You’re wrong. If I’m driving all day between cities, adding 2 extra hours (for multiple stops to fuel) to that day is definitely significant.

Would sort of fit my current usecase. We drive 500 miles 1-way to take the kids to see the grandparents. Right about 1/2 way we stop for 30-45 minutes for gas, restroom break and a sit down meal (kids don’t eat on the road!).

No, but I do Drive 6-8 times a year trips that are between 450-750 miles one way. So I’m going to buy a car based around that, as will many people who may drive a from city to city once or twice a year for holidays or vacations. Consider the fact that lots of people buy huge trucks and SUV’s they don’t need that…

>there’s no way you’d want to take a break longer than 5 minutes?

My fiancee and I drove straight through from LSU to our home in Indianapolis in a single day (~900 miles). Only stops were quick food stops and short gas stops (2).

200k KM’s is 125,000 miles roughly, in 8 years that would require driving 15.6k miles per year. Most people aren’t going to get that far, especially since it’s tougher to use one for road trips.

>30-45 minute recharging stop is no big deal to most people

“Difficult to implement” might not have been the best phrasing. What I meant by that was more that it would be near impossible to sell without Honda and Acura’s blessing. Selling a product that “interferes” with the standard safety features in a vehicle is pretty much illegal as far as I know, or at least so close…

But that’s exactly my point. A system that relies on interfering with the native functions of the vehicle is almost guaranteed to not be something you would be able to sell. If it was approved by the manufacturer this could potentially have a shot at being a realistic product, but as it stands now it’s basically…

I love wagons and all that jazz but c’mon now that’s just pure fantasy.

Those people (CUV buyers) would never buy a wagon. I’ve had people turn their nose up at a Dodge Journey (I know, I know) because I pointed out that it was basically a high-roof station wagon; I’ve had people try to back out of a deal because the title of their CUV/SUV said “station wagon”. I don’t know why these…

Because one makes money and one generally doesn’t.

but he included that line “driver responsible for all shit that goes down, don’t blame me if the product doesn’t work, lulz ¯\_(ツ)_/¯”, so he should be totally covered...

Based on the other stuff they’re asking from the developer, it sounds like there is a bare minimum of documents that must be submitted to the NHTSA before your product is allowed for road use?

Lol. “Rather not deal with regulators.”

We strongly encourage you to delay selling or deploying your product on the public roadways and until you can ensure it safe. It is insufficient to assert, as you do, that your product “does not remove any of the driver’s responsibilities from the task of driving.”

If you don’t want to deal with regulators and lawyers, do something that doesn’t involve the safety of human lives.

As an engineer, I can certainly appreciate the simplicity of the rotary engine. Unfortunately, despite decades of development, that simplicity simply has not provided any benefit other than a high redline. Compared to a reciprocating engine, a rotary is expensive to machine, is less durable, is inefficient, and has…

Yep, that’s totally why he cancelled it, not because it was a half-baked idea that would be difficult to implement or anything like that.

Neutral: How Does Mazda Survive?