Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Ron Patrick's Street-Legal Jet Powered Volkswagen Beetle (2006)

ronpatrickstuff.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 146 posts

Re: Ron Patrick's Street-Legal Jet Powered Volkswagen Beetle (2006)

#101

Post by usrusr »

KennyBlanken wrote: post #91
usrusr wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've been wondering about this very same question a lot myself and accidentally stumbled across the answer just a few days ago: Efficiency of turbines smaller than grid scale is simply not anywhere close to what piston engines can do at e.g. car size. Even at naval scale, turbines only win in use cases where power density is more important than fuel efficiency. Helicopters are deep in the (specific) camp of power den…

The bit about the naval use and efficiency isn't quite accurate. The issue isn't that they're not efficient. It's that they are only efficient at high power level, and the minimum power level they're efficient at (and even their minimum power level, period) - is quite high. To compare: Britain's current aircraft carrier has four diesels that total 40MW...combined those diesels equal one of its two 40MW turbines. This…

I don't think that it's just inefficiency at certain power levels:

The big table on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brake-specific_fuel_consumptio... has the Marine Trent rated less efficient than some car engines. And that table is peak efficiency, not efficiency at some arbitrary inconvenient power level.

But you are right in so far as efficiency at the low end of the power range is very important in commercial shipping. Because the energy demand (at the drive shaft) of a given trip is highly dependent on the desired speed and if going show ruins your engine's efficiency any dip in demand will ruin you economically (because others on the market are much better at compensating the dip by "slow steaming")

Re: Ron Patrick's Street-Legal Jet Powered Volkswagen Beetle (2006)

#102

Post by brucethemoose2 »

aidenn0 wrote: post #96
brucethemoose2 wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Crazy engine swaps are not uncommon. There are some Fiat 500s and such with v8 double motorcycle engines, wankels or even v12s and racecar v6s: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A52W20Z38Bw https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D6SZuionhqQ A turbine is relatively exotic, if only because they are even more impractical.

IIRC someone put a turbocharged 7L smallblock V8 in the back of a Lotus Exige, though they had to lengthen the chassis to make it fit.

That is probably the Henessy Venom GT.

My favorite is the Ariel Atom V8, which swapped the Honda Civic engine for a hilarious 483hp 3L NA V8. In a 1300lb car.

Re: Ron Patrick's Street-Legal Jet Powered Volkswagen Beetle (2006)

#104

Post by jamiek88 »

KennyBlanken wrote: post #87
stergios wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's still sitting in his shop. RP is not going to sell it.

I think it's more that like most modded / custom car owners, he thinks that it's reasonable to set an asking price according to the following formula: (Cost of car) + (Cost of Mods) + (My time x some magical hourly rate) = reasonable asking price The more sane of them add in a multiplier, like say .5 to .8. Or leave out their time. Reality is: What 1 person among the people who hear about the sale will pay = reasonab…

Yeah things like that are always the same.

It’s the sellers dream, rarely anyone else has the exact same dream.

If they have a similar dream all they see is the differences and what they’d do differently.

Re: Ron Patrick's Street-Legal Jet Powered Volkswagen Beetle (2006)

#105

Post by userbinator »

mindslight wrote: post #32
shortcake27 wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

20 years ago in Australia my car got canaried because I had LPG and a pod filter, which was illegal because you were only allowed 1 modification to the intake system. I am 100% confident that if I strapped a jet to the car, it would be illegal. As it should be. If you want to do extremely dangerous modifications, do it on your own property. Not a public road where you risk killing a family of 5.

You're speaking from an Australian perspective about what is , to make an otherwise unsupported argument about what should be in the US. I'll be one of the first to point out problems and blindspots from the American conception of "freedom", but in this case it seems highly appropriate. You yourself even got bit by overregulation for something seemingly reasonable and forward-looking, and yet you're still reflexively…

It is likely to be safer simply because the one driving it is going to be a lot more careful than the average driver.

I recall seeing a study a while ago that showed how those who work on their own cars, especially for those who do major jobs like engine rebuilds, are statistically far less likely to get into an accident. Unfortunately I can't find it now.

Re: Ron Patrick's Street-Legal Jet Powered Volkswagen Beetle (2006)

#106

Post by jamiek88 »

ben7799 wrote: post #69
usrusr wrote: post #55

"The car has two engines: the production gasoline engine in the front driving the front wheels and the jet engine in the back." Careful wording to give the impression that the drive shaft of the helicopter turbine would be connected to the rear wheels, without actually claiming that it is. So it's a car with a large flame thrower in the back, minor The Boring Company vibes. Well possible that the author might have ha…

For a stunt car like this there's not a huge need or desire to have it powering the wheels at all. The direct air thrust will push the car just fine, doesn't need a transmission, has zero issues with wheel spin or traction, and so then doesn't require re-engineering the wheels/tires and then the suspension and/or chassis to handle 1350hp.

Yeah imagine the rubber! They’d need American drag racing tyres!

Re: Ron Patrick's Street-Legal Jet Powered Volkswagen Beetle (2006)

#107

Post by jamiek88 »

throwaway20304 wrote: post #15
lawlessone wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I am not in the US, but where i am afaik anything that modifies the car like this would have to go through some sort of recertification process. It would be perfectly legal on private property but not public roads

Well not sure where you are, but where in EU I am, you can modify the insides of your car (people attach entire apartments to the insides of their cars...), and there's nothing wrong about stuff sticking outside - you just need to attach a red flag if it's over 1.5m out of the car (maybe red flame would be enough?). The modified rear door might be a problem, but where I am you could simply keep the original open, or…

Road traffic laws are absolutely not harmonized across the EU.

French, Portuguese and German rules of the road for example are all different in statutory strictness and enforcement strictness.

Re: Ron Patrick's Street-Legal Jet Powered Volkswagen Beetle (2006)

#108

Post by jamiek88 »

gafferongames wrote: post #43
mindslight wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're speaking from an Australian perspective about what is , to make an otherwise unsupported argument about what should be in the US. I'll be one of the first to point out problems and blindspots from the American conception of "freedom", but in this case it seems highly appropriate. You yourself even got bit by overregulation for something seemingly reasonable and forward-looking, and yet you're still reflexively…

As an Australian-American living in the US I can confirm that the Australian concept of law (aka Nanny State) would ensure that this modification is illegal by default. Think of the children.

I was shocked as a Brit American living in the US how nanny state Aust is. Even more than Britain. Certainly when it comes to cars and driving. The whole ‘anti hoon’ thing seems shocking to me with my now mostly American sensibilities.

But I guess that’s why we both live here rather than blighty or down under.

Re: Ron Patrick's Street-Legal Jet Powered Volkswagen Beetle (2006)

#109

Post by jamiek88 »

cortesoft wrote: post #62
mindslight wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We live in a society where things are legal by default. Why would adding a jet engine to a car be a priori illegal? If he harms somebody or otherwise causes damage, that itself is what's illegal and he'd be liable regardless of motor vehicle regulations. If this mod became a larger trend, especially consumer-available, then regulations would be implemented to head it off. But for a few lone instances it's not particu…

In California, you have to register your car and have it pass a smog test. How would this pass that?

I’d hate to be the minimum wage tech tying to figure that out!

Re: Ron Patrick's Street-Legal Jet Powered Volkswagen Beetle (2006)

#110

Post by ed_mercer »

> The Beetle was chosen because it looks cool with the jet and it shows it off well.

Subjective, but I would argue that the Beetle is a terrible choice and makes the jet engine look like a pole sticking out of a ball. A flat sports car would probably fit the look much better and mimic the aerodynamics of an aircraft.

Post reply on HN