If you've never seen Disney's Magic Highways, you should. Produced in 1958, it's a wondrous time capsule of Mid Century Futurism. It makes lots of predictions that seem outlandish now, but were fitting at a time when it seemed science and technology seemed to have no limits. So here I thought I'd make my own predictions for the highways of tomorrow.
-The pavement will have thermochromic pigment that will change to a lighter color at a certain temperature, increasing its albedo and reducing the urban heat island effect and preventing rutting.
-There will be heating coils in the pavement that will keep the road free of snow and ice.
-Lane markings will use luminescent paint, perhaps eliminating the need for street lights in combination with "artificial moons" in space that will provide consistent daylight from 6 AM to 10 PM.
-With the reduction in power costs enabled by solar energy, concrete will probably overtake asphalt as the paving material of choice, due to its superior strength. For at or below grade roads, the concrete will be pervious to prevent flooding.
-Obviously your car will have autonomous capabilities, but for the great number of us that like driving, there will be a manual mode. Toyota is working on this concept which they compare to the "blended envelope control" on fighter jets. I agree with Disney that the replacement of mirrors with cameras is inevitable
-Thanks to efficient electric motors, helicopters will be used much more, as ambulances, police cruisers, and tow trucks
-Low cost solar power will allow us to use heat for earthmoving for tunnels, for grading, and for holes for concrete piles. This will greatly reduce roadbuilding costs
-New super strong materials will allow us to cheaply put our highways on stilts. This will be cheaper than excavating a level surface for a freeway and will be much less destructive to the environment. Ecosystems will no longer be fragmented by roads.
-Autonomous driving capabilities will also result in changes to highway design. Road builders, no longer needing to consider human error, could probably use cost cutting measures like left hand exit and entrance ramps and have flyover ramps making tighter curves. With no more phantom jams, our freeways will be able to carry much more traffic. During rush hour, cars on high traffic roads will form platoons. Speed limits will definitely be higher, perhaps 100 MPH in rural areas. A major issue would be noise, which rises logarithmically with speed.
-Contrary to what you have read, suburbanization has never really stopped, it may have slowed after the housing bust but the trend has consistently been out of big cities. And with highways getting less congested, and with VTOL aircraft and better long distance communication, this decentralization will continue. Hopefully it takes the form of cluster zoning where a number of homes are built on small lots in a cluster and surrounded by open space.
-Thanks to automation, we'll probably be working less. Even in a pessimistic case, I foresee a 32 hour work week with 6 weeks vacation. I think 13 weeks is the maximum, beyond which point we'd suffer from severe boredom. And this doesn't count the time spent on household chores by labor saving devices. A lot of this free time will be spent traveling. For that, we'll need improvements to transportation to popular recreational areas.
-You'll be happy to know there will be fewer trucks on tomorrow's highways. Once we find a room temperature superconductor, then Maglevs will take off (no pun intended) in a big way. Being able to move freight at 300 mph, they'll make long distance trucking all but obsolete. But trucks will still be needed to get freight to and from Maglev depots. These trucks, autonomous and electrically powered, will be small, probably no more than 20,000 pounds. Weight limits will probably be reduced for safety and road wear reasons.
-In urban areas, below-grade freeways will be lidded, a feat made inexpensive by new materials. Above and at-grade freeways will be replaced by tunnels, made by electric powered subterrenes. Wildlife crossings will become much more common, reconnecting ecosystems and preventing animal collisions. Highway landscaping has seen a renaissance in recent decades and this will hopefully continue. With artfully designed overpasses and finely manicured plantings, we could turn every freeway into a parkway, because even in such a high tech world, we will always appreciate old-fashioned beauty in our lives.
Quote from: kernals12 on February 23, 2021, 10:19:28 PM
-Thanks to automation, we'll probably be working less. Even in a pessimistic case, I foresee a 32 hour work week with 6 weeks vacation. I think 13 weeks is the maximum, beyond which point we'd suffer from severe boredom. And this doesn't count the time spent on household chores by labor saving devices. A lot of this free time will be spent traveling. For that, we'll need improvements to transportation to popular recreational areas.
People predicted that 70 years ago. It didn't happen. Ask yourself, what is more profitable for an employer? Employing the same number of people and giving them shorter days with more time off, or employing fewer people and having the remaining people work just as hard as before (if not harder)?
This is why good blue collar jobs are mostly extinct in this country and why it's harder for college grads to break into their career fields, while many professional workers work 60-80 hour weeks.
Quote from: vdeane on February 24, 2021, 12:49:47 PM
Quote from: kernals12 on February 23, 2021, 10:19:28 PM
-Thanks to automation, we'll probably be working less. Even in a pessimistic case, I foresee a 32 hour work week with 6 weeks vacation. I think 13 weeks is the maximum, beyond which point we'd suffer from severe boredom. And this doesn't count the time spent on household chores by labor saving devices. A lot of this free time will be spent traveling. For that, we'll need improvements to transportation to popular recreational areas.
People predicted that 70 years ago. It didn't happen. Ask yourself, what is more profitable for an employer? Employing the same number of people and giving them shorter days with more time off, or employing fewer people and having the remaining people work just as hard as before (if not harder)?
This is why good blue collar jobs are mostly extinct in this country and why it's harder for college grads to break into their career fields, while many professional workers work 60-80 hour weeks.
It may be more profitable for the employer but the workers won't be happy and will instead go to another employer who offers better working conditions. And white collar workers have always worked long hours.
Quote from: vdeane on February 24, 2021, 12:49:47 PM
Quote from: kernals12 on February 23, 2021, 10:19:28 PM
-Thanks to automation, we'll probably be working less. Even in a pessimistic case, I foresee a 32 hour work week with 6 weeks vacation. I think 13 weeks is the maximum, beyond which point we'd suffer from severe boredom. And this doesn't count the time spent on household chores by labor saving devices. A lot of this free time will be spent traveling. For that, we'll need improvements to transportation to popular recreational areas.
People predicted that 70 years ago. It didn't happen. Ask yourself, what is more profitable for an employer? Employing the same number of people and giving them shorter days with more time off, or employing fewer people and having the remaining people work just as hard as before (if not harder)?
This is why good blue collar jobs are mostly extinct in this country and why it's harder for college grads to break into their career fields, while many professional workers work 60-80 hour weeks.
Technology doesn't free up time. It just winds up creating more work to be done in the same amount of time. And I'm in a line of work where technology has substantially revolutionized a lot of things in the past 25 years.
Quote from: 1995hoo on February 24, 2021, 01:23:49 PM
Quote from: vdeane on February 24, 2021, 12:49:47 PM
Quote from: kernals12 on February 23, 2021, 10:19:28 PM
-Thanks to automation, we'll probably be working less. Even in a pessimistic case, I foresee a 32 hour work week with 6 weeks vacation. I think 13 weeks is the maximum, beyond which point we'd suffer from severe boredom. And this doesn't count the time spent on household chores by labor saving devices. A lot of this free time will be spent traveling. For that, we'll need improvements to transportation to popular recreational areas.
People predicted that 70 years ago. It didn't happen. Ask yourself, what is more profitable for an employer? Employing the same number of people and giving them shorter days with more time off, or employing fewer people and having the remaining people work just as hard as before (if not harder)?
This is why good blue collar jobs are mostly extinct in this country and why it's harder for college grads to break into their career fields, while many professional workers work 60-80 hour weeks.
Technology doesn't free up time. It just winds up creating more work to be done in the same amount of time. And I'm in a line of work where technology has substantially revolutionized a lot of things in the past 25 years.
Technology allows us to produce more goods and services for a given amount of hours worked. Since 1980, we've chosen to keep our hours constant and instead enjoy more consumption
Quote from: kernals12 on February 24, 2021, 01:00:54 PM
Quote from: vdeane on February 24, 2021, 12:49:47 PM
Quote from: kernals12 on February 23, 2021, 10:19:28 PM
-Thanks to automation, we'll probably be working less. Even in a pessimistic case, I foresee a 32 hour work week with 6 weeks vacation. I think 13 weeks is the maximum, beyond which point we'd suffer from severe boredom. And this doesn't count the time spent on household chores by labor saving devices. A lot of this free time will be spent traveling. For that, we'll need improvements to transportation to popular recreational areas.
