just so I could say that I'd done it.

Spare time (5, Insightful)

phorm (591458) | more than 5 years ago | (#24922353)

Well, if you enjoy tinkering with stuff and would otherwise have the time free anyhow, then it might even be that the time is of a negative cost.

That is to say, if you spend $25k for the unit, but spend 200 hours being rather entertained by putting it together, then you've just spend $25k on the parts and saved $x on whatever else you might have spend that money on (movies, video games, trips, etc).

I do a lot of the additions/repairs around the house. If might cost *more* than a plumber/carpenter/etc if you count what my day job's hourly rate is, but for me the cost of supplies is paying for both the renos and the entertainment of doing them.

One man's burden is another man's leisure, I'd rather be working on neat projects around the house than baking under a hot sun swinging a stick at a dimpled white ball.

Re:"Zero dollars in manufacture" (1)

Kingrames (858416) | more than 5 years ago | (#24922395)

I move at light speed, you insensitive clod!

Motorcycle, not a car (4, Insightful)

MightyYar (622222) | more than 5 years ago | (#24921769)

Like so many of these things, it's a motorcycle - not a car. It only has 3 wheels so that they don't have to meet safety standards.

Who knew you could lighten up a car if you stripped out all of the safety equipment?

and good luck... (2, Interesting)

spookymonster (238226) | more than 5 years ago | (#24921909)

...getting it insured. Just ask anyone who's ever built one of those DIY motorcycle kits or a custom shop (like OCC).

3 wheels don't necessarily mean motorcycle. (3, Informative)

DigitalReverend (901909) | more than 5 years ago | (#24922251)

It depends upon the regulations of the state or province. In British Columbia, Canada, a three-wheeled vehicle with an enclosed passenger compartment is considered an automobile. Some states call vehicles with 2 front wheels and 1 rear wheel cars, while others call the motorcycles. Some places it's a matter of engine displacement, body styles, etc.

Re:Motorcycle, not a car (1)

Gordonjcp (186804) | more than 5 years ago | (#24922287)

Who knew you could lighten up a car if you stripped out all of the safety equipment?

That's pretty much what American car manufacturers do anyway, which is why they don't sell in the UK or EU. The insurance conditions are so onerous for some makes of American car that you're going to be taking the bus most days.

Re:Motorcycle, not a car (1)

LWATCDR (28044) | more than 5 years ago | (#24922589)

Ummm.. Actually US safety requirements tend to be greater than EU requirements.
The reason that US cars tend not to be sold in the UK is the UK is too small of a market to build for. That RHD thing. US cars are not designed to be easy to convert.
You can buy a few US cars in the UK. The Corvette for one.
For the rest of the EU there is no real need to sell US cars there except for a few like the Corvette. Ford has is in Europe as is GM. Probably the big reason that US cars cost so much to insure in the EU is that they cost so much to repair. There are not that many so parts are expensive. Same as in the US. I can buy 3 alternators for a Ford or even a Toyota for the cost of one for my old Saab 9000.

For the longest time you didn't see many European cars in the US for the reasons you gave. The US for many years had much higher pollution and safety requirements than most of Europe.

Re:Motorcycle, not a car (1)

Rei (128717) | more than 5 years ago | (#24922493)

Not *having* to meet safety standards != Not meeting safety standards. There are about a dozen advantages to the tadpole trike design -- reduced wind resistance, lighter weight, lower construction cost, lower maintenance, drivetrain simplicity, and so on. Honestly, I'd love it if we:

A) Ditched our classification system based on the number of wheels
B) Came up with a set of environmental and safety classifications that vehicles could voluntarily choose to try to qualify for
C) Required that their environmental and safety classifications be prominently listed on vehicles for sale
D) Banned vehicles that don't meet given requirements from different kinds of operation -- for example, perhaps to drive on a public road at all, you must meet at least "silver" environmental standards, and to drive on a highway, you must meet at least "bronze" safety standards, while for a child to ride in a vehicle on any public road, it has to have at least a "silver" safety rating. Something to that nature.

I don't see why those who want to innovate should be penalized for doing so. All that should matter is the net results: how safe it is and how clean it is. And furthermore, if I want to buy and drive a deathtrap, so long as it's not needlessly endangering *others*, that should be my choice and my choice alone.

Re:Motorcycle, not a car; Agreed, but... (1)

hAckz0r (989977) | more than 5 years ago | (#24922525)

While I agree with your assessment, there are some things to consider as well.

First, its design is far safer than a motorcycle. In fact its safer than a trike, because most all three wheelers to date are made backwards, in that they are completely unstable while decelerating on a turn. This one is the right way around so it is much more stable during the evasive manoeuvres that count. I don't care a whole hill of beans how fast a vehicle accelerates, but its got to stop fast without flipping over or its just not safe enough to drive. If you added an active stability control system to this machine you would have a safer machine than most inexpensive cars on the street.

