Re:Street Legal Jet Powered Beetle (2006)
by dfranke on Friday September 18, 2009 @06:28PM
(#831305)
I was thinking of putting it into an import car show but the promoter told me that it looked too plain and recommended that I put some decals on it, lower it, and put on some aftermarket wheels.
/me boggles. This is either a joke or an incredibly sad commentary. "I built a jet car!" "Yawn. Where's the bling?"
Re:Street Legal Jet Powered Beetle (2006)
by pvg on Friday September 18, 2009 @10:05PM
(#831553)
Both are neat to look at but lighting the charcoal grill is a cool chemistry demonstration, not really 'engineering'. Putting a working jet engine on your VW beetle is pretty serious engineering.
Re:Street Legal Jet Powered Beetle (2006)
by billswift on Saturday September 19, 2009 @03:27AM
(#831764)
I didn't vote on your comment - your fail claim I would have downvoted, but I loved your link. Maybe you should have commented them separately if you wanted better feedback.
Re:Street Legal Jet Powered Beetle (2006)
by movix on Saturday September 19, 2009 @03:39AM
(#831767)
The point I was making was about beauty of design, not on the technology, which is where I think the Beetle/jet combo fails, and the handmade, beautifully crafted bicycle/pulse jet excels.
Although you could propose that the Beetle follows the Corbusian 'form follows function' ethos, the end result taking it's shape from it's purpose so elegantly illustrated by the original Beetle itself, strapping a whopping great jet to it does not.
The bicycle on the other hand, has obviously been lovingly crafted to be an aesthetic whole, even though two disparate technologies have been employed - therefore = win.
You could of course argue that Corbusier didn't follow his own ethos and 'fie rules' either though.
I actually think that the Beetle/jet combination is a very appropriate metaphor for many types of technology we use.
"Here's thing A, which only does X, if we add thing B to it, it now does XYZ, just not very efficiently, and it looks awful"
Re:Street Legal Jet Powered Beetle (2006)
by derefr on Saturday September 19, 2009 @04:58PM
(#832324)
It's a lot easier to industrially design/engineer a bike than a car. The work you're suggesting probably would have dwarfed the actual jet-engineering. However, unlike jet bikes, we see real jet cars all the time—being raced for the land speed record. The fact that it's possible to add this after-the-fact to a car you own was the novel property here, not the combination of jet engine with car.
Re:Street Legal Jet Powered Beetle (2006)
by pbhjpbhj on Saturday September 19, 2009 @07:33AM
(#831880)
I have to say the shot of him in his Hawaiian shirt with the huge phallic turgidity of the engine held erect against him does look rather like an example from a Freudian textbook.
/me boggles. This is either a joke or an incredibly sad commentary. "I built a jet car!" "Yawn. Where's the bling?"
http://www.ronpatrickstuff.com/
edit: found it http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mJyAA0oPAwE
http://hackedgadgets.com/2008/03/03/jet-turbine-van/
http://gizmodo.com/5360234/lighting-a-grill-with-liquid-oxyg...
For the ultimate in elegant, jet powered simplicity, I think Mr. Maddox and his pulse jet bicycle is leagues ahead:
http://thekneeslider.com/archives/2009/06/02/pulsejet-bicycl...
Although you could propose that the Beetle follows the Corbusian 'form follows function' ethos, the end result taking it's shape from it's purpose so elegantly illustrated by the original Beetle itself, strapping a whopping great jet to it does not.
The bicycle on the other hand, has obviously been lovingly crafted to be an aesthetic whole, even though two disparate technologies have been employed - therefore = win.
You could of course argue that Corbusier didn't follow his own ethos and 'fie rules' either though.
I actually think that the Beetle/jet combination is a very appropriate metaphor for many types of technology we use.
"Here's thing A, which only does X, if we add thing B to it, it now does XYZ, just not very efficiently, and it looks awful"