People predicted that 70 years ago. It didn't happen. Ask yourself, what is more profitable for an employer? Employing the same number of people and giving them shorter days with more time off, or employing fewer people and having the remaining people work just as hard as before (if not harder)?
This is why good blue collar jobs are mostly extinct in this country and why it's harder for college grads to break into their career fields, while many professional workers work 60-80 hour weeks.
It may be more profitable for the employer but the workers won't be happy and will instead go to another employer who offers better working conditions. And white collar workers have always worked long hours.
Labor is less mobile than you suggest, in reality.
Can we get back on topic?
Quote from: kernals12 on February 24, 2021, 01:48:49 PM
Quote from: 1995hoo on February 24, 2021, 01:23:49 PM
Quote from: vdeane on February 24, 2021, 12:49:47 PM
Quote from: kernals12 on February 23, 2021, 10:19:28 PM
-Thanks to automation, we'll probably be working less. Even in a pessimistic case, I foresee a 32 hour work week with 6 weeks vacation. I think 13 weeks is the maximum, beyond which point we'd suffer from severe boredom. And this doesn't count the time spent on household chores by labor saving devices. A lot of this free time will be spent traveling. For that, we'll need improvements to transportation to popular recreational areas.
People predicted that 70 years ago. It didn't happen. Ask yourself, what is more profitable for an employer? Employing the same number of people and giving them shorter days with more time off, or employing fewer people and having the remaining people work just as hard as before (if not harder)?
This is why good blue collar jobs are mostly extinct in this country and why it's harder for college grads to break into their career fields, while many professional workers work 60-80 hour weeks.
Technology doesn't free up time. It just winds up creating more work to be done in the same amount of time. And I'm in a line of work where technology has substantially revolutionized a lot of things in the past 25 years.
Technology allows us to produce more goods and services for a given amount of hours worked. Since 1980, we've chosen to keep our hours constant and instead enjoy more consumption
I stand by my prior comment. I'm
completely certain I have a better understanding of how technology has affected my line of work than you do, regardless of the fact that you don't like people disagreeing with you.
Magic Highways as a child was fascinating to watch and certainly inspired wonder. As an adult it is one of the largest sources of why I tend to dismiss futurists almost outright.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on February 24, 2021, 02:13:44 PM
Magic Highways as a child was fascinating to watch and certainly inspired wonder. As an adult it is one of the largest sources of why I tend to dismiss futurists almost outright.
I wonder if current futurists have learned any lessons from the ones in the past.
Quote from: kernals12 on February 24, 2021, 02:07:13 PM
Can we get back on topic?
Pretty sure they have been on topic, unless you consider people disagreeing with you off topic :hmmm:
Quote from: ET21 on February 25, 2021, 09:52:24 AM
Quote from: kernals12 on February 24, 2021, 02:07:13 PM
Can we get back on topic?
Pretty sure they have been on topic, unless you consider people disagreeing with you off topic :hmmm:
I wanted to talk about highways, not start an argument about productivity and leisure
Quote from: kernals12 on February 25, 2021, 12:32:48 PM
Quote from: ET21 on February 25, 2021, 09:52:24 AM
Quote from: kernals12 on February 24, 2021, 02:07:13 PM
Can we get back on topic?
Pretty sure they have been on topic, unless you consider people disagreeing with you off topic :hmmm:
I wanted to talk about highways, not start an argument about productivity and leisure
You yourself are the one who brought it up.
Quote from: vdeane on February 25, 2021, 12:48:52 PM
Quote from: kernals12 on February 25, 2021, 12:32:48 PM
Quote from: ET21 on February 25, 2021, 09:52:24 AM
Quote from: kernals12 on February 24, 2021, 02:07:13 PM
Can we get back on topic?
Pretty sure they have been on topic, unless you consider people disagreeing with you off topic :hmmm:
I wanted to talk about highways, not start an argument about productivity and leisure
You yourself are the one who brought it up.
Just to emphasize:
Quote from: vdeane on February 24, 2021, 12:49:47 PM
Quote from: kernals12 on February 23, 2021, 10:19:28 PM
-Thanks to automation, we'll probably be working less. Even in a pessimistic case, I foresee a 32 hour work week with 6 weeks vacation. I think 13 weeks is the maximum, beyond which point we'd suffer from severe boredom. And this doesn't count the time spent on household chores by labor saving devices. A lot of this free time will be spent traveling. For that, we'll need improvements to transportation to popular recreational areas.
People predicted that 70 years ago. It didn't happen. Ask yourself, what is more profitable for an employer? Employing the same number of people and giving them shorter days with more time off, or employing fewer people and having the remaining people work just as hard as before (if not harder)?
This is why good blue collar jobs are mostly extinct in this country and why it's harder for college grads to break into their career fields, while many professional workers work 60-80 hour weeks.
In case it's not clear to kernals12, anything you say in your post is fair game for someone to respond (and I suggest that things you do not say but that are inherently implied by what you do say are fair game as well).
Long working hours for some reason largely is perceived domestically as "better." That attitude has hardly changed in the workforce and I would be interested to see how COVID/remote working will affect that long term. I tend to believe in "work smarter, not harder" and "hire well" but a lot of employers don't share those sensibilities. This is one of the many reasons why I don't view Futurism as something that carries much weight, it is largely divorced from how the world really is.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on February 25, 2021, 01:37:40 PM
Long working hours for some reason largely is perceived domestically as "better." That attitude has hardly changed in the workforce and I would be interested to see how COVID/remote working will affect that long term. I tend to believe in "work smarter, not harder" and "hire well" but a lot of employers don't share those sensibilities. This is one of the many reasons why I don't view Futurism as something that carries much weight, it is largely divorced from how the world really is.
This entire thread has added some interesting elements, love it!
What's fascinating to me, is that the world 'really' is however we've made it to be. Yes, I agree that much of the productivity gains have not been shared with those of us that work (instead we're asked to do more and more), and that's how much of the employer expectation functioned the last few decades, as least in the US. Coming from the automotive sector R&D side, each year the teams for a given, previously existing domain got smaller, timing shortened, and complexity increased. Yes, the wages went up somewhat for those who remained, but there wasn't more leisure to be found, that's for sure.
As to the original post, my first take is that if we make a prediction today about the future and evaluate after the same 63 years (1958), will we be more accurate? Would we be more dreamers or more grounded? And what of the phenomenon that by envisioning aspects of a future that we want, we take part in realizing them?
All I know is that after driving coast to coast in an EV with autopilot running 99% of the time, me from only 15 years ago would not be in a position to argue what is not possible over the next 15 years, much less 63.
Kernals you started a great thread. It could go on and on and it will diverge.
I think it's the core issue behind the slowing economy since 1970. We did not have the technological breakthroughs that we did inn the previous century.
I was born at the end of mid century futurism . I miss it but we have some green shoots and you mentioned some.
Quote from: 3467 on March 08, 2021, 01:18:24 PM
Kernals you started a great thread. It could go on and on and it will diverge.
I think it's the core issue behind the slowing economy since 1970. We did not have the technological breakthroughs that we did inn the previous century.
I was born at the end of mid century futurism . I miss it but we have some green shoots and you mentioned some.
I think things are coming together for another great burst of progress. We've got artificial intelligence, quantum computers, cheap access to space, inexpensive solar power, CRISPR, lab grown meat, 2d materials and so much more.
Quote from: kernals12 on February 24, 2021, 02:07:13 PM
Can we get back on topic?
No
Quote from: kernals12 on February 24, 2021, 01:00:54 PM
It may be more profitable for the employer but the workers won't be happy and will instead go to another employer who offers better working conditions. And white collar workers have always worked long hours.
What do you suppose caused my last workplace to be so miserable? People were deeply unhappy about the working conditions, but instead of going to another employer, they stuck around cause at least there they had health insurance.
Quote from: 3467 on March 08, 2021, 01:18:24 PM
Kernals you started a great thread. It could go on and on and it will diverge.
I think it's the core issue behind the slowing economy since 1970. We did not have the technological breakthroughs that we did inn the previous century.
I was born at the end of mid century futurism . I miss it but we have some green shoots and you mentioned some.
I think we have had huge breakthroughs. They just more related to computing technology than anything else. Not the large "macro engineering" breakthroughs that we saw in the fist two thirds of the 20th Century.
And I don't know what you mean about "slowing economy since 1970." Our economy has been growing just fine, especially in the last 25 years. The problem is that wage and income differentiation has made that uneven.
