Brian Austin

This thread reminds me of the "Look at those rubes!" type stories such as the old Chevy Nova ("No Va!") urban legend, that, in the end make the story-teller look foolish. I suspect there's more to the story of the solar farm than what you folk are ranting about. Also, have you noted the story is well over 5 years old at this point? ? The linked article below points out that the reasons the town voted down the solar farm had nothing to do with the strange concerns one citizen expressed. ------ http://thehigherlearning.com/2015/12/14/fact-check-small-town-rejects-solar-farm-because-it-would-suck-up-all-the-suns-energy/ "...I get it: let’s all point and laugh at the ignorant small-town folk who think solar panels are draining the sun of its energy and giving us cancer. Let’s point out how foolish they look to feel better about our own ignorance. In reality, however, this story is an example of bad journalism more than anything else. First off, there’s the focus on the comments made by Jane and Bobby Mann. It is extremely misleading to frame the story as if the Manns’ bizarre concerns were the main reason why the Woodland Town Council rejected the solar farm proposal, especially when you consider the fact that members of the council actually refuted the Manns’ claims during the meeting. Most outlets also chose to ignore the more reasonable concerns raised by other Woodland residents, like Jean Barnes and Mary Hobbes. But if the town council’s decision wasn’t about sun-sucking, cancer-causing solar panels, what were the real motivations for voting against the proposal? The answer lies in another section of the Roanoke-Chowan article: The town would not benefit, from a tax base standpoint, from the solar farms because they are not located within the town limits, but only in the extraterritorial sections. The only funding the town would get is approximately $7,000 per year for specialized training for the Woodland Fire Department in the event of an electrical malfunction at the solar plant. ..."

Three pages in and I'm the only one seriously questioning the validity of the survey or its reporting? The video is less than a minute long. It says nothing regarding the methodology of the survey. The report spins the narrative of the supposed stupidity of people in general, and you guys just ran with it without question. The article linked below discusses the survey, and the fact that its methodology is kept secret. That renders the supposed survey unscientific IMHO. MYTHBUSTERS took great pains to show how the scientific process works to yield useful results. This "survey" lacks credit. Who were the people surveyed? What were their backgrounds? ............... https://www.livescience.com/59666-do-people-believe-chocolate-milk-from-brown-cows.html "...Indeed, early media coverage focused on the 7 percent statistic but left out the fact that 48 percent of respondents said they don't know where chocolate milk comes from. This gives context to the 7 percent number. While it's conceivable that 7 percent of the population doesn't know that chocolate milk is just milk with chocolate, the idea that a full 55 percent — over half of adults — don't know or gave an incorrect response begins to strain credulity. This points toward a confusing survey question. We reached out to Lisa McComb, the senior vice president of communications for Dairy Management, Inc., about the survey. She confirmed that it's not publicly available. “The purpose of the survey was to gauge some interesting and fun facts about consumers' perceptions of dairy, not a scientific or academic study intended to be published,” she told us. ..." ....................... So, basically the video posted at the head of this thread is a several-year-old useless report of a pointless "survey". The average person is probably not as stupid as you think. You folk are average people, right?

Why not? Each generation has its ups and downs. We have it pretty good these days despite outbreaks and other issues. I can see future generations, like the ones before, complaining about their world going to heck, and look back at an earlier era as being better. The pattern repeats itself. "The Good Old Days" is not a fixed point in time. It's not the '50s, '60s, or '70s. In fact the phrase itself goes back into at least the early 1700s. https://www.wsj.com/articles/why-we-cant-stop-longing-for-the-good-old-days-11608958860 Also, note that the meme image at the start of this thread to me isn't particularly rosy itself. I find it just slightly darkly humorous.

The past may be a nice place to visit, but I wouldn't want to live there. :-) Today will be the Good Old Days for some future generation.

Phil Garner's Chevy is included in the linked page I posted in my reply up the thread a bit.

How about stone? https://kellensilverthornsculptures.com/sculptures/

There has been one of those turned into an RV in Australia, and another one in the US built in Space Shuttle dress, in later years converted into a food truck.

Here's an interesting combo, streamlined Texaco tanker body on Diamond T chassis. https://texacotankerproject.com/diamond-t-texaco-tanker/

You can build this with the impending release of the T2 VW Bus https://www.roadandtrack.com/motorsports/a10370438/sideways-volkswagen-bus-speedycop/

http://www.hardtuned.com/feature/htshorts/backwards/PGbackwards59.html

There have been various models in the smaller scales.

