Well, then here's a quick concept sketch.

 

TR, the story is far more important that the technology, don't worry about what the vehicle looks like make the story interesting, the suspension of disbelief of a good story can account for quite a bit of unrealistic background...

I just want the technology to be an accurate prediction, like when H.G. Wells predicted the creation of tanks in one of his stories. Not to mention his prediction of spaceships eventually coming true in the 50s and 60s.

 

You sure it's really that dangerous to try the previously discussed maglev/deflector shield combination? In the decades to come we could find a way to make it safer.

You should give some thought to this, if it doesn't have two wheels it's not a motorcycle, most modern motorcycles are limited more by tire technology than anything else. If not for this problem modern superbikes would currently be quite capable of 250 mph plus easily. In fact this one reputedly can already do this.

 

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dodge_Tomahawk

 

While it technically does have four wheels it handles as though it had two and is for all intents and purposes is a motorcycle...

 

Just how fast it is supposed to be capable of is disputed but 350mph + doesn't seem too far fetched and that is only because of the limitations of the tires and drag... not the engine...

 

A hovercraft would not handle like a motorcycle or perform like one so would not be one.

 

So write a good story, postulate a fast vehicle, but leave it to the readers imagination as to what it is exactly...

But then viewers (It's an animated series concept actually) would start arguing about it, so I'm trying to make that less likely.

 

Besides, the storyline is set in 2135 AD. How likely is it that wheeled automobiles won't be used anymore with the big advancements in technology these days?

IMO vehicles with wheels will be with us a long time, but perhaps vehicles with legs will take over. Feet and legs do not need roadways. Cheetahs can go about 60 m/h (96 km/h), but faster may be possible. Elon Musk is talking about something called the hyperloop, but very little is known about his idea... maybe 1000 m/h, mass transit.

 

http://au.businessinsider.com/what-is-elon-musks-hyperloop-2013-5

Well let's take another look at the concept sketch I did today:

 

 

If it were a GEV, with that wingspan, how much lift would it get?

Well let's take another look at the concept sketch I did today:

 

If it were a GEV, with that wingspan, how much lift would it get?

I cannot help you answer that question, I have not studied aeronautical engineering. I do not even know how difficult it is to answer that question. If it is not trivial (my guess), I expect no one will answer. Your best bet is to study and do the calculation yourself. That is what the great Sci-Fi writers do, such as Isaac Asimov and Arthur C. Clarke.

Then can somebody who actually knows the workings of a GEV help me out please?

Well let's take another look at the concept sketch I did today:

 

Screen shot 2013-06-01 at 10.55.38 PM.png

 

If it were a GEV, with that wingspan, how much lift would it get?

 

 

Where would you drive such a vehicle?

Over any terrain possible if it was a Ground Effect Vehicle. How high would it get off the ground with it's current wingspan?

 

If it was maglev like originally planned, then it could only work over a strong enough electric field (Such as the ones created by superconductor networks).

Over any terrain possible if it was a Ground Effect Vehicle. How high would it get off the ground with it's current wingspan?

 

GEV's generally only work over rather flat terrain, in fact usually the ocean, they are difficult to stop and take off, needing an airport type place to do either...

 

If it was maglev like originally planned, then it could only work over a strong enough electric field (Such as the ones created by superconductor networks).

 

Then it would be a train...

Given that it’s a science fiction project you seem to be getting stuck/fixated on reality rather than just presenting plausibility, it’s really only the glaring mistakes that get any serious critique (though some take, a simple, pleasure from being pedantic enough to point out potential errors).

Edit/ no pun/offense intended, cross post

Edited June 2, 201312 yr by dimreepr

I just want my technology to seem like it will actually happen in the future.

 

But, then again, should I just say the bikes hover on a highly advanced form of magnetic levitation? My viewers would probably only care about high speeds and onscreen carnage.

I just want my technology to seem like it will actually happen in the future.

 

But, then again, should I just say the bikes hover on a highly advanced form of magnetic levitation? My viewers would probably only care about high speeds and onscreen carnage.

 

 

Exactly!

However hard we try, no-one will ever be able to predict the future (with any accuracy or beyond a week or so) and who knows what direction today’s technology will take? If you want an example of how to write science fiction with plausibility that extends ‘many’ years into the future, read Isaac Asimov (for me ‘the man’) amongst others.

True. Another part of the concept involves a race of Martian dinosaur people who, long ago, crashed into Mt. McKay in Southern Ontario, then hikers found them in 2050. Afterwards the Martians got Earth to help revive Mars, and in exchange the Martians gave Earth some of their advanced technology, allowing Earth to use warpgates to traverse space and meet other alien civilizations.

 

An example of said Martians can be seen here:

Sounds fun, but be careful, logic is also scrutinised (even more so) and that scenario seems open to much scrutiny.

How so? It's mostly an alternate history added to science fiction (I don't really believe that there are frozen velociraptor people trapped in Mt. McKay).

The most obvious would be why the Martians couldn’t use their own technology to solve their own problems?

Because they didn't have the time to do so. Their ecology had been completely depleted by global warfare. It was a moment of desperation.

 

 

Given that the Martians had equal access to these other civilisations what did the humans have that was unavailable to the myriad of other intelligences?

 

Earth was the closest available planet to settle onto. There were only a few million Martians left after the war had killed most of them.

I was merely cautioning, logical reasoning must be treated with much care in an undertaking such as yours, and must be more carefully explained than mere reality based physical facts.

Now wait a minute... I thought the martians had tried to escape their apocalypse but had crash landed on earth and the spaceship had put them all in hibernation until modern times?