Quote from: Scott5114 on March 08, 2021, 04:12:08 PM
What do you suppose caused my last workplace to be so miserable? People were deeply unhappy about the working conditions, but instead of going to another employer, they stuck around cause at least there they had health insurance.
Opening up this can of worms, what would the repercussions be of a single payor government run system on employer attitudes towards staffing (aside from the jokes about government run systems). Would employers be more receptive towards hiring more people for standard hours (30-40 per week) if the single biggest cost of benefits now goes out the door? I've heard that's kind of how it works in most other spots in the world, but it's taboo in America. Working in a professional field, I'd love a 40 hour workweek, but its not coming down the pike anytime soon no matter where I apply.
Note, I realize sociological thought exercises are mostly mute points, but its a fair observation if predicting the future and learning from past misfires. I also know that hiking the US personal income tax to rates seen elsewhere in the world would probably start a civil war the way things are these days.
Quote from: Chris19001 on March 10, 2021, 04:33:56 PM
Quote from: Scott5114 on March 08, 2021, 04:12:08 PM
What do you suppose caused my last workplace to be so miserable? People were deeply unhappy about the working conditions, but instead of going to another employer, they stuck around cause at least there they had health insurance.
Opening up this can of worms, what would the repercussions be of a single payor government run system on employer attitudes towards staffing (aside from the jokes about government run systems). Would employers be more receptive towards hiring more people for standard hours (30-40 per week) if the single biggest cost of benefits now goes out the door? I've heard that's kind of how it works in most other spots in the world, but it's taboo in America. Working in a professional field, I'd love a 40 hour workweek, but its not coming down the pike anytime soon no matter where I apply.
Note, I realize sociological thought exercises are mostly mute points, but its a fair observation if predicting the future and learning from past misfires. I also know that hiking the US personal income tax to rates seen elsewhere in the world would probably start a civil war the way things are these days. Mods please feel free to delete if this is just too far gone from the Disney prediction topic at hand.
Quote from: Scott5114 on March 08, 2021, 04:12:08 PM
Quote from: kernals12 on February 24, 2021, 02:07:13 PM
Can we get back on topic?
No
Quote from: kernals12 on February 24, 2021, 01:00:54 PM
It may be more profitable for the employer but the workers won't be happy and will instead go to another employer who offers better working conditions. And white collar workers have always worked long hours.
What do you suppose caused my last workplace to be so miserable? People were deeply unhappy about the working conditions, but instead of going to another employer, they stuck around cause at least there they had health insurance.
40% of the American workforce turns over either voluntarily or involuntarily every year. That's enough to create competition for workers among employers
Quote from: kernals12 on March 10, 2021, 04:42:08 PM
Quote from: Scott5114 on March 08, 2021, 04:12:08 PM
Quote from: kernals12 on February 24, 2021, 02:07:13 PM
Can we get back on topic?
No
Quote from: kernals12 on February 24, 2021, 01:00:54 PM
It may be more profitable for the employer but the workers won't be happy and will instead go to another employer who offers better working conditions. And white collar workers have always worked long hours.
What do you suppose caused my last workplace to be so miserable? People were deeply unhappy about the working conditions, but instead of going to another employer, they stuck around cause at least there they had health insurance.
40% of the American workforce turns over either voluntarily or involuntarily every year. That's enough to create competition for workers among employers
Correct me if I'm wrong, buy you don't work right?
The OP brings up some fascinating potential future highway concepts. I'll comment on a couple of those and add my own.
Quote from: kernals12 on February 23, 2021, 10:19:28 PM
-There will be heating coils in the pavement that will keep the road free of snow and ice.
I don't know about heating coils, but I expect new technologies to keep major roads free of snow/ice. I also expect some major roads and especially freeways to incorporate a recharging system to allow electric vehicles to operate long distances without needing to stop for long recharging stops. The trucking industry will be the push behind this as they can put their self-driving trucks on the highway in LA and drive non-stop to the East Coast, with possibly a sleeper cab in front for a security/admin person.
Quote
-With the reduction in power costs enabled by solar energy, concrete will probably overtake asphalt as the paving material of choice, due to its superior strength. For at or below grade roads, the concrete will be pervious to prevent flooding.
Probably not. Concrete is one of the worst CO2 polluters on the planet, producing 8% of our CO2 annually. It also will continue to emit that CO2 for centuries, even if our civilization collapses. Environmentalists are already lobbying to cut concrete use in construction. I expect new highway surface products using waste like shredded tires and recycled plastic mixed with a polymer binder will eventually replace concrete on major projects with asphalt continuing to play a major role in paving. Some of these new materials will allow construction underwater, much like Roman Empire concrete did using volcanic ash as an ingredient.
Quote
-Thanks to efficient electric motors, helicopters will be used much more, as ambulances, police cruisers, and tow trucks
This is tricky, because there are a lot of air space regulations in most developed countries. I expect it first in places like the UAE and Angola; both are urbanizing more quickly than their roads can handle and the political environment would be more supportive. The FAA and the airline lobby will fight this in the US until the technology can be proven elsewhere.
Quote
-You'll be happy to know there will be fewer trucks on tomorrow's highways. Once we find a room temperature superconductor, then Maglevs will take off (no pun intended) in a big way. Being able to move freight at 300 mph, they'll make long distance trucking all but obsolete. But trucks will still be needed to get freight to and from Maglev depots. These trucks, autonomous and electrically powered, will be small, probably no more than 20,000 pounds. Weight limits will probably be reduced for safety and road wear reasons.
This would require a commitment to building a taxpayer-funded, expensive, cross-country maglev network. I think that's less realistic than Elon Musk converting his hyperloop concept to freight transportation (easier than you might expect if he can get his SF/LA line running and substituting a hyperloop pod container as the cargo container). I don't foresee long-distance mag-lev anything since it would require the government to pay for and build a system that is incompatible with other transportation; high-speed rail freight is more likely with improved tech to handle steep grades. The long-distance trucking industry (Schneider, Roadway, etc) and rail interests would both heavily lobby against a maglev system.
Interesting discussion. Thanks.
QuoteI don't know about heating coils, but I expect new technologies to keep major roads free of snow/ice. I also expect some major roads and especially freeways to incorporate a recharging system to allow electric vehicles to operate long distances without needing to stop for long recharging stops. The trucking industry will be the push behind this as they can put their self-driving trucks on the highway in LA and drive non-stop to the East Coast, with possibly a sleeper cab in front for a security/admin person.
If solar power reduces the cost of energy by an order of magnitude as I suspect it will, why wouldn't we use heating coils? We would be freed from the burdens of snow and ice and the incredible environmental damage caused by road salt.
Quote
Probably not. Concrete is one of the worst CO2 polluters on the planet, producing 8% of our CO2 annually. It also will continue to emit that CO2 for centuries, even if our civilization collapses. Environmentalists are already lobbying to cut concrete use in construction. I expect new highway surface products using waste like shredded tires and recycled plastic mixed with a polymer binder will eventually replace concrete on major projects with asphalt continuing to play a major role in paving. Some of these new materials will allow construction underwater, much like Roman Empire concrete did using volcanic ash as an ingredient.
Half of all those emissions are from the use of fossil fuels to generate the heat needed for making cement. And don't forget, asphalt warms the planet through the urban heat island effect.
Quote
This would require a commitment to building a taxpayer-funded, expensive, cross-country maglev network. I think that's less realistic than Elon Musk converting his hyperloop concept to freight transportation (easier than you might expect if he can get his SF/LA line running and substituting a hyperloop pod container as the cargo container). I don't foresee long-distance mag-lev anything since it would require the government to pay for and build a system that is incompatible with other transportation; high-speed rail freight is more likely with improved tech to handle steep grades. The long-distance trucking industry (Schneider, Roadway, etc) and rail interests would both heavily lobby against a maglev system.
Railroads could be turned into maglev.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on March 10, 2021, 06:44:54 PM
Quote from: kernals12 on March 10, 2021, 04:42:08 PM
Quote from: Scott5114 on March 08, 2021, 04:12:08 PM
Quote from: kernals12 on February 24, 2021, 02:07:13 PM
Can we get back on topic?
No
Quote from: kernals12 on February 24, 2021, 01:00:54 PM
It may be more profitable for the employer but the workers won't be happy and will instead go to another employer who offers better working conditions. And white collar workers have always worked long hours.