Kind of hard to tell what this thread is about with the initial pictures missing. :-(

You won't have to worry about it for a long time. Ironically, by the time they are integrated into society, some of us may be gone, while others may be elderly enough to need something to get around without the need of a license. So a self-driving car may be just the thing for seniors. :-)

Special Interest Autos had an article on these: https://www.hemmings.com/stories/2011/09/11/sia-flashback-1939-dodge-airflow-truck-streamlining-goes-heavy-duty These were low-production specialty vehicles. Different style tanker bodies were offered by various manufacturers, as well as were other types of bodies. Here's a discussion showing a well-known digital modeler working on an Airflow tanker. I helped out some with reference: http://www.smcars.net/threads/dodge-airflow-1934-36.22150/

Some "flying cars" in development have been carefully described as street-legal aircraft you drive from airstrip to airstrip, rather than a car you could take off from the road to avoid traffic. :-)

Deja Vu...

IIRC, some writers have dreamed up scenarios where few people decades from now would own a car. Most would subscribe to a service. The self-driving cars would be circulating through the city, picking a dropping off customers, freeing them from having to find a place to park. I think also someone suggested cities could spread out more with self-driving cars. Just what we need...more sprawl! I think most far-future scenarios I've read in the past few years seem to expect no older vehicles sharing the roads with the spiffy new autonomous ones. I think some futurists would love to see non-autonomous vehicles ruled off the roads. But the scenarios I've read all are 20-40 years off into the future. FWIW, I don't recall these articles discussing flying cars. :-)

There was a resin Dodge cab available some years back. I recall that post featuring the photo of the ramp truck and discounted it, since the wheelbase was obviously too long for the frames packaged in the line of kits. Oddly, I've made comments wishing for an F350 among the Moebius truck range only to be told it wasn't in the cards. Would the dualie wheels be appropriate for a '65 F350? This announced release just proves to me that if you put projects on hold long enough (many years) puzzle pieces will eventually fall together. :-)

1962 Reading catalog https://www.ebay.com/itm/292520368962?hash=item441b929b42:g:7V0AAOSwlStazp2w

You folks are very welcome. I have more. Here's Ford as seen in 1988.

Cars powered by turbans? Amazing indeed! Also, what's with the extraneous pictures of everyday cars thrown in? What the commentary fails to mention was that poor fuel economy tended to doom turbine engine concepts. More than one truck manufacturer toyed with turbine engines, and found them not worth the trouble in the end. And then, would your neighborhood mechanic be able to service an automotive turbine engine had it been produced? I saw the video pop up in my Facebook feed today and initially skipped over it, since the title screamed CLICKBAIT to me. These cars were prototypes. They get crushed all the time. Remember the GM electric vehicles passed around in a similar program 20 years ago or so? Their lessors didn't want to see them go either when that program came to an end.

Remember when manufacturers were developing automated highway driving using buried electrical conduits? This GM promo film from 1956 envisions hands-free cruising: Side note: I'd like to know more about the nifty miniature set depicting the futuristic highway interchange. The model cars seem to be driven with a conveyor system used in World's Fair displays.

As a child I was given a neat book by my grandmother, titled Automerica by the Ant Farm artist collective. They were behind the installation that later became known as Cadillac Ranch, among other '70s wackiness. The book gives an illustrated account of the creation of Cadillac Ranch. IIRC the idea was to celebrate the evolution of the tailfins from year to year. They were OK with allowing graffiti on the cars, but vandals pretty well ruined them over the years IMHO. In the late '90s the monument was moved from its first location to another. Also, apparently in 2019 the oldest of the bunch was set on fire by vandals. Drivetribe article, including some older photos: https://drivetribe.com/p/1-buried-cars-art-cadillac-ranch-BuWyMfzLRXeQ8lsr2jRMCw?iid=d5G3CAOyRN-hXHg9I_LVjw For further reading here's a neat article from someone who photographed Cadillac Ranch through the '90s: https://www.texasmonthly.com/travel/forty-years-of-the-cadillac-ranch/

I'm glad my old clippings have finally come in handy. :-)