Second, loosing a wheel (4->3) does shed a lot of weight, and gives a major boost to the power weight ratio which directly translates to MPG. There is no 4 wheeled EV that is capable of making my home-to-work round trip, or I'd have bought it in a heart beat. By my own calculations I believe a three wheeled EV/Hybrid could do it easily. My poor Prius just broke 100K last week, and its less than 3 years old. I had played with the idea of designing and building something very close to this vehicle myself but I don't have nearly the kind of time needed to actually build one, and like many others have noted here, how do you get permission to actually put one on the road? If it does qualify as a motorcycle that would be a good thing. A kit would be nice, but I'd much rather buy one off the lot, which due to availability won't be happening any time soon.

If I could buy this off the lot I'd probably do it in a heartbeat.

Building anything harms the environment (2, Funny)

Smidge204 (605297) | more than 5 years ago | (#24921773)

Building hybrids uses machinery that pollutes the environment. The solution? Don't build anything!

That said, though, I looked up what would be required to build an all-electric vehicle and it was about $10k not including a vehicle to convert. Not a cheap hobby, unfortunately :/
=Smidge=

We need to stop manufacturing uneccessary cars. (3, Interesting)

Brigadier (12956) | more than 5 years ago | (#24921937)

most hybrids (GM) at least basically have a motor wedged between the engine and transmission. The engine and drive line are exactly the same as the non hybrid versions.

This being said I recently purchased a trusty 92 Corolla which after a little tweaking and cleaning up gives me over 40 mpg. how hard would it be to mfg a adapter kit between the transmission and engine similar to what GM does.

a big part of the problem is we keep building unnecessary crap. I know in our economy this is not beneficial but why not take cars we already have and update them.

Re:We need to stop manufacturing uneccessary cars. (1)

MightyYar (622222) | more than 5 years ago | (#24922087)

a big part of the problem is we keep building unnecessary crap.

I agree with you on most things, but cars are actually very highly-recycled. Advances in automotive technology reduce pollution and increase safety. Plus, old cars do simply wear out.

I'm actually fairly glad that the road isn't full of '92 Corollas :)

Re:We need to stop manufacturing uneccessary cars. (1)

rickb928 (945187) | more than 5 years ago | (#24922331)

Most any of the old Honda CRX models, especially before '99, deliver excellent mileage, near equal to a Prius on the highway. Seems a shame the ricers gut them thinking they will ever drive like FnF. Especially when the driver tops 250lb...

Re:We need to stop manufacturing uneccessary cars. (1)

Smidge204 (605297) | more than 5 years ago | (#24922409)

An adapter kit as you describe would involve a clutch of some sort (to decouple the ICE) and essentially an oversize starer motor. not really THAT difficult but space might be an issue on some vehicles. The spur tooth of the flywheel is not intended for serious power transmission and would have to be swapped out for something that is. Don't forget lubrication either! Power transmission in constant-contact gears will need a recycling oiling system separate from the engine's.

I have seen some kits that essentially mount an electric motor in place of the alternator (with appropriate electronics to charge the battery). The idea behind them is that, during periods of high load such as accelerating of hill climbing, these motors kick in to provide a little extra umph from a dedicated (but standard) battery. Not really a hybrid in the common sense of the word but not a bad option either depending on your driving habits... advantage here is you only need a pulley upgrade and an extra belt or two. They wear out but don't need lube.

One thing I've thought about is a kit that replaces a portion of the drive shaft (rear wheel drive only, obviously). Electric motors do just fine at high RPMs and mounting one AFTER the transmission would improve efficiency, especially if it's an automatic. You also have more room to play with compared to the gap between engine and transmission.
=Smidge=

Re:We need to stop manufacturing uneccessary cars. (1)

Brigadier (12956) | more than 5 years ago | (#24922695)

The system I had in mind is similar to the picture below (see link) I'm sure it wouldn't be hard to mfg something lass than 6" wide. The motor wouldn't' need a clutch per say as it would always be engaged either generating electricity or providing power. You eliminate the battery, alternator, and starter. Then throw some batteries in recesses along the frame.

http://www.cleangreencar.co.nz/p/vibrantplanet.com/cleangreencar/1119228919_24429.jpg [cleangreencar.co.nz]

Actually you can do it for about $5k including car (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#24922153)

Actually you can do it for about $5k including the vehicle:

http://www.evconvert.com/

Re:Building anything harms the environment (1)

Kingrames (858416) | more than 5 years ago | (#24922401)

yes but you make up for that at the first trip to the pump.

