>>16165 As soon as someone thinks of a way to use anti-gravity.

>>16167 Any clue when?

>>16168 https://www.space.com/2026-antigravity-propulsion-system-proposed.html Maybe by the time our grandkids are 35.

>>16169 Nigger I'm talking about ships floating above the ground due to space magicks none of this shit.

>>16170 Well you could make a racetrack out of magnets and have cars with electromagnets instead of wheels race on it.

>>16165 As soon as antimatter is stable, doesn't cause annihilation, and can be made to be super-dense. So never.

>>16193 When a magnetic field clashes and moved against another one it gives resistance and electricity happens.

>>16216 Does playing with gravitons always means playing with antimatter? I'm not following your thoughts there

If we can't have the flying cars we were promised, then can we at least have the 3D tire balls that can do 160mph traveling at a 45 degree angle?

How can you call yourself a car enthusiast if you want to turn cars into hovercraft or take away all the quirks that make cars cars with spherical tires.

>>16471 We were always aiming for flight since greece an sheeeit

>>16478 You're just confirming my argument. You're in the wrong place for that. Flying cars are aerial transportation, not ground transportation. And cars are all about the fun and challenges of ground transportation.

>>16479 What you're proposing is that we ought to have stuck with rails or wagon wheels. Unless you can quantify the metrics of "fun" and "challenge" which are in every respect subjective (hence "muh 3D wheels don't count").

>>16484 no. You can be a fan of both flying and ground vehicles. But this is a board for ground based motorized, 4 wheeled vehicles, not aerial.

>>16488 In his defense, there really isn't anywhere else he can go to discuss this. It's not like he can go on /bane/ and expect a serious answer.

>>16484 That's just dumb, cars are different from trains or wagons. You have dampers, you can get air when you go over a hill, you can drift, you can do burnouts, off-road tracking, etc. Flying cars just fly and avoid tall objects like skyscrapers or mountains. It's apples and oranges. And about the spherical tires, what I think you meant with 3D wheels, they would eliminate all semblance of traction exploitation and make cars just glorified shopping trolleys. For autonomous car shills and people who think cars are just tools to get from A to B, it's the holy grail of handling, but then you might as well have a comical UFO with 3 spherical tires underneath making jetsons noises. It would ruin cars forever. >>16488 Not necessarily 4-wheeled, but the idea is that aerial transportation is totally different from ground or water transport. The cool thing about cars is how they behave on the ground, not how well they can do a barrel roll or how well the aeros allow them to take off. The latter being a bad thing.

Sorry for the rant, have a car.

>>16492 To me a car is defined by the liberties it offers, those being "private transportation" and "the ability to take you anywhere affordably". I do not attempt to restrict the definition further even though I think that "having wings" is not typically what I would use to describe an automobile. The reason I don't attempt to define it further is because I recognize that they could eventually develop beyond "ground racing" and reach the "flying cars" stage that people once imagined. Maybe you're right and it would ruin it, or be unfair to call them "cars" at all by then. But to me the liberties they offer is the main point and as soon as another set of technologies does it better then that's where my interests are going to go (ps not really because by then I'll be dead). I'd find plenty of "challenging fun" within it, even if the physics and challenges are different from how they used to be. So to summarize, tell me why the fuck we can't have zero-g or spherically wheeled cars in 20+some years? Or more generally why does technology to do with cars stagnate so much? I'm convinced the pinnacle of the human race, cars included, was reached before 1973 and that everything we live through now is the equivalent of "zombie simpson" episodes.

>>16500 >So to summarize, tell me why the fuck we can't have zero-g or spherically wheeled cars in 20+some years? Cause technology isn't there yet. And as for flying cars, I doubt there ever will be such a development in the foreseeable future. People can barely drive a car on a road, not to mention basically flying a plane around. And flying is actually a more restricted form of transportation than driving.

>>16165 Do you know how much logistics go into not having planes collide in mid air constantly? Now imagine a few billion cars fighting over airspace.

>>16538 >"Why can't we have wormhole devices that let you reach Australia in 3 minutes while alien bitches with four titties give you a full body massage?" >"It's obvious OP. Because Sanjid cannot pick a lane" Then force Sanjid to get the bus you fuckin defeatist piece o crap

>>16541 Nigger, lanes in the air are invisible and it takes quite a lot of training to be able to fly by instrument and TCAS, which is what you need to do if you don't want collisions to happen. VFR is asking for a disaster. Or many small disasters if cars ever were to fly.

>>16546 Pretty much this. The time for flying cars came and went decades ago, a foot in the door was needed by the mid-50s at the very latest. Nowadays the air infrastructure is too built up and too regulated to allow civilians, even those with the prerequisite licenses.

>>16546 The only way flying "cars" can ever become reality in any feasible fashion would be forced autopiloting among preset "lanes". One would also have to somehow skeet around the general safety&maintenance regulations for fixed-wing aircraft if you don't want your flying "car" ownership limited to richfags who could probably afford a private helicopter anyway.