Recent Activity

• 

  Stig's cover blown?

  Go back to this dream that you were having again - can we get a little more detail?

  Posted 22 Jun 09

• 

  The Green Avenger

  Fuck em if they can't take it!

  Posted 15 Jun 09

• 

  Valid question

  This is an old argument, and one I've heard running around for a few years.  It goes something like this.

  Line 1: "The Internal Combustion engine is outdated. It has faults (list of faults here).  We should have something to replace it."
  Line 2: "The internal combustion engine is the best that we have.  There is nothing that we can replace it with."
  3: "What about (alternative engine design/fuel type.)"
  4: "That can't replace the internal combustion engine as it can't do (list of things the newer technologies can't do.)"
  5: "Then we should spend money researching it."
  6: "Why would we do that when we already have the internal combustion engine?"
  7: Return to Line 1

  Jump into any article discussing this and you'll find that it sits at one or two of these points.  The real problem is that the power behind this is in the hands of the car/fuel companies and not in the hands of the government or the consumer. For this to progress beyond that point we'd need a major cultural shift that takes place over a short time frame that would push forward necessity/invention.  James May is on Line 1 in his article, and andromeda is on line 2 (and I'm not arguing with either of them, because I'm too dumb on engines.)

  Posted 15 Jun 09