I disagree with what's written on the main page, (2, Interesting)

pecosdave (536896) | more than 5 years ago | (#24921797)

By providing prints and the ability to build parts/put the damned thing together to begin with it's not to give smug yuppies something to be conceded about. It's to give hotrodders the ability to make supped up hybrid! Seriously, I would love to get most of one of these kits, put two kits into a car if possible for the extra kick, throw in a powerful V6 instead of a four (or even three) banger, then put it all in the body of a Dodge Charger.

The electric part could actually take it off the line better than a gas engine, the gas engine would add the power, something like that should kick ass on the quarter mile then do a relatively slow victory lap without using any gas.

Re:I disagree with what's written on the main page (2, Interesting)

pragma_x (644215) | more than 5 years ago | (#24921921)

"The electric part could actually take it off the line better than a gas engine,"

THIS.

The best part about that is you wouldn't need a bank of batteries to do the job. A large capacitor bank (or super-capacitors once they're available) would work great. Just enough juice to break the inertia of the car and lug it off the line is all you really need.

Re:I disagree with what's written on the main page (1)

MightyYar (622222) | more than 5 years ago | (#24922141)

Just enough juice to break the inertia of the car and lug it off the line is all you really need.

Until it gets hilly!

A lot of people forget about hills - even mild ones. That tiny little gas engine won't climb hills very well, so you'd better have enough battery power to go up the largest grade you are likely to encounter - and then recharge fast enough for you to tackle the next one.

Re:I disagree with what's written on the main page (3, Insightful)

uberdilligaff (988232) | more than 5 years ago | (#24922455)

AMEN. I had a 79 diesel Volkswagen Jetta (52 whole HP!) It got 45-48 mpg all the time, with my foot to the floor most of the time, but it couldn't maintain 50 mph when driving on the hilly Interstates in West Virginia and Tennessee. Just move to the far right and hope not to get run over.

So new hybrids must have enough battery storage capacity to get over those hills, more than just to get going after a stop light.

Re:I disagree with what's written on the main page (1)

Smidge204 (605297) | more than 5 years ago | (#24922513)

Drag racing generally isn't done on hills...

=Smidge=

Re:I disagree with what's written on the main page (2, Interesting)

A nonymous Coward (7548) | more than 5 years ago | (#24922179)

No, the real reason for selling kits is to avoid safety and pollution controls. A manufacturer has to deal with those, but a kit maker doesn't, at least to some degree. I don't know all the ins and outs of it. Maybe kit makers avoid those problems only if the kit modifies an existing car. But I bet this guy avoids them too since he is not selling a car. Maybe the catch is that the builder (the kit buyer) will have to deal with safety and pollution controls, and probably not be able to register it.

Re:I disagree with what's written on the main page (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#24922365)

Pffft, the power to weight ratio of batteries sucks. That's all there is to it.

Sure you might get great torque from a dead stop but even a regular gas engine can easily break the tires loose. That's not going to make you go fast down the track though. The weight of the batteries negates everything positive about the electric drive.

Re:I disagree with what's written on the main page (1)

Smidge204 (605297) | more than 5 years ago | (#24922785)

No, the POWER/Weight ratio of an electric system is amazing compared to all but the most high-end gasoline engines (read: high-strung racing engines that get completely rebuilt after every use).

It's the ENERGY/Weight ratio of batteries that pales compared to gasoline:

Gasoline: 47 MJ/kg
Pb-Acid Batt: 0.10 MJ/kg
NiCd Batt: 0.20 MJ/kg
Li-Ion Batt: 0.65 Mj/kg

All values are approximate, of course.

I other words, you can release stored energy from a battery at a much faster rate than you can from gasoline, but you can't store as much. There exists electric drag racers than can and do get under 12 seconds for the 1/4 - very much on par for gas engines.
=Smidge=

Why stop there? (5, Funny)

earthforce_1 (454968) | more than 5 years ago | (#24921811)

Why not design the car yourself - using bits and pieces found at your local junkyard? Better yet - smelt the metal in your garage and take up blacksmithing to make all the bits. Sort of like building your own computer from discrete transistors.

Re:Why stop there? (3, Interesting)

Beardo the Bearded (321478) | more than 5 years ago | (#24922257)

Why not design the car yourself - using bits and pieces found at your local junkyard? Better yet - smelt the metal in your garage and take up blacksmithing to make all the bits. Sort of like building your own computer from discrete transistors.

If you haven't built a small computer from discrete components, I'd say that you may have some gaps in your understanding.

It's a real pain, but there is a certain satisfaction of manually triggering the cycles and watching it read and write.