What do you suppose caused my last workplace to be so miserable? People were deeply unhappy about the working conditions, but instead of going to another employer, they stuck around cause at least there they had health insurance.
40% of the American workforce turns over either voluntarily or involuntarily every year. That's enough to create competition for workers among employers
Correct me if I'm wrong, buy you don't work right?
I do now. I landed a job in February.
Quote from: kernals12 on March 10, 2021, 08:47:26 PM
Railroads could be turned into maglev.
You've probably heard this from me before, but Maglev technology (1880) is older than the electric traction motors used in railroading (1886). The first practical use was an electric trolley car in Richmond, Virginia in 1888. The developers of this early Maglev quickly realized that the large air gap between the vehicle [electromagnets] and the wayside [electromagnets] was extremely inefficient. Even today, Maglev propulsion is very inefficient and only useful in a few certain instances: (1) the need for significant accelerating force sufficient to overcome high aerodynamic drag at high speeds (say, over 300 mph); or (2) the ability to develop a huge breakaway force (Maglev-propelled rockets and magnetically-propelled aircraft carrier launchers). There have been some creative attempts to mechanically reduce the air gap between the vehicle and the guideway, but all of them have serious flaws when it comes to negotiating curves and changes in grade.
In a nutshell, if we plow everything straight and level between two points, Maglev can work to transport large numbers of passengers but will be electrically inefficient. This works best as a two-lane shuttle (shorter distances, say 10 miles) or a two-lane "loop" with transfer tables to change tracks at each end. But the United States is already having a tough time justifying plowing everything *almost* straight and flat to develop high-speed rail (which is much less expensive).
Quote from: vdeane on February 24, 2021, 12:49:47 PM
Quote from: kernals12 on February 23, 2021, 10:19:28 PM
-Thanks to automation, we'll probably be working less. Even in a pessimistic case, I foresee a 32 hour work week with 6 weeks vacation. I think 13 weeks is the maximum, beyond which point we'd suffer from severe boredom. And this doesn't count the time spent on household chores by labor saving devices. A lot of this free time will be spent traveling. For that, we'll need improvements to transportation to popular recreational areas.
People predicted that 70 years ago. It didn't happen. Ask yourself, what is more profitable for an employer? Employing the same number of people and giving them shorter days with more time off, or employing fewer people and having the remaining people work just as hard as before (if not harder)?
This is why good blue collar jobs are mostly extinct in this country and why it's harder for college grads to break into their career fields, while many professional workers work 60-80 hour weeks.
Well by now most of have proven most work can be done from home at least!
Quote from: texaskdog on March 10, 2021, 09:42:00 PM
Quote from: vdeane on February 24, 2021, 12:49:47 PM
Quote from: kernals12 on February 23, 2021, 10:19:28 PM
-Thanks to automation, we'll probably be working less. Even in a pessimistic case, I foresee a 32 hour work week with 6 weeks vacation. I think 13 weeks is the maximum, beyond which point we'd suffer from severe boredom. And this doesn't count the time spent on household chores by labor saving devices. A lot of this free time will be spent traveling. For that, we'll need improvements to transportation to popular recreational areas.
People predicted that 70 years ago. It didn't happen. Ask yourself, what is more profitable for an employer? Employing the same number of people and giving them shorter days with more time off, or employing fewer people and having the remaining people work just as hard as before (if not harder)?
This is why good blue collar jobs are mostly extinct in this country and why it's harder for college grads to break into their career fields, while many professional workers work 60-80 hour weeks.
Well by now most of have proven most work can be done from home at least!
Sure with white collar but not really with blue collar. One of the big reasons COVID took off as much as it did here in the Central Valley of California was that the agriculture industry couldn't afford not to have people come in.
Quote from: Dirt Roads on March 10, 2021, 09:32:43 PM
Quote from: kernals12 on March 10, 2021, 08:47:26 PM
Railroads could be turned into maglev.
You've probably heard this from me before, but Maglev technology (1880) is older than the electric traction motors used in railroading (1886). The first practical use was an electric trolley car in Richmond, Virginia in 1888. The developers of this early Maglev quickly realized that the large air gap between the vehicle [electromagnets] and the wayside [electromagnets] was extremely inefficient. Even today, Maglev propulsion is very inefficient and only useful in a few certain instances: (1) the need for significant accelerating force sufficient to overcome high aerodynamic drag at high speeds (say, over 300 mph); or (2) the ability to develop a huge breakaway force (Maglev-propelled rockets and magnetically-propelled aircraft carrier launchers). There have been some creative attempts to mechanically reduce the air gap between the vehicle and the guideway, but all of them have serious flaws when it comes to negotiating curves and changes in grade.
In a nutshell, if we plow everything straight and level between two points, Maglev can work to transport large numbers of passengers but will be electrically inefficient. This works best as a two-lane shuttle (shorter distances, say 10 miles) or a two-lane "loop" with transfer tables to change tracks at each end. But the United States is already having a tough time justifying plowing everything *almost* straight and flat to develop high-speed rail (which is much less expensive).
Between room temperature superconductors and extremely low cost electricity, I think it will pencil out.
Quote from: kernals12 on March 10, 2021, 04:42:08 PM
Quote from: Scott5114 on March 08, 2021, 04:12:08 PM
Quote from: kernals12 on February 24, 2021, 02:07:13 PM
Can we get back on topic?
No
Quote from: kernals12 on February 24, 2021, 01:00:54 PM
It may be more profitable for the employer but the workers won't be happy and will instead go to another employer who offers better working conditions. And white collar workers have always worked long hours.
What do you suppose caused my last workplace to be so miserable? People were deeply unhappy about the working conditions, but instead of going to another employer, they stuck around cause at least there they had health insurance.
40% of the American workforce turns over either voluntarily or involuntarily every year. That's enough to create competition for workers among employers
Ppppppppffffffthathahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
Quote from: Scott5114 on March 11, 2021, 01:33:07 AM
Quote from: kernals12 on March 10, 2021, 04:42:08 PM
Quote from: Scott5114 on March 08, 2021, 04:12:08 PM
Quote from: kernals12 on February 24, 2021, 02:07:13 PM
Can we get back on topic?
No
Quote from: kernals12 on February 24, 2021, 01:00:54 PM
It may be more profitable for the employer but the workers won't be happy and will instead go to another employer who offers better working conditions. And white collar workers have always worked long hours.
What do you suppose caused my last workplace to be so miserable? People were deeply unhappy about the working conditions, but instead of going to another employer, they stuck around cause at least there they had health insurance.
40% of the American workforce turns over either voluntarily or involuntarily every year. That's enough to create competition for workers among employers
Ppppppppffffffthathahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
sigh
https://data.bls.gov/timeseries/JTS000000000000000TSR
Quote from: kernals12 on March 11, 2021, 06:57:48 AM
Quote from: Scott5114 on March 11, 2021, 01:33:07 AM
Quote from: kernals12 on March 10, 2021, 04:42:08 PM
Quote from: Scott5114 on March 08, 2021, 04:12:08 PM
Quote from: kernals12 on February 24, 2021, 02:07:13 PM
Can we get back on topic?
No
Quote from: kernals12 on February 24, 2021, 01:00:54 PM
It may be more profitable for the employer but the workers won't be happy and will instead go to another employer who offers better working conditions. And white collar workers have always worked long hours.
What do you suppose caused my last workplace to be so miserable? People were deeply unhappy about the working conditions, but instead of going to another employer, they stuck around cause at least there they had health insurance.
40% of the American workforce turns over either voluntarily or involuntarily every year. That's enough to create competition for workers among employers
Ppppppppffffffthathahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
sigh
https://data.bls.gov/timeseries/JTS000000000000000TSR
Looks like you're confusing someone taking issue with your conclusions rather than questioning the data itself.
Quote from: Rothman on March 11, 2021, 07:15:51 AM
Quote from: kernals12 on March 11, 2021, 06:57:48 AM
Quote from: Scott5114 on March 11, 2021, 01:33:07 AM
Quote from: kernals12 on March 10, 2021, 04:42:08 PM
Quote from: Scott5114 on March 08, 2021, 04:12:08 PM
Quote from: kernals12 on February 24, 2021, 02:07:13 PM
Can we get back on topic?
No
Quote from: kernals12 on February 24, 2021, 01:00:54 PM
It may be more profitable for the employer but the workers won't be happy and will instead go to another employer who offers better working conditions. And white collar workers have always worked long hours.
