Welcome to Netrider ... Connecting Riders!

Interested in talking motorbikes with a terrific community of riders?
Signup (it's quick and free) to join the discussions and access the full suite of tools and information that Netrider has to offer.

Honda smoking too much weed

Discussion in 'Bike Reviews, Questions and Suggestions' at netrider.net.au started by Loz, Oct 9, 2008.

  1.  Top
  2. lol I wonder how much money they wasted making that... maybe they could sell it to Hollywood for the remaking of 'Tron'
  3. Cool, concepts are not meant to be rideable or even practical, they are about stretching the design staff and in the end customers. Yes some concepts are thinly veiled production ready bikes meant to guage consumer perceptions but not in this case. I say good on them, here we are talking about a Honda that is not sensible! :LOL:
  4. That's one expensive garden ornament :p
  5. the front suspension looks strange
  6. I wonder if Honda's starting to call our bluff on things now.

    The new Honda Civic Type R's look was just a concept car, but by popular demand entered mass production almost untouched.

    DN-01's made it to production (with mixed responses :LOL:).

    Mebbe they're tired of being made fun of for building sensible stuff?
  7. Lets not stifle creativity just because it pushes a few conservative boundaries.
    Every automotive development we take for granted today was a head scratching concept at some stage.
    Magnetic levitation and perpetual motion may just be practical one day.
  8. looks better than the 08 cbr thou
  9. No axel is no issue you can use the rim with bearings in it. I can only assume the bottom of those enclosures is open with the tyre accessible through it.
    You could provide power to the rear with the way they have built it, but, the lack of suspension and no apparent way to turn the front tyre for steering does seem to be an issue, not to mention no real lean angle without scraping plastic.
  10. Already is for high-speed trains. :D

    No. Not going to happen. We'll get highly refined efficiencies and feed-back of losses into the system, but perpetual motion breaks some fundamental physical laws.
  11. In science we are really good at disproving things and are very poor at proving things. Theories like the Theory of Relativity go on and on because no one can think of anything better.

    "New ideas pass through three periods:
    • It can't be done.
    • It probably can be done, but it's not worth doing.
    • I knew it was a good idea all along !"

    Arthur C. Clarke.
  12.  Top
  13. sakura = nice :cool: :cool:
  14. Yep, that is exactly how science and scientific progress works.

    Actually, they are constantly not-disproved. That is, evidence and results keep appearing that support the standard model. Meanwhile, many fringe (and some mainstream) scientists are trying to re-formulate the model into a more asthetic form, all the while this is helping us to understand why the standard model works as it does.

    I'll rephrase my comments regarding perpetual motion since you've refuted me. True perpetual motion breaks some of the most robust laws of physics. It is so highly improbable that we'll use 'perpetual motion' someday in a transport machine, that it is essentially impossible.
  15.  Top
  16. This is good food for thought, but remember that he was a science fiction writer. Its akin to quoting an astrologer when talking about astronomy.
  17. That's not to say we won't invent some sort of weird power source which is in the spirit of "free energy" even if it doesn't itself violate entropy/etc; Say, mysterous aether-sails, like a windmill for the energy contained in the vacuum. ;)

    I noticed a few years ago that there'd been a big step-advance improvement in the technology of plutonium-iridium isothermal generators (as seen on Voyager and other deep space probes, etc). I wonder how big a source one would need to make a runs-for-a-lifetime motorcycle. ;) (hidden and obscure puns/joke potential intended)

    (To be fair, ACC did have a 'first class degree' in Mathematics and Physics, so he wasn't completely without credentials in that background.)
  18. The tank has Boobies :grin:
  19. :shock:


    Also, maybe i went a bit far with the AC Clarke comment (he is in no way related to the pseudoscience movement, like astrology). But still, he wrote a lot of stuff, some which was based on accepted theory, and other that was based on sheer imagniation and fantasy. Some would argue that these qualities are what makes a good science fiction writer.

    Anyway... look at the original proposition (that perpetual motion is possible) and compare it to relatively free energy sources that don't need to break the currently accepted laws of physics like solar, wind, etc. We arent using these sources to their potential, and they DO exist.
  20. Yah, I'm just messin'. :)

    I agree that it's highly improbable (if not super-dooper-near-impossible) that entropy will be broken.