Limits (1)

phorm (591458) | more than 5 years ago | (#24922383)

Well for those that would have the money to buy something like this, and the time to put it together, doing the above (or at least some of the above) might actually be a fun hobby.

It's not like people don't invest a lot of time and cash into restoring old cars or modding their own vehicles, after all.

Personally I want a Delorian with a flux capacitor...

uh, no, that's not the reason (5, Informative)

Ancient_Hacker (751168) | more than 5 years ago | (#24921825)

Uh, building a hybrid at home probably makes more pollution than making it in a factory.

The reason they sell it as a kit is to avoid all the federal vehicle rules. By passing on assembly to the end-user, it becomes THEIR problem to get the car licensed.

Also I don't quite get the "zero dollars to manufacture". Lots of the steps involve lots of time, welding, painting, trips to the hardware store. That all costs many $$$.

Re:uh, no, that's not the reason (4, Insightful)

thered2001 (1257950) | more than 5 years ago | (#24921999)

I agree completely. The first part of this article makes an assumption which doesn't seem too solid: that automotive machinery pollutes. If this is a reference to the byproducts of the power generated to run the machines, then I fail to see how running smaller machines in your home will improve the situation. Plus, power (and pollution?) is still needed to make the parts for a car no matter who puts it together. Sounds like someone is just trying to appear 'green' and cash in on the hybrid craze with kit 'car' (actually a motorcycle as an astute reader notes above).

Re:uh, no, that's not the reason (2, Insightful)

PPH (736903) | more than 5 years ago | (#24922217)

The reason they sell it as a kit is to avoid all the federal vehicle rules. By passing on assembly to the end-user, it becomes THEIR problem to get the car licensed.

Good point. But to be accurate, the licensing becomes a non-issue. You start with a car complete with license. Then you mod it. Once you have a license, you can do pretty much anything you want with a vehicle, so long as you leave the safety and emission equipment needed for inspections intact.

The other advantage is that federal regs mandating manufacturer warranties don't apply. This is what killed GM's EV1. The requirement to provide spare parts for a few thousand cars would have cost GM millions (think batteries).

Not a zero footprint solution (1)

halcyon1234 (834388) | more than 5 years ago | (#24921853)

Building hybrids uses machinery that pollutes the environment. The solution? Ship the parts of a hybrid individually and get your customers to put the car together themselves.

And you plan on shipping those parts using what exactly? I'm willing to be that the energy used to plant-machine the car then drive it to my house on hybrid power, and the energy used to fossil-fueled 18-wheeler ship a ton of crap to my house are at least on par-- if the latter is not even worse.

And what about packaging? Because seriously, if this is what cmos batteries [thedailywtf.com] take to ship, I'd had to see how many Styrofoam peanuts go into shipping a car.

corepirate nazi felon 'bailout' more bad fiction (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#24921859)

there's really no where left to hide. greed, fear & ego are unprecedented evile's primary weapons. those, along with deception & coercion, helps most of us remain (unwittingly?) dependent on its' life0cidal hired goons' agenda. most of yOUR dwindling resources are being squandered on the 'wars', & continuation of the billionerrors stock markup FraUD/pyramid schemes. nobody ever mentions the real long term costs of those debacles in both life & the notion of prosperity, not to mention the abuse of the consciences of those of us who still have one. see you on the other side of it. the lights are coming up all over now. conspiracy theorists are being vindicated. some might choose a tin umbrella to go with their hats. the fairytail is winding down now. let your conscience be yOUR guide. you can be more helpful than you might have imagined. there are still some choices. if they do not suit you, consider the likely results of continuing to follow the corepirate nazi hypenosys story LIEn, whereas anything of relevance is replaced almost instantly with pr ?firm? scriptdead mindphuking propaganda or 'celebrity' trivia 'foam'. meanwhile; don't forget to get a little more oxygen on yOUR brain, & look up in the sky from time to time, starting early in the day. there's lots going on up there.

http://news.google.com/?ncl=1216734813&hl=en&topic=n
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/31/opinion/31mon1.html?em&ex=1199336400&en=c4b5414371631707&ei=5087%0A
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/29/world/29amnesty.html?hp
http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/06/02/nasa.global.warming.ap/index.html
http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/weather/06/05/severe.weather.ap/index.html
http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/weather/06/02/honore.preparedness/index.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/01/opinion/01dowd.html?em&ex=1212638400&en=744b7cebc86723e5&ei=5087%0A
http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/06/05/senate.iraq/index.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/17/washington/17contractor.html?hp
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/03/world/middleeast/03kurdistan.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin
http://biz.yahoo.com/ap/080708/cheney_climate.html
http://news.yahoo.com/s/politico/20080805/pl_politico/12308;_ylt=A0wNcxTPdJhILAYAVQms0NUE
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20080903/ts_nm/environment_arctic_dc;_ylt=A0wNcwhhcb5It3EBoy2s0NUE