What do you suppose caused my last workplace to be so miserable? People were deeply unhappy about the working conditions, but instead of going to another employer, they stuck around cause at least there they had health insurance.
40% of the American workforce turns over either voluntarily or involuntarily every year. That's enough to create competition for workers among employers
Ppppppppffffffthathahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
sigh
https://data.bls.gov/timeseries/JTS000000000000000TSR
Looks like you're confusing someone taking issue with your conclusions rather than questioning the data itself.
Why don't you just google "employee retention"? Low paying industries are actually the ones with the highest rate of turnover.
Quote from: kernals12 on March 11, 2021, 08:04:10 AM
Quote from: Rothman on March 11, 2021, 07:15:51 AM
Quote from: kernals12 on March 11, 2021, 06:57:48 AM
Quote from: Scott5114 on March 11, 2021, 01:33:07 AM
Quote from: kernals12 on March 10, 2021, 04:42:08 PM
Quote from: Scott5114 on March 08, 2021, 04:12:08 PM
Quote from: kernals12 on February 24, 2021, 02:07:13 PM
Can we get back on topic?
No
Quote from: kernals12 on February 24, 2021, 01:00:54 PM
It may be more profitable for the employer but the workers won't be happy and will instead go to another employer who offers better working conditions. And white collar workers have always worked long hours.
What do you suppose caused my last workplace to be so miserable? People were deeply unhappy about the working conditions, but instead of going to another employer, they stuck around cause at least there they had health insurance.
40% of the American workforce turns over either voluntarily or involuntarily every year. That's enough to create competition for workers among employers
Ppppppppffffffthathahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
sigh
https://data.bls.gov/timeseries/JTS000000000000000TSR
Looks like you're confusing someone taking issue with your conclusions rather than questioning the data itself.
Why don't you just google "employee retention"? Low paying industries are actually the ones with the highest rate of turnover.
Yes, but one would expect a 40% turnover in an entry level job like retail. To say the entire job market is like that is far fetched, especially when you get to professional level employment.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on March 11, 2021, 09:22:04 AM
Quote from: kernals12 on March 11, 2021, 08:04:10 AM
Quote from: Rothman on March 11, 2021, 07:15:51 AM
Quote from: kernals12 on March 11, 2021, 06:57:48 AM
Quote from: Scott5114 on March 11, 2021, 01:33:07 AM
Quote from: kernals12 on March 10, 2021, 04:42:08 PM
Quote from: Scott5114 on March 08, 2021, 04:12:08 PM
Quote from: kernals12 on February 24, 2021, 02:07:13 PM
Can we get back on topic?
No
Quote from: kernals12 on February 24, 2021, 01:00:54 PM
It may be more profitable for the employer but the workers won't be happy and will instead go to another employer who offers better working conditions. And white collar workers have always worked long hours.
What do you suppose caused my last workplace to be so miserable? People were deeply unhappy about the working conditions, but instead of going to another employer, they stuck around cause at least there they had health insurance.
40% of the American workforce turns over either voluntarily or involuntarily every year. That's enough to create competition for workers among employers
Ppppppppffffffthathahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
sigh
https://data.bls.gov/timeseries/JTS000000000000000TSR
Looks like you're confusing someone taking issue with your conclusions rather than questioning the data itself.
Why don't you just google "employee retention"? Low paying industries are actually the ones with the highest rate of turnover.
Yes, but one would expect a 40% turnover in an entry level job like retail. To say the entire job market is like that is far fetched, especially when you get to professional level employment.
It's lower because professionals are more satisfied with their jobs
Quote from: Dirt Roads on March 10, 2021, 09:32:43 PM
Quote from: kernals12 on March 10, 2021, 08:47:26 PM
Railroads could be turned into maglev.
You've probably heard this from me before, but Maglev technology (1880) is older than the electric traction motors used in railroading (1886). The first practical use was an electric trolley car in Richmond, Virginia in 1888. The developers of this early Maglev quickly realized that the large air gap between the vehicle [electromagnets] and the wayside [electromagnets] was extremely inefficient. Even today, Maglev propulsion is very inefficient and only useful in a few certain instances: (1) the need for significant accelerating force sufficient to overcome high aerodynamic drag at high speeds (say, over 300 mph); or (2) the ability to develop a huge breakaway force (Maglev-propelled rockets and magnetically-propelled aircraft carrier launchers). There have been some creative attempts to mechanically reduce the air gap between the vehicle and the guideway, but all of them have serious flaws when it comes to negotiating curves and changes in grade.
In a nutshell, if we plow everything straight and level between two points, Maglev can work to transport large numbers of passengers but will be electrically inefficient. This works best as a two-lane shuttle (shorter distances, say 10 miles) or a two-lane "loop" with transfer tables to change tracks at each end. But the United States is already having a tough time justifying plowing everything *almost* straight and flat to develop high-speed rail (which is much less expensive).
Quote from: kernals12 on March 10, 2021, 11:41:08 PM
Between room temperature superconductors and extremely low cost electricity, I think it will pencil out.
I wish it were so. Superconductors will not work on Maglev trains because of the huge air gap. On the other hand, superconductors are great for traction motors (tiny air gaps between rotor and stator) and will be quite useful on trains if the "room temperature" technology ever becomes practical. The Kamen motors on the Jacksonville Skyway monorail trains work quite well, even considering that they can't quite make it through a full day service without a recharge of liquid nitrogen.
There are two ways to flip the equation. As I mentioned earlier in this thread, there are mechanical techniques to reduce the air gap (geometric designs that maintain a tight air gap while still allowing for a healthy amount of levitation. This makes bending difficult. The other requires a hybrid technique that has never been used before. If you think of Maglev as a rotary motor that has been laid out flat, you can place the active electromagnetic part (stator) on either the vehicle or the wayside. So far, all of the wayside stator Maglev technologies have been low-speed (top speeds about 25 mph) because of the huge cost of placing continuous power and stator sections along the guideway. If you were to utilize both wayside stators and carborne stators, you could significantly improve the efficiency of accelerating out of a station, then switch over to the carborne stators to maintain speeds. This would only require wayside stators in the station departure areas, which still may be very costly for high speed trains (excess of 300 mph). The current design of carborne stators would still be needed to [rescue] a train that stopped somewhere other than station platforms.
There is a dirty little secret about wayside stators (now, include both Maglev and linear induction motors). Depending on where the vehicle "lands", an active stator may accelerate the train in the wrong direction. LIM systems and low-speed Maglev solve this issue with traction wheels and directional clutches. And if we can't solve this issue, we might as well install traction [rotary] motors to solve the problem of directional acceleration. All that being said, this might not be terribly expensive nor add extra weight to add to a Maglev train if ever your "room temperature" superconductor technology becomes practical.
It might be a control system nightmare
Quote from: skluth on March 10, 2021, 06:49:02 PM
Quote
-Thanks to efficient electric motors, helicopters will be used much more, as ambulances, police cruisers, and tow trucks
This is tricky, because there are a lot of air space regulations in most developed countries. I expect it first in places like the UAE and Angola; both are urbanizing more quickly than their roads can handle and the political environment would be more supportive. The FAA and the airline lobby will fight this in the US until the technology can be proven elsewhere.
Air ambulances and police helicopters are already a thing.
Quote from: kernals12 on March 11, 2021, 01:32:43 PM
Quote from: skluth on March 10, 2021, 06:49:02 PM
Quote
-Thanks to efficient electric motors, helicopters will be used much more, as ambulances, police cruisers, and tow trucks
This is tricky, because there are a lot of air space regulations in most developed countries. I expect it first in places like the UAE and Angola; both are urbanizing more quickly than their roads can handle and the political environment would be more supportive. The FAA and the airline lobby will fight this in the US until the technology can be proven elsewhere.
Air ambulances and police helicopters are already a thing.
You ignored your visions of police cruisers (much different from how we currently use police copters) and tow trucks, which were what I thought absurd. Air ambulances are mostly used in difficult to access areas like the mountains around my home where I've seen them numerous times. When you mix things that are currently common and futuristic things, there's bound to be confusion.
