If the car were invented today, no government would allow regular people to drive it, it would remain a privilege for presidents and the forces.
Luckily the car was invented many years ago, when children from Briston and Croydon were born with one head only, instead of the two heads they grow today, and during a time when Spain and France were a mere mass of ice, instead of all the green, sea, mountain, lakes and gorgeous girls they offer today. Because of global warming, obviously.
Therefore we have been able, until now, to enjoy turbocharged engines, high fuel consumption, and enormous V8s, V10s, W12s that run on diced hamsters.
However, I'm afraid that the future of means of transport won't have much to do with cars. Not cars as we know them today anyway. I can be sure of this.
The car, as a daily usage of fuel won't exist.
The concept of opening a door, sitting down, firing up the engine and stealing away with wind in your hair will vanish.
Sooner or later, the "speed kills" party will get the upper hand and we'll be "driving" cars that actually drive themselves with satellites aid, to get to where we want to go.
Mercedes are already developing and using systems that make the car brake by itself.
There is certainly going to be an alternative because oil will run out. Naturally I'm not saying that cars will disappear altogether, just as now there are people who collect and keep very expensive, unreliable and old cars, there are equally gonna be people who will drive, on a daily basis, flying scooters fuelled by carrots but will have Ferrari 458s, 500s or Porsches in their garage. To reminisce the old good days of petrol. Oily, roaring and dirty.
What are the solutions, then?
Luckily the car was invented many years ago, when children from Briston and Croydon were born with one head only, instead of the two heads they grow today, and during a time when Spain and France were a mere mass of ice, instead of all the green, sea, mountain, lakes and gorgeous girls they offer today. Because of global warming, obviously.
Therefore we have been able, until now, to enjoy turbocharged engines, high fuel consumption, and enormous V8s, V10s, W12s that run on diced hamsters.
However, I'm afraid that the future of means of transport won't have much to do with cars. Not cars as we know them today anyway. I can be sure of this.
The car, as a daily usage of fuel won't exist.
The concept of opening a door, sitting down, firing up the engine and stealing away with wind in your hair will vanish.
Sooner or later, the "speed kills" party will get the upper hand and we'll be "driving" cars that actually drive themselves with satellites aid, to get to where we want to go.
Mercedes are already developing and using systems that make the car brake by itself.
There is certainly going to be an alternative because oil will run out. Naturally I'm not saying that cars will disappear altogether, just as now there are people who collect and keep very expensive, unreliable and old cars, there are equally gonna be people who will drive, on a daily basis, flying scooters fuelled by carrots but will have Ferrari 458s, 500s or Porsches in their garage. To reminisce the old good days of petrol. Oily, roaring and dirty.
What are the solutions, then?
Well, it seems like we have two.
Electric cars. But electric cars need brakes, and they need to be charged with a light socket, so there you go. They need oil.
And hydrogen. Hydrogen is, ideally, the best solution and the theory that everyone likes the most. It is expensive, but you have all the advantages of oil cars (at the pump you fill it up with hydrogen rather than petrol) with none of the drawbacks. Because hydrogen is the most abudant gas in the Universe and the only emissions it produces are from H20. Water.
No one seems to have thought about something, though.
There are currently about 600 million cars in the world, which equal 600 million toxic emissions. Sounds bad, doesn't it?
But with all this global warming talking, all these icebergs that are supposed to melt and sea level rising prominently, nobody thought about the consequences of having 600 million motorvehicles expelling water. Nobody but Jeremy Clarkson has spotted that.
Probably 'cause it's not important.
The problem is not our planet, which will allegedly explode within 10 years, and it's not even the certain fact that all polar bears will melt into snow which will melt into water and Italy will sink.
Electric cars. But electric cars need brakes, and they need to be charged with a light socket, so there you go. They need oil.
And hydrogen. Hydrogen is, ideally, the best solution and the theory that everyone likes the most. It is expensive, but you have all the advantages of oil cars (at the pump you fill it up with hydrogen rather than petrol) with none of the drawbacks. Because hydrogen is the most abudant gas in the Universe and the only emissions it produces are from H20. Water.
No one seems to have thought about something, though.
There are currently about 600 million cars in the world, which equal 600 million toxic emissions. Sounds bad, doesn't it?
But with all this global warming talking, all these icebergs that are supposed to melt and sea level rising prominently, nobody thought about the consequences of having 600 million motorvehicles expelling water. Nobody but Jeremy Clarkson has spotted that.
Probably 'cause it's not important.
The problem is not our planet, which will allegedly explode within 10 years, and it's not even the certain fact that all polar bears will melt into snow which will melt into water and Italy will sink.
The car represents freedom. Have you seen "I, Robot", the film starring Will Smith? Would you want to live in a world like that? I wouldn't.
And this brings me on to something that's not a car.
Fendi bike. Some time ago I had a bit of an argument with a friend who, of course, loves it. She says it's amazing, beautiful, she says it doesn't matter if it's not practical and that I can't understand. And I don't, actually.
I don't care if you can have optional sat nav and frog skin bags.
For a price from 5,9 to 9,5 thousand dollars I'd rather hire an assassin to murder the person who designed and thought of this. It's also very ugly. So ugly in fact that I'd rather look at a baboon. Come to think of it I'd rather look at the back of a baboon.
Then I changed my mind.
Yes, I still think it's useless, hideous, wrong, too expensive, designed by people who have sex with endagered species for people who have sex with no one and nothing at all. But I do get WHY it exists. And in a rather twisted way it's a good thing it does.
If you need a bike, do you need to buy one that costs 6 grand, with sat nav and leather bags? No.
In the same way that if you need a car your first instinct is not to buy one that costs 1,2 million euros, has two seats, a body made entirely out of carbon fibre, no boot, carbon ceramic brakes that cost alone more than you need for a well equipped Mini Cooper and a 6 litre v12 with 750 hp.
This is why the Zonda R and a the Fendi bike are very similar. And the reason why we should be grateful they exist.
They draw the line between what you want and what you need.
And if the eco-mentalists and the "lettuce heads", as I like to call them, will win; we'll only have cars, and things, we need. Not cars and things we want.
I want to reserve myself the right to jump in a Zonda or a Viper and thunder through a motorway tunnel at 150 mph, I don't wanna wind up reading The Sun in the back of my oval green car that drives itself.
So, if you like the planet and life the way they are now, buy a Fendi bike and a Pagani Zonda R.