is it time to get real yet? A LOT of energy is being squandered in attempts to keep US in the dark. in the end (give or take a few 1000 years), the creators will prevail (world without end, etc...), as it has always been. the process of gaining yOUR release from the current hostage situation may not be what you might think it is. butt of course, most of US don't know, or care what a precarious/fatal situation we're in. for example; the insidious attempts by the felonious corepirate nazi execrable to block the suns' light, interfering with a requirement (sunlight) for us to stay healthy/alive. it's likely not good for yOUR health/memories 'else they'd be bragging about it? we're intending for the whoreabully deceptive (they'll do ANYTHING for a bit more monIE/power) felons to give up/fail even further, in attempting to control the 'weather', as well as a # of other things/events.

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=weather+manipulation&btnG=Search
http://video.google.com/videosearch?hl=en&q=video+cloud+spraying

dictator style micro management has never worked (for very long). it's an illness. tie that with life0cidal aggression & softwar gangster style bullying, & what do we have? a greed/fear/ego based recipe for disaster. meanwhile, you can help to stop the bleeding (loss of life & limb);

http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/12/28/vermont.banning.bush.ap/index.html

the bleeding must be stopped before any healing can begin. jailing a couple of corepirate nazi hired goons would send a clear message to the rest of the world from US. any truthful look at the 'scorecard' would reveal that we are a society in decline/deep doo-doo, despite all of the scriptdead pr ?firm? generated drum beating & flag waving propaganda that we are constantly bombarded with. is it time to get real yet? please consider carefully ALL of yOUR other 'options'. the creators will prevail. as it has always been.

corepirate nazi execrable costs outweigh benefits
(Score:-)mynuts won, the king is a fink)
by ourselves on everyday 24/7

as there are no benefits, just more&more death/debt & disruption. fortunately there's an 'army' of light bringers, coming yOUR way. the little ones/innocents must/will be protected. after the big flash, ALL of yOUR imaginary 'borders' may blur a bit? for each of the creators' innocents harmed in any way, there is a debt that must/will be repaid by you/us, as the perpetrators/minions of unprecedented evile, will not be available. 'vote' with (what's left in) yOUR wallet, & by your behaviors. help bring an end to unprecedented evile's manifestation through yOUR owned felonious corepirate nazi glowbull warmongering execrable. some of US should consider ourselves somewhat fortunate to be among those scheduled to survive after the big flash/implementation of the creators' wwwildly popular planet/population rescue initiative/mandate. it's right in the manual, 'world without end', etc.... as we all ?know?, change is inevitable, & denying/ignoring gravity, logic, morality, etc..., is only possible, on a temporary basis. concern about the course of events that will occur should the life0cidal execrable fail to be intervened upon is in order. 'do not be dismayed' (also from the manual). however, it's ok/recommended, to not attempt to live under/accept, fauxking nazi felon greed/fear/ego based pr ?firm? scriptdead mindphuking hypenosys.

consult with/trust in yOUR creators. providing more than enough of everything for everyone (without any distracting/spiritdead personal gain motives), whilst badtolling unprecedented evile, using an unlimited supply of newclear power, since/until forever. see you there?

"If my people, which are called by my name, shall humble themselves, and pray, and seek my face, and turn from their wicked ways; then will I hear from heaven, and will forgive their sin, and will heal their land."

meanwhile, the life0cidal philistines continue on their path of death, debt, & disruption for most of US. gov. bush denies health care for the little ones;

http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/10/03/bush.veto/index.html

whilst demanding/extorting billions to paint more targets on the bigger kids;

http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/12/12/bush.war.funding/index.html

& pretending that it isn't happening here;

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article3086937.ece
all is not lost/forgotten/forgiven

(yOUR elected) president al gore (deciding not to wait for the much anticipated 'lonesome al answers yOUR questions' interview here on /.) continues to attempt to shed some light on yOUR foibles. talk about reverse polarity;

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article3046116.ece

Re:corepirate nazi felon 'bailout' more bad fictio (-1, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#24922005)

I tried to find the "-1 boring, too long, and not nice writing style", but I couldn't. I had to settle for "Offtopic".

Hybrids suck anyway (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#24921925)

Once you include the manufacture of the batteries, they emit more CO2 than most modern diesel cars. Once you include the cost of the batteries, they cost more than most modern diesel cars. Just buy a modern fuel-efficient diesel engine with a small body e.g. a VW Golf TDI.

