Are Hovering Cars the Future of Transportation?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Abheer Parashar
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Cars Hovering
Click For Summary
SUMMARY

Hovering cars, while a popular concept in science fiction, present significant challenges that make them impractical compared to traditional wheeled vehicles. The discussion highlights that hovering cars would require substantial energy to counteract gravity, making them less efficient than modern cars like the Toyota Camry, which achieves around 40 mpg compared to the 4 mpg of a helicopter like the Bell 206 JetRanger. Additionally, the complexities of operation, safety concerns, and infrastructure costs associated with technologies like MagLev further complicate their viability. Overall, hovering cars are deemed more akin to low-end helicopters rather than practical alternatives to conventional cars.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of basic physics principles, particularly gravity and energy consumption.
  • Familiarity with transportation technologies, including MagLev systems.
  • Knowledge of fuel efficiency metrics and comparisons between different vehicle types.
  • Awareness of current advancements in electric vehicles and personal transit options.
NEXT STEPS
  • Research the principles of MagLev technology and its applications in transportation.
  • Explore the energy consumption and efficiency of electric scooters compared to traditional vehicles.
  • Investigate the safety regulations and operational challenges of aerial vehicles like helicopters.
  • Analyze the environmental impact of various transportation methods, including hovering vehicles.
USEFUL FOR

This discussion is beneficial for transportation engineers, environmental scientists, and anyone interested in the future of personal mobility and energy-efficient transportation solutions.

Abheer Parashar
Messages
4
Reaction score
1
TL;DR
Are hovering cars actually sensible to be used ?
Hello everyone, I am Abheer and I am a high school student. I wanted to ask that in few sci-fi films I saw hovering cars and now I am wondering, are they really a better alternative than 'wheeled' cars in general (like saving energy being wasted due to friction and also being fast), or are they just good for sci-fi and will cause huge infra expenditure to set up and tough to maintain (if the MagLev concept is applied to cars, for example) ?
 
Engineering news on Phys.org
Wheels keep trains on the track. Maglev follows a rail, but without wheels. Tyres keep cars on the road. A hover car has no rails. A hover car would need some way of not sliding sideways, down the hill.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: Lnewqban
You might think about how hard you would have to work to hold a car in the air. If you haven't tried it, ask a parent, teacher, or neighbor to help you jack up a car to change a flat tire. When you get thru, realize that you have raised less than half the car weight.

Unfortunately that energy is not free, it has to come from SOMEWHERE... and it is a lot more than the friction losses, which are there only during movement.

Keep up the creative thinking though! That is how progress is made.

Cheers,
Tom
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: Lnewqban
Abheer Parashar said:
TL;DR Summary: Are hovering cars actually sensible to be used ?
Well, let's think about some of the difficulties/challenges:
  • How do they go up and down hills?
  • What happens when several of them are near each other?
  • What happens when there is a light surface of water when it's raining?
  • How do they act in a heavy rain?
  • How do they act in strong winds?
  • How do they turn corners and what effect might that have on other hovercraft around them?
  • How do they stop and what effect might that have on others around them, especially if there are a line of them at a stoplight?
I could go on, but perhaps you get the point.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: Vanadium 50, Abheer Parashar and Lnewqban
Tom.G said:
You might think about how hard you would have to work to hold a car in the air. If you haven't tried it, ask a parent, teacher, or neighbor to help you jack up a car to change a flat tire. When you get thru, realize that you have raised less than half the car weight.

Unfortunately that energy is not free, it has to come from SOMEWHERE... and it is a lot more than the friction losses, which are there only during movement.

Keep up the creative thinking though! That is how progress is made.

Cheers,
Tom
It means that just to escape from the effect of friction of wheeled cars, the hovering cars are stupidity bcz they require more power ?
 
If you insist, I can go along with that. But there is no need to beat yourself up over it.

Cheers,
Tom
 
There's a reason that helicopters and other aircraft based on similar principles aren't used to transport goods except in very special cases. They just aren't efficient enough. Hovering cars run into the same issue. As a comparison, the Bell 206 JetRanger is a 4-passenger helicopter weighing 3300 lbs at max takeoff weight. This is comparable to a Toyota Camry in weight and passenger capacity. The JetRanger uses about 115 liters of fuel (30 gallons) per hour of flying and does about 115 MPH at average cruising speed. Assuming that the best fuel efficiency occurs somewhere around cruising speed, this is a fuel efficiency of about 4 mpg, less than 1/10th of a modern Toyota Camry.

