IF you can’t find a parking space big enough for your automobile, turn the car up endways! This is the solution of the parking problem devised by the group of collegians shown in the picture.

  1. jayessell says: June 10, 20109:36 am

    Is that Archie Andrews’ car?

    (I haven’t seen the comic in years, but I seem
    to remember that it always seemed decades
    out of date.)

  2. Firebrand38 says: June 10, 201011:47 am
  3. jayessell says: June 11, 20107:58 am

    FB… I meant his old car.


    BETTY & ME #40, February 1972

  4. Firebrand38 says: June 11, 20108:00 am

    jayessell: Yeah, that’s a lot closer. Whew! I’ve tried to suppress the memories of 70’s fashions until now!

  5. Mike says: June 12, 20105:48 am

    So how do you put the car down when it is stuck between two other cars?

  6. Arglebarglegleep says: June 13, 20101:42 pm

    There isn’t any particular reason this couldn’t be done normally other than cost of design and consumer resistance. The big problem is any possessions not nailed down would end up in the back of the car which consumers would hate. Rear engine cars would be particularly suited to this as the weight of the car would be in the back anyway. A set of casters wheels that protrude when you want to do this would work just fine. I could actually see something like the ‘smart car’ who’s back wheels nearly protrude from the rear anyway allowing you to turn it on end so long as the bottom of the chassis faced outward. A set of trusses that angled out from the front axle could lift and receive the car when raising or lowering it. You’d have to balance the car to avoid over turning or falling side wise. But squat cars like the Scion wouldn’t have as much trouble as longer, ‘luxury’ cars.

    Sounds like an interesting Maker project. A car that sits up to park.

  7. Toronto says: June 13, 20103:43 pm

    What about the oil sump, gas tank, battery, wiper fluid, etc etc?

  8. jayessell says: June 13, 20105:01 pm

    Arglebarglegleep: Like Will Smith’s car in ” I Robot”?

    Toronto: Good points. Cars would have to have the ‘vertical parking’ option.

  9. Toronto says: June 13, 20106:42 pm

    Jay: I remember a camping trailer – a pop-up – that had that feature, and I immediately thought of all the things we’d stash inside out trailer permanently, like Coleman stove/lantern/cat-heater, dishes, etc, that would NOT appreciate being tipped over in the garage. A car would be ever worse.

    (Said trailer had a folding or sliding tongue so it wouldn’t poke through the garage roof, as I recall.)

  10. George says: June 14, 20106:18 am


  11. Arglebarglefarglegleep says: June 15, 201012:00 pm

    Pretty much, the movie designer might have even seen this article.
    I did mention cost of design… which would include redesigning the car to turn upright including fluid handling / filled equipment. There’s always issues with any change from industry standards – Including resistance from the insurance industry. They love overcharging for insuring anything ‘new’.
    I could see trick drivers using the lift device for flashy maneuvers as you pointed out. The bootlegger reverse makes use of the hand brake which isn’t supposed to be engaged in motion except when the brake pedal fails.

    Front engine cars would likely be better to put nose down.

    It’s a pity the barrel engine was never developed for use in cars. It can be much more efficient approaching the two-stoke engine efficiencies.

  12. Yoda says: June 18, 20105:25 am

    GM used to ship the Vega standing vertically in enclosed railcars, so it can be done.

    One big issue would be getting the car nose-down in a front-dirve car where the engine itself is forward of the front axle. Another would be how to have a bumper that meets current standards.

    Poor Archie…his old beaters keep turning into antiques, but the conceit of the stories means he can never cash in!

  13. Firebrand38 says: June 18, 20106:38 am

    Yoda: That’s the kind of statement that cries out for a link… http://www.railgoat.rai……

    I never realized that before. Thanks for bringing that up.

  14. Andrew L. Ayers says: June 20, 20101:18 pm

    “It’s a pity the barrel engine was never developed for use in cars. It can be much more efficient approaching the two-stoke engine efficiencies.” – Arglebarglefarglegleep

    Had to look up “barrel engine” – found this:…

    Interesting engine design; a further development of the idea replaces the cylinders and pistons directly with the nutating swashplate:…

    This was developed further by Harold McMaster:……

    Harold’s company used to have a website detailing the engine; I once contacted one of the engineers asking about the progress – they said they had one that operated on compressed air, and were working on getting it to run on steam. I spidered a copy of the website, but it wasn’t too much longer before the website disappeared. I am not sure what has happened to the company, or the engine. I have small writeup about the engine and an engine animation (from the original website) here:


Submit comment

You must be logged in to post a comment.