Buying a Prius is cheaper (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#24921939)

At $25000 for the parts alone, what idiot is going to buy this separately? Its cheaper to buy a pre-built vehicle like Prius or a Honda hybrid.

Re:Buying a Prius is cheaper (1)

RandoX (828285) | more than 5 years ago | (#24922201)

Prius isn't advertised at 225 MPG.

Re:Buying a Prius is cheaper (3, Funny)

thedonger (1317951) | more than 5 years ago | (#24922411)

My wife has a Prius, and she gets about 225 MPG because most of the time she makes me drive her around in my car.

Safety (5, Insightful)

HalAtWork (926717) | more than 5 years ago | (#24921951)

So has this thing been crash tested? Do you have to get the car certified after you build it, so that you can drive it on the road? Are you any more liable if anything happens to a passenger, motorist, or pedestrian, in such a car?

Re:Safety (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#24922187)

This vehicle is classified as a motorcycle, hence no crash test is required. Most of the high fuel economy vehicles of the future will we tricycles, because they are not required to meet the safety standards for cars. Isn't it wonderful how government regulation warps the appropriate use of technology?

Just so there's no misunderstanding (1)

Nymz (905908) | more than 5 years ago | (#24921961)

  • Building you own car is cool.
  • Minimizing pollution is cool.
  • Using pseudo-science to scare people, promote your carbon-tax moneymaking scams, and further turn governments into over reaching big-brother nanny-states is uncool.

Registration? (4, Funny)

superdave80 (1226592) | more than 5 years ago | (#24921985)

So, what happens when I build this thing, and try to get it registered at my local DMV?

DMV Drone: Make?
Me: Me
DMV Drone: No, who is the manufacturer?
Me: Me
DMV Drone: (sigh). Model?
Me: Mostly done in Solidworks.
DMV Drone: NEXT!

Re:Registration? (3, Funny)

Shakrai (717556) | more than 5 years ago | (#24922231)

Dude, you've got it all wrong. Let me help you fix it:

Me: *walks into DMV office*
DMV Drone #1: (on personal phone call) Yeah, like whatever!
DMV Drone #1: Yeah, totally!
DMV Drone #1: Oh, she needs to dump that loser!
DMV Drone #2: (just finishing up with guy ahead of you in line) Well, it's about lunch time! I'll be back in two hours. (puts up "next window" sign with an arrow pointing to drone #1)
Me: Can you help me?
DMV Drone #1: Ugh, can you hang on a minute? WHAT?!?!?!

Re:Registration? (4, Informative)

Migraineman (632203) | more than 5 years ago | (#24922259)

First, it's a motorcycle in the US, so that eliminates most of the headaches. Second, it's a lot like registering a self-built trailer from a kit. You put it together, grab all your receipts, and head down to the State Sherrif's office for a safety inspection. Some states allow third-party inspections, so you might go that route. As you're not a "vehicle manufacturer," you aren't permitted to issue VIN numbers, and you don't have a title yet, so you use something called a "certificate of origin" to get your local DMV to create a title for you. AFAIK, the certificate of origin allows the DMV to tax you appropriately ... how else would they know how to value your custom-built creation? I built a trailer from a kit (Haulin' flatbed [haulin.com] from the local Home Despot.) It came with a certificate of origin. I took that, the purchase receipt, and a gas-station inspection to the local DMV, and all was well.

Cars are a completely different matter, as the auto manufacturers have lobbied to make sure it's illegal for you to make your own car. Think of the children, etc. There are special categories for Antique and Street Rod cars, but there are restrictions against using them as daily drivers. However, trailers and motorcycles are still viable.

Hard Numbers (3, Interesting)

overtly_demure (1024363) | more than 5 years ago | (#24922013)

Can someone point us to hard data comparing overall carbon footprint, actual mileage, monetary cost to the consumer, environmental impact, etc. comparing hybrids and conventional cars? I am wondering specifically if the Prius beats a Corolla over a five-year span as a commute car. I suspect it does not, but do not have the facts.

RTFA (3, Informative)

Ritchie70 (860516) | more than 5 years ago | (#24922017)

From the web site:

Although the XR-3 can be built just as the prototype was built, kits are on the agenda. Information will appear on this page as it becomes available. But the XR3 can be constructed using the same techniques used to build Tri-Magnum. Click on FRP/foam composite for a document that shows the composite system used to build the body for the XR3.
                    A knocked-down body kit consisting of pre-molded panels provides the greatest benefit at the least cost. So body kits will be supplied as unassembled panels that builders can bond together. In addition to enabling the lowest price, this type of kit also reduces packaging and shipping costs. Frame kits will consist of a welded-together assembly, which turns the project into mostly a bolt-together operation. The goal is to deliver the greatest benefit at the lowest possible price, and avoid supplying parts that you can purchase locally.
                    The price of kits has not been established.