Quote from: kernals12 on March 11, 2021, 10:18:17 AM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on March 11, 2021, 09:22:04 AM
Quote from: kernals12 on March 11, 2021, 08:04:10 AM
Quote from: Rothman on March 11, 2021, 07:15:51 AM
Quote from: kernals12 on March 11, 2021, 06:57:48 AM
Quote from: Scott5114 on March 11, 2021, 01:33:07 AM
Quote from: kernals12 on March 10, 2021, 04:42:08 PM
Quote from: Scott5114 on March 08, 2021, 04:12:08 PM
Quote from: kernals12 on February 24, 2021, 02:07:13 PM
Can we get back on topic?
No
Quote from: kernals12 on February 24, 2021, 01:00:54 PM
It may be more profitable for the employer but the workers won't be happy and will instead go to another employer who offers better working conditions. And white collar workers have always worked long hours.
What do you suppose caused my last workplace to be so miserable? People were deeply unhappy about the working conditions, but instead of going to another employer, they stuck around cause at least there they had health insurance.
40% of the American workforce turns over either voluntarily or involuntarily every year. That's enough to create competition for workers among employers
Ppppppppffffffthathahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
sigh
https://data.bls.gov/timeseries/JTS000000000000000TSR
Looks like you're confusing someone taking issue with your conclusions rather than questioning the data itself.
Why don't you just google "employee retention"? Low paying industries are actually the ones with the highest rate of turnover.
Yes, but one would expect a 40% turnover in an entry level job like retail. To say the entire job market is like that is far fetched, especially when you get to professional level employment.
It's lower because professionals are more satisfied with their jobs
Somebody's ready for the Politburo.
Quote from: kernals12 on March 10, 2021, 08:47:26 PM
QuoteI don't know about heating coils, but I expect new technologies to keep major roads free of snow/ice. I also expect some major roads and especially freeways to incorporate a recharging system to allow electric vehicles to operate long distances without needing to stop for long recharging stops. The trucking industry will be the push behind this as they can put their self-driving trucks on the highway in LA and drive non-stop to the East Coast, with possibly a sleeper cab in front for a security/admin person.
If solar power reduces the cost of energy by an order of magnitude as I suspect it will, why wouldn't we use heating coils? We would be freed from the burdens of snow and ice and the incredible environmental damage caused by road salt.
First, solar power doesn't work at night when the most damage happens when roads are experiencing freeze/thaw cycles. I love solar too (I live in Palm Springs and it's everywhere as are wind turbines in the nearby pass), but I personally don't see it used in this manner even with massive battery storage. I think there are better and easier solutions that don't risk turning the road into a massive electrical conductor. You disagree. I do agree with you on the need to reduce salt use on infrastructure, but that's another discussion.
QuoteQuote
Probably not. Concrete is one of the worst CO2 polluters on the planet, producing 8% of our CO2 annually. It also will continue to emit that CO2 for centuries, even if our civilization collapses. Environmentalists are already lobbying to cut concrete use in construction. I expect new highway surface products using waste like shredded tires and recycled plastic mixed with a polymer binder will eventually replace concrete on major projects with asphalt continuing to play a major role in paving. Some of these new materials will allow construction underwater, much like Roman Empire concrete did using volcanic ash as an ingredient.
Half of all those emissions are from the use of fossil fuels to generate the heat needed for making cement. And don't forget, asphalt warms the planet through the urban heat island effect.
So you've knocked down other CO2 emissions from concrete down to only 4% if we stop producing concrete, but you want to increase concrete production which will add even more to the long-term damage to the atmosphere. This is why I expect other materials to replace concrete. I'm not fond of asphalt. I expect it to be reduced or eliminated in many urban plans, especially in wealthier countries. But it is a quick, inexpensive paving option (depending on availability) for many poorer countries, especially in rural areas and sprawling suburban slums.
The workplace discussion has gotten out of hand. Please take it elsewhere.
One interesting application I've heard for inductive pavement is for race tracks. Imagine how racing would change if drivers never needed to refuel!
Quote from: kernals12 on March 11, 2021, 09:28:28 PM
One interesting application I've heard for inductive pavement is for race tracks. Imagine how racing would change if drivers never needed to refuel!
The pit road is some of the best stuff in racing, it can changes the course of the entire competition. Even if the cars didn't need to refuel they would still need to change tires since they have essentially have what would equate a tread wear rating of 1. There isn't really a way around that kind of thing either as racing tires are designed to lay down as much rubber as possible for maximum grip.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on March 11, 2021, 09:36:48 PM
Quote from: kernals12 on March 11, 2021, 09:28:28 PM
One interesting application I've heard for inductive pavement is for race tracks. Imagine how racing would change if drivers never needed to refuel!
The pit road is some of the best stuff in racing, it can changes the course of the entire competition. Even if the cars didn't need to refuel they would still need to change tires since they have essentially have what would equate a tread wear rating of 1. There isn't really a way around that kind of thing either as racing tires are designed to lay down as much rubber as possible for maximum grip.
We have had slot cars for decades.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on March 11, 2021, 09:36:48 PM
Quote from: kernals12 on March 11, 2021, 09:28:28 PM
One interesting application I've heard for inductive pavement is for race tracks. Imagine how racing would change if drivers never needed to refuel!
The pit road is some of the best stuff in racing, it can changes the course of the entire competition. Even if the cars didn't need to refuel they would still need to change tires since they have essentially have what would equate a tread wear rating of 1. There isn't really a way around that kind of thing either as racing tires are designed to lay down as much rubber as possible for maximum grip.
But obviously they would need to pit less frequently.
Quote from: kernals12 on March 11, 2021, 09:54:30 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on March 11, 2021, 09:36:48 PM
Quote from: kernals12 on March 11, 2021, 09:28:28 PM
One interesting application I've heard for inductive pavement is for race tracks. Imagine how racing would change if drivers never needed to refuel!
The pit road is some of the best stuff in racing, it can changes the course of the entire competition. Even if the cars didn't need to refuel they would still need to change tires since they have essentially have what would equate a tread wear rating of 1. There isn't really a way around that kind of thing either as racing tires are designed to lay down as much rubber as possible for maximum grip.
But obviously they would need to pit less frequently.
That depends on the racing series and "may" be true of certain lighter weight open wheel series. With heavier racing cars (NASCAR spec Stock Cars especially) the tire wear often out paces fuel consumption. Bottom line is though, fresh tires are going to equate to better grip than worn tires. So it really won't relegate pitting to a thing of the past even if fuel wasn't a factor.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on March 11, 2021, 09:59:53 PM
Quote from: kernals12 on March 11, 2021, 09:54:30 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on March 11, 2021, 09:36:48 PM
Quote from: kernals12 on March 11, 2021, 09:28:28 PM
One interesting application I've heard for inductive pavement is for race tracks. Imagine how racing would change if drivers never needed to refuel!
The pit road is some of the best stuff in racing, it can changes the course of the entire competition. Even if the cars didn't need to refuel they would still need to change tires since they have essentially have what would equate a tread wear rating of 1. There isn't really a way around that kind of thing either as racing tires are designed to lay down as much rubber as possible for maximum grip.
But obviously they would need to pit less frequently.
That depends on the racing series and "may" be true of certain lighter weight open wheel series. With heavier racing cars (NASCAR spec Stock Cars especially) the tire wear often out paces fuel consumption. Bottom line is though, fresh tires are going to equate to better grip than worn tires. So it really won't relegate pitting to a thing of the past even if fuel wasn't a factor.
But if the pavement were conductive then you could have the cars levitate so they wouldn't need tires. :bigass:
Quote from: kernals12 on March 11, 2021, 10:11:16 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on March 11, 2021, 09:59:53 PM
Quote from: kernals12 on March 11, 2021, 09:54:30 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on March 11, 2021, 09:36:48 PM
Quote from: kernals12 on March 11, 2021, 09:28:28 PM
One interesting application I've heard for inductive pavement is for race tracks. Imagine how racing would change if drivers never needed to refuel!
The pit road is some of the best stuff in racing, it can changes the course of the entire competition. Even if the cars didn't need to refuel they would still need to change tires since they have essentially have what would equate a tread wear rating of 1. There isn't really a way around that kind of thing either as racing tires are designed to lay down as much rubber as possible for maximum grip.
But obviously they would need to pit less frequently.
That depends on the racing series and "may" be true of certain lighter weight open wheel series. With heavier racing cars (NASCAR spec Stock Cars especially) the tire wear often out paces fuel consumption. Bottom line is though, fresh tires are going to equate to better grip than worn tires. So it really won't relegate pitting to a thing of the past even if fuel wasn't a factor.