Even if this back of the envelope math is off by a factor of 2x or even 3x, a helicopter comes nowhere near the fuel efficiency of a modern car. Hovering cars suffer from the same limitations in addition to being MUCH more complicated to build and operate and much more dangerous in the event of 'driver' error or equipment malfunction compared to ground cars.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: CalcNerd and Lnewqban
Abheer Parashar said:
Are hovering cars actually sensible to be used ?
Depends on the application o0)
https://www.craneblogger.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/11/Lawn-mower-crane-hedge-trim.jpg
... Joke aside, I think they would be more like some kind of low-end helicopters than real cars: and that brings the special driving licence and lots of safety considerations. More bother than fun, in the foreseeable future.
But of course, if you have enough wealth to waste and wide grasslands to traverse then they would be a considerable option.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: Lnewqban
There are about 25 million km of highways in the world. Is there enough copper in the world to make the coils for that much maglev track?

1669301465523.png


Alternatively, what happens when a maglev car reaches the end of maglev track and needs to continue on conventional roads?
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: Lnewqban
  • #10
Abheer Parashar said:
TL;DR Summary: Are hovering cars actually sensible to be used ?

Hello everyone, I am Abheer and I am a high school student. I wanted to ask that in few sci-fi films I saw hovering cars and now I am wondering, are they really a better alternative than 'wheeled' cars in general (like saving energy being wasted due to friction and also being fast), or are they just good for sci-fi and will cause huge infra expenditure to set up and tough to maintain (if the MagLev concept is applied to cars, for example) ?
Welcome to PF!

A self powering hovering car the Avrocar has been built in the 1950's. Here is a short video. If it interests you you can look at some of the longer design videos that will be linked.



You can judge for yourself if it seems practical.
 
  • #11
Um yeah...it's called gravity and gravity is a big problem for flight on earth.

To the best of my knowledge the cheapest method for a single-person transit these days isn't a car but electric scooter which is even more efficient than say solar car and obviously fossil fuel cars or bikes and to give you the number an electric scooter can be 10, 15 or even 20 times more efficient than personal ultralight airplane. Example: an ultralight airplane powered by diesel fuel can burn say 2 litres of diesel per 100km which is some 76 megajoules while for 100km el. scooter can use 5 megajoules or less. Of course with an airplane you have the advantage to fly through shortcut but it's more noisy and riskier. It's also much faster.

Have a look at this fantastic explanation of how much energy would you need to deal with gravity while flying, and since you said you're highschool student just ignore the integral/parenthesis/exotic symbols and focus on the simple multiplication and division to see the real calculation:

https://www.learnthermo.com/examples/example-problem
 
  • #12
@gggnano The OP was last seen 3 weeks ago. Looks like he left 4 days after joining, so don't expect an answer.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: gggnano
  • #13
gggnano said:
To the best of my knowledge the cheapest method for a single-person transit these days isn't a car but electric scooter which is even more efficient than say solar car and obviously fossil fuel cars or bikes and to give you the number an electric scooter can be 10, 15 or even 20 times more efficient than personal ultralight airplane.
Nope. :smile:

https://www.bicycling.com/rides/a20039883/9-ways-to-make-bike-commuting-easier/
 

Attachments

  • 1670892467183.png
    1670892467183.png
    133.3 KB · Views: 163
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: gggnano
  • #15
bob012345 said:
Are you answering cheapest or most efficient or both?
I bicycle for food... :smile:
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: bob012345
  • #16
berkeman said:
I bicycle for food... :smile:
In Dallas we actually have bike trails all around the city.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: berkeman
  • #17
bob012345 said:
In Dallas we actually have bike trails all around the city.
In Shreveport we often don't even have sidewalks, let alone bike trails. I have a sidewalk in front of my house, but one of the main cross roads connected to my street does not.
 
  • #18
berkeman said:
I bicycle for food... :smile:
Sounds like a pretty low pay rate. :wink:
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: berkeman

Similar threads

  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
9K
  • · Replies 19 ·
Replies
19
Views
12K
  • · Replies 16 ·
Replies
16
Views
9K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
3K
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
4K
Replies
5
Views
3K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
3K
Replies
24
Views
7K