So the $25,000 is a guess at what you might be able to buy parts to build it for. It isn't an offer to sell a kit.

Orkmobile, Ew (4, Funny)

acon1modm (1009947) | more than 5 years ago | (#24922019)

All I want is a light, very efficient hybrid/electric vehicle, that doesn't look ridiculous. Even if its stripped down for weight, add a plastic body that has the same rough shape as a "real" car. I hope every innovation doesn't have to look like something brought here by Mork from Ork.

"Smug" (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#24922043)

I see another idiot has drunk the "no, really, we're libertarian, not Republican" South Park koolaid.

But go ahead, keep believing that they poke fun of everybody equally, while Stone and Parker take their ad bucks and sink them into McBush's re-election campaign.

Re:"Smug" (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#24922343)

In the immortal words of Wikipedia: [citation needed]

And this changes...what? (2, Insightful)

davmoo (63521) | more than 5 years ago | (#24922057)

I don't see how this eliminates the carbon footprint of building the car. It only moves it. Unless all of your tools are alternative energy powered, and the vehicles used to deliver the parts to you are likewise alternative energy powered, nothing has been accomplished here except moving where the carbon has been emitted. I fail to see how this helps the planet.

Re:And this changes...what? (1)

Jock Kodimar (599124) | more than 5 years ago | (#24922185)

It doesn't. Like another poster said earlier it just moves the "carbon footprint" to the person building it.

Carbon credits for the win!

That being said I think it would be a neat project.

It's probably slow... (3, Interesting)

Ritchie70 (860516) | more than 5 years ago | (#24922091)

The "tractor engine" spec'd for the diesel propulsion is the Kubota D902. Here's some information about that, from http://goliath.ecnext.com/coms2/gi_0199-3241283/Three-new-models-for-Kubota.html [ecnext.com]

The D902, a three-cylinder version of the Z602, has a displacement of 0.898 L and an output of 20.6 hp at 3200 rpm. A 3600 rpm version, due for introduction next year, will be rated 23.5 hp.

I also looked for a price on this engine. The first I saw was about $2800 for a remanufactured unit, with a $700 core charge. It's used in bobcats and similar. If you're building this "car," you won't have a core, so it's going to cost you $3500.

At some point, Tesla may consider doign this. (1)

WindBourne (631190) | more than 5 years ago | (#24922095)

I figure that if they are selling the frame, drive train, and batteries, then they can allow companies or individuals to put their own cars together. The idea of a kit makes sense. It would be extremely interesting, if Tesla's next car is built to allow for an energy generator to be added. i.e. a plugable system. That way, it encourages new add-ons.

Humans are machines that emit CO2 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#24922119)

Make sure you hold your breath while building your hybrid.

In fact, for the love of Gaia, keep holding your breath after you put the hybrid together.

This would be a waste of time in Ontario, Canada (2, Informative)

bogaboga (793279) | more than 5 years ago | (#24922125)

I submit that this project, though good in itself, would be of no use and therefore a waste of time in Ontario, Canada because the government over there will not license a similar project from a local manufacturer, Zenn http://www.zenncars.com/ [zenncars.com] .

You wonder who these folks in government are working for. I suspect that they are protecting big oil.

Their argument is that these cars have not been proven to be safe on [Canadian] roads, though these same cars are available in the USA where they have not caused any trouble.

Has anyone used these cars? How do they perform?

Re:This would be a waste of time in Ontario, Canad (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#24922507)

You wonder who these folks in government are working for. I suspect that they are protecting big oil.

Maybe they're working for the Canadian citizens that don't want one of these things crashing into them because the brakes failed. Occasionally, governments do work for their constituents.

Their argument is that these cars have not been proven to be safe on [Canadian] roads, though these same cars are available in the USA where they have not caused any trouble.

Lack of a track record should not imply safety. And it's not like US government agencies haven't been compromised before. Second opinions are good.

Genious! (4, Interesting)

spectro (80839) | more than 5 years ago | (#24922139)

I think this guy is pure genius.

Instead of creating his own auto factory and taking years of research, development, marketing, and infrastructure, he just sells out the blueprints so you can build it yourself.

He doesn't have to worry about competing with other auto manufacturers, pressure from Oil companies or ambulance chasers suing him because of some manufacturing flaw.

How long until somebody else takes his design and builds something much better? I would love to see the mythbusters guys building one of these.

"and performance like a conventional automobile." (1)

Ngarrang (1023425) | more than 5 years ago | (#24922211)

"...and performance like a conventional automobile."

With a top speed of 80, I don't think so. Except maybe during LA at crunch time, this car would get run over on pretty much another highway system going as slow as 80 MPH.