But if the pavement were conductive then you could have the cars levitate so they wouldn't need tires. :bigass:
I suspect that auto racing that has actual drivers in the cars will never go towards something levitated given that would likely exceed current speeds handily and negate pretty much all safety advancements. Auto racing has pretty much already hit the speeds where G-Forces on the body during crashes can become serious (if not fatal) and most series have made en effort to slow the cars. NASCAR has long used air intake restriction plates for large super speedways to reduce top speed whereas most open wheel series have reduced engine displacement.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on March 11, 2021, 10:17:09 PM
Quote from: kernals12 on March 11, 2021, 10:11:16 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on March 11, 2021, 09:59:53 PM
Quote from: kernals12 on March 11, 2021, 09:54:30 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on March 11, 2021, 09:36:48 PM
Quote from: kernals12 on March 11, 2021, 09:28:28 PM
One interesting application I've heard for inductive pavement is for race tracks. Imagine how racing would change if drivers never needed to refuel!
The pit road is some of the best stuff in racing, it can changes the course of the entire competition. Even if the cars didn't need to refuel they would still need to change tires since they have essentially have what would equate a tread wear rating of 1. There isn't really a way around that kind of thing either as racing tires are designed to lay down as much rubber as possible for maximum grip.
But obviously they would need to pit less frequently.
That depends on the racing series and "may" be true of certain lighter weight open wheel series. With heavier racing cars (NASCAR spec Stock Cars especially) the tire wear often out paces fuel consumption. Bottom line is though, fresh tires are going to equate to better grip than worn tires. So it really won't relegate pitting to a thing of the past even if fuel wasn't a factor.
But if the pavement were conductive then you could have the cars levitate so they wouldn't need tires. :bigass:
I suspect that auto racing that has actual drivers in the cars will never go towards something levitated given that would likely exceed current speeds handily and negate pretty much all safety advancements. Auto racing has pretty much already hit the speeds where G-Forces on the body during crashes can become serious (if not fatal) and most series have made en effort to slow the cars. NASCAR has long used air intake restriction plates for large super speedways to reduce top speed whereas most open wheel series have reduced engine displacement.
So, now we're considering levitating cars in this thread.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on March 11, 2021, 10:17:09 PM
Quote from: kernals12 on March 11, 2021, 10:11:16 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on March 11, 2021, 09:59:53 PM
Quote from: kernals12 on March 11, 2021, 09:54:30 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on March 11, 2021, 09:36:48 PM
Quote from: kernals12 on March 11, 2021, 09:28:28 PM
One interesting application I've heard for inductive pavement is for race tracks. Imagine how racing would change if drivers never needed to refuel!
The pit road is some of the best stuff in racing, it can changes the course of the entire competition. Even if the cars didn't need to refuel they would still need to change tires since they have essentially have what would equate a tread wear rating of 1. There isn't really a way around that kind of thing either as racing tires are designed to lay down as much rubber as possible for maximum grip.
But obviously they would need to pit less frequently.
That depends on the racing series and "may" be true of certain lighter weight open wheel series. With heavier racing cars (NASCAR spec Stock Cars especially) the tire wear often out paces fuel consumption. Bottom line is though, fresh tires are going to equate to better grip than worn tires. So it really won't relegate pitting to a thing of the past even if fuel wasn't a factor.
But if the pavement were conductive then you could have the cars levitate so they wouldn't need tires. :bigass:
I suspect that auto racing that has actual drivers in the cars will never go towards something levitated given that would likely exceed current speeds handily and negate pretty much all safety advancements. Auto racing has pretty much already hit the speeds where G-Forces on the body during crashes can become serious (if not fatal) and most series have made en effort to slow the cars. NASCAR has long used air intake restriction plates for large super speedways to reduce top speed whereas most open wheel series have reduced engine displacement.
Maglevs are inherently self stabilizing, the more you push away from the track, the greater the force pulling you back on. And just imagine a maglev automobile. It would have no moving parts at all. It would be like one of those Landspeeders from Star Wars
Quote from: Rothman on March 11, 2021, 10:21:34 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on March 11, 2021, 10:17:09 PM
Quote from: kernals12 on March 11, 2021, 10:11:16 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on March 11, 2021, 09:59:53 PM
Quote from: kernals12 on March 11, 2021, 09:54:30 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on March 11, 2021, 09:36:48 PM
Quote from: kernals12 on March 11, 2021, 09:28:28 PM
One interesting application I've heard for inductive pavement is for race tracks. Imagine how racing would change if drivers never needed to refuel!
The pit road is some of the best stuff in racing, it can changes the course of the entire competition. Even if the cars didn't need to refuel they would still need to change tires since they have essentially have what would equate a tread wear rating of 1. There isn't really a way around that kind of thing either as racing tires are designed to lay down as much rubber as possible for maximum grip.
But obviously they would need to pit less frequently.
That depends on the racing series and "may" be true of certain lighter weight open wheel series. With heavier racing cars (NASCAR spec Stock Cars especially) the tire wear often out paces fuel consumption. Bottom line is though, fresh tires are going to equate to better grip than worn tires. So it really won't relegate pitting to a thing of the past even if fuel wasn't a factor.
But if the pavement were conductive then you could have the cars levitate so they wouldn't need tires. :bigass:
I suspect that auto racing that has actual drivers in the cars will never go towards something levitated given that would likely exceed current speeds handily and negate pretty much all safety advancements. Auto racing has pretty much already hit the speeds where G-Forces on the body during crashes can become serious (if not fatal) and most series have made en effort to slow the cars. NASCAR has long used air intake restriction plates for large super speedways to reduce top speed whereas most open wheel series have reduced engine displacement.
So, now we're considering levitating cars in this thread.
I'm just waiting to see the survey of how it ties into the annual turnover rate for Fortune 500 companies.
Quote from: Rothman on March 11, 2021, 10:21:34 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on March 11, 2021, 10:17:09 PM
Quote from: kernals12 on March 11, 2021, 10:11:16 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on March 11, 2021, 09:59:53 PM
Quote from: kernals12 on March 11, 2021, 09:54:30 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on March 11, 2021, 09:36:48 PM
Quote from: kernals12 on March 11, 2021, 09:28:28 PM
One interesting application I've heard for inductive pavement is for race tracks. Imagine how racing would change if drivers never needed to refuel!
The pit road is some of the best stuff in racing, it can changes the course of the entire competition. Even if the cars didn't need to refuel they would still need to change tires since they have essentially have what would equate a tread wear rating of 1. There isn't really a way around that kind of thing either as racing tires are designed to lay down as much rubber as possible for maximum grip.
But obviously they would need to pit less frequently.
That depends on the racing series and "may" be true of certain lighter weight open wheel series. With heavier racing cars (NASCAR spec Stock Cars especially) the tire wear often out paces fuel consumption. Bottom line is though, fresh tires are going to equate to better grip than worn tires. So it really won't relegate pitting to a thing of the past even if fuel wasn't a factor.
But if the pavement were conductive then you could have the cars levitate so they wouldn't need tires. :bigass:
I suspect that auto racing that has actual drivers in the cars will never go towards something levitated given that would likely exceed current speeds handily and negate pretty much all safety advancements. Auto racing has pretty much already hit the speeds where G-Forces on the body during crashes can become serious (if not fatal) and most series have made en effort to slow the cars. NASCAR has long used air intake restriction plates for large super speedways to reduce top speed whereas most open wheel series have reduced engine displacement.
So, now we're considering levitating cars in this thread.
It's a futurist thread, and the original Magic Highways had those "sun powered electro-suspension cars". I don't think wheelless cars will happen, because you're going to have to traverse dirt and gravel at some point. But racing cars aren't going to go off road.
Quote from: kernals12 on March 11, 2021, 10:22:44 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on March 11, 2021, 10:17:09 PM
Quote from: kernals12 on March 11, 2021, 10:11:16 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on March 11, 2021, 09:59:53 PM
Quote from: kernals12 on March 11, 2021, 09:54:30 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on March 11, 2021, 09:36:48 PM
Quote from: kernals12 on March 11, 2021, 09:28:28 PM
One interesting application I've heard for inductive pavement is for race tracks. Imagine how racing would change if drivers never needed to refuel!