If you only intent to use it to commute to work and you don't need the highways, then maybe this is the car for you. But at $25k, you would have to commute to work for many years to recoup the investment.

Now, if you buy it for the ego factor, well then! $25k is cheap. But, I gotta say...when are these specialty car makers going to figure out that if they really want to impact the market, they are gonna have to offer up a price of $12k to attract the people who could really benefit from a 125 MPG vehicle? The average factory worker making $10/hr could really use this car, that is, if they can even afford a second car. This car ain't exactly family friendly, so maybe even Joe Bob Factory worker would never buy this car.

Green Gimmicks (1, Interesting)

fm6 (162816) | more than 5 years ago | (#24922239)

Building hybrids uses machinery that pollutes the environment. The solution? Ship the parts of a hybrid individually and get your customers to put the car together themselves.

And shipping stuff doesn't pollute the environment? You ship a bunch of parts to somebody, and it's going to go by diesel truck, diesel-powered ship, and jet airplane, all notorious polluters. Plus all the boxes and packing materials are going to go into the trash bin and/or recycling bin, where they will be hauled away by still more diesel trucks.

I'm getting a little tired of these green gimmicks. People think they can spend a little money or put up with a little inconvenience and Save the Planet. They're fooling themselves — and supplying material to those Nuke the Whales assholes who think the solution to all environmental issues is to poke fun at environmentalists.

If you really want to StP, agitate for real measures. Unfortunately, real measures hurt: taxes on non-renewable resources, taxes on pollution, putting up with slow and inconvenient public transit instead of convenient private vehicles, using less convenient forms of distribution that don't rely on monumental use of packaging.

As any athlete will tell you, change hurts. People who want to be green without making real sacrifices are as much in denial as any global warming "skeptic".

Underwhelmed (2, Insightful)

Unit3 (10444) | more than 5 years ago | (#24922281)

Great idea, too bad it's fugly, more expensive than Honda's new hybrid at $25k, and basically just a motorcycle.

Call me when they make a Prius kit, or a drop in electric engine replacement for the Civic. ;)

Yawn, not them again.... (3, Informative)

Lumpy (12016) | more than 5 years ago | (#24922327)

rqriley has been selling "plans" for decades. they have been trying to get people to build the tri-magnum for 30 years without success...

http://www.rqriley.com/tri-mag.html [rqriley.com]

anyone with an ounce of mechnaical skill can do that without the "plans" and a regular car in less time with less cost.

Hell go get a smashed prius, a light car you want to make a hybrid and simply put the drivetrain in the car. All done, really easy and not rocket science.

Hell it's not hard to replace the ECM for the prius with something that is more hackable if you really wanted to.

Building it? (1)

MindlessAutomata (1282944) | more than 5 years ago | (#24922417)

Allow them to brag about having built the damn cars themselves and we might be entering obscenely smug territory."

Yeah, but by then their smugness is pretty much warranted.

Difference between porcupine and prius? (-1, Flamebait)

ageoffri (723674) | more than 5 years ago | (#24922433)

With a porcupine the prick is on the outside.

Smug eh? (1)

heteromonomer (698504) | more than 5 years ago | (#24922475)

Who's to blame for accidents if some poorly owner-assembled cars fall apart on the highways?

A victory for lawyers (1)

XantheKnight (986840) | more than 5 years ago | (#24922619)

So a bunch of penny pinchers putting together their own cars, eh? Maybe a few mistakes made here and there during assembly... maybe a few substituted cheaper parts...

Sounds like a smorgasbord for lawyers all over the world. Bring on the personal injury and negligence claims! w00t!!

completed... but (1)

floatingrunner (621481) | more than 5 years ago | (#24922641)

DONE! wait, why are there 3 extra bolts on the floor? oh shi.. *your car esplode*

WTF is it about the "smug" label? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#24922681)

Could some wise slashdotter explain to me why hybrid drivers are the only car owners considered "smug"? Couldn't people who drive conspicuously wasteful SUV's or sports cars also be considered smug? Why is it okay for some asshole in a BMW or a Mustang to be smug in their choice of vehicle but noone else?

Do we really want... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#24922683)

the average person driving around in a car they assembled themselves? Most folks are too dumb to assemble their Ikea furniture correctly. The last thing I need is some mouth-breather plowing me down in a cross walk because he threw away an "extra" bolt that was left over.

Obscenely smug territory (0, Troll)

hobbit (5915) | more than 5 years ago | (#24922717)

Allow them to brag about having built the damn cars themselves and we might be entering obscenely smug territory.

If so, please post the story under http://apple.slashdot.org/ [slashdot.org] ;)

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...