The pit road is some of the best stuff in racing, it can changes the course of the entire competition. Even if the cars didn't need to refuel they would still need to change tires since they have essentially have what would equate a tread wear rating of 1. There isn't really a way around that kind of thing either as racing tires are designed to lay down as much rubber as possible for maximum grip.
But obviously they would need to pit less frequently.
That depends on the racing series and "may" be true of certain lighter weight open wheel series. With heavier racing cars (NASCAR spec Stock Cars especially) the tire wear often out paces fuel consumption. Bottom line is though, fresh tires are going to equate to better grip than worn tires. So it really won't relegate pitting to a thing of the past even if fuel wasn't a factor.
But if the pavement were conductive then you could have the cars levitate so they wouldn't need tires. :bigass:
I suspect that auto racing that has actual drivers in the cars will never go towards something levitated given that would likely exceed current speeds handily and negate pretty much all safety advancements. Auto racing has pretty much already hit the speeds where G-Forces on the body during crashes can become serious (if not fatal) and most series have made en effort to slow the cars. NASCAR has long used air intake restriction plates for large super speedways to reduce top speed whereas most open wheel series have reduced engine displacement.
Maglevs are inherently self stabilizing, the more you push away from the track, the greater the force pulling you back on. And just imagine a maglev automobile. It would have no moving parts at all. It would be like one of those Landspeeders from Star Wars
Stable and racing generally don't mix. Essentially the idea is to push the limits to the furthest extent possible as part of a competition, that by it's nature doesn't lend for stability. Racing by it's very nature is inherently wreck prone.
Either way, not a lot of good things are going to happen to a race car driver crashing into a wall at 400-500 MPH regardless of how stable the vehicle was beforehand.
Quote from: kernals12 on March 11, 2021, 09:28:28 PM
One interesting application I've heard for inductive pavement is for race tracks.
Haven't they suffered enough at Santa Anita?
Quote from: kernals12 on March 11, 2021, 10:25:15 PM
Quote from: Rothman on March 11, 2021, 10:21:34 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on March 11, 2021, 10:17:09 PM
Quote from: kernals12 on March 11, 2021, 10:11:16 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on March 11, 2021, 09:59:53 PM
Quote from: kernals12 on March 11, 2021, 09:54:30 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on March 11, 2021, 09:36:48 PM
Quote from: kernals12 on March 11, 2021, 09:28:28 PM
One interesting application I've heard for inductive pavement is for race tracks. Imagine how racing would change if drivers never needed to refuel!
The pit road is some of the best stuff in racing, it can changes the course of the entire competition. Even if the cars didn't need to refuel they would still need to change tires since they have essentially have what would equate a tread wear rating of 1. There isn't really a way around that kind of thing either as racing tires are designed to lay down as much rubber as possible for maximum grip.
But obviously they would need to pit less frequently.
That depends on the racing series and "may" be true of certain lighter weight open wheel series. With heavier racing cars (NASCAR spec Stock Cars especially) the tire wear often out paces fuel consumption. Bottom line is though, fresh tires are going to equate to better grip than worn tires. So it really won't relegate pitting to a thing of the past even if fuel wasn't a factor.
But if the pavement were conductive then you could have the cars levitate so they wouldn't need tires. :bigass:
I suspect that auto racing that has actual drivers in the cars will never go towards something levitated given that would likely exceed current speeds handily and negate pretty much all safety advancements. Auto racing has pretty much already hit the speeds where G-Forces on the body during crashes can become serious (if not fatal) and most series have made en effort to slow the cars. NASCAR has long used air intake restriction plates for large super speedways to reduce top speed whereas most open wheel series have reduced engine displacement.
So, now we're considering levitating cars in this thread.
It's a futurist thread, and the original Magic Highways had those "sun powered electro-suspension cars". I don't think wheelless cars will happen, because you're going to have to traverse dirt and gravel at some point. But racing cars aren't going to go off road.
World Rally much...
I think the car of tomorrow will use these: (https://i.imgur.com/L6Cx5Zn.png)
It's an idea devised by startup Protean. What you have here is a car's motor, brakes, suspension, and steering all in one modular unit. Unsprung weight is currently an issue, one that those room temperature superconductors are needed to fix, but just imagine all of the savings in weight, complexity, and cost, that would result from this sort of design.
Quote from: kernals12 on March 11, 2021, 10:22:44 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on March 11, 2021, 10:17:09 PM
Quote from: kernals12 on March 11, 2021, 10:11:16 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on March 11, 2021, 09:59:53 PM
Quote from: kernals12 on March 11, 2021, 09:54:30 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on March 11, 2021, 09:36:48 PM
Quote from: kernals12 on March 11, 2021, 09:28:28 PM
One interesting application I've heard for inductive pavement is for race tracks. Imagine how racing would change if drivers never needed to refuel!
The pit road is some of the best stuff in racing, it can changes the course of the entire competition. Even if the cars didn't need to refuel they would still need to change tires since they have essentially have what would equate a tread wear rating of 1. There isn't really a way around that kind of thing either as racing tires are designed to lay down as much rubber as possible for maximum grip.
But obviously they would need to pit less frequently.
That depends on the racing series and "may" be true of certain lighter weight open wheel series. With heavier racing cars (NASCAR spec Stock Cars especially) the tire wear often out paces fuel consumption. Bottom line is though, fresh tires are going to equate to better grip than worn tires. So it really won't relegate pitting to a thing of the past even if fuel wasn't a factor.
But if the pavement were conductive then you could have the cars levitate so they wouldn't need tires. :bigass:
I suspect that auto racing that has actual drivers in the cars will never go towards something levitated given that would likely exceed current speeds handily and negate pretty much all safety advancements. Auto racing has pretty much already hit the speeds where G-Forces on the body during crashes can become serious (if not fatal) and most series have made en effort to slow the cars. NASCAR has long used air intake restriction plates for large super speedways to reduce top speed whereas most open wheel series have reduced engine displacement.
Maglevs are inherently self stabilizing, the more you push away from the track, the greater the force pulling you back on. And just imagine a maglev automobile. It would have no moving parts at all. It would be like one of those Landspeeders from Star Wars
Great. So racing will be dominated by nine-year-olds who are supposed to bring balance to the Force. I've seen that future and want to avoid it.
Quote from: skluth on March 13, 2021, 07:09:45 PM
Quote from: kernals12 on March 11, 2021, 10:22:44 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on March 11, 2021, 10:17:09 PM
Quote from: kernals12 on March 11, 2021, 10:11:16 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on March 11, 2021, 09:59:53 PM
Quote from: kernals12 on March 11, 2021, 09:54:30 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on March 11, 2021, 09:36:48 PM
Quote from: kernals12 on March 11, 2021, 09:28:28 PM
One interesting application I've heard for inductive pavement is for race tracks. Imagine how racing would change if drivers never needed to refuel!
The pit road is some of the best stuff in racing, it can changes the course of the entire competition. Even if the cars didn't need to refuel they would still need to change tires since they have essentially have what would equate a tread wear rating of 1. There isn't really a way around that kind of thing either as racing tires are designed to lay down as much rubber as possible for maximum grip.
But obviously they would need to pit less frequently.
That depends on the racing series and "may" be true of certain lighter weight open wheel series. With heavier racing cars (NASCAR spec Stock Cars especially) the tire wear often out paces fuel consumption. Bottom line is though, fresh tires are going to equate to better grip than worn tires. So it really won't relegate pitting to a thing of the past even if fuel wasn't a factor.
But if the pavement were conductive then you could have the cars levitate so they wouldn't need tires. :bigass:
I suspect that auto racing that has actual drivers in the cars will never go towards something levitated given that would likely exceed current speeds handily and negate pretty much all safety advancements. Auto racing has pretty much already hit the speeds where G-Forces on the body during crashes can become serious (if not fatal) and most series have made en effort to slow the cars. NASCAR has long used air intake restriction plates for large super speedways to reduce top speed whereas most open wheel series have reduced engine displacement.
Maglevs are inherently self stabilizing, the more you push away from the track, the greater the force pulling you back on. And just imagine a maglev automobile. It would have no moving parts at all. It would be like one of those Landspeeders from Star Wars
Great. So racing will be dominated by nine-year-olds who are supposed to bring balance to the Force. I've seen that future and want to avoid it.
Don't you mean a long time ago in a galaxy far, far away? That doesn't sound very wizard to me and makes me want to tell my wife how much I hate sand.
I've got a very bad feeling about this discussion.