IAAP (I am a physicist), so I can confirm that non-gravitational acceleration causes time dilation, under some circumstances. Since I'm waiting for some calculations to finish running through Mathematica, I'll also try to explain. :-)

Non-gravitational acceleration does cause time dilation, at least when viewed in the frame of the accelerated observer. When analyzed in the frame of an inertial observer (read: if someone who isn't accelerating calculates how much time has passed for you based on how you are moving), these effects appear to be the result of your velocity, and *not* your acceleration.

A fun example of this is the Langevin twin paradox problem. Two twins, floating in space, synchronize their watches. Then twin A uses a rocket to travel out a certain distance d at a more or less constant velocity v, turn around, and return, also with velocity v. He only uses his rocket for a very brief period upon leaving, during turnaround, and finally to return to rest relative to his twin. Twin B just sits there. They then compare their clocks.

Twin B sees that twin A spent essentially all of his time moving with velocity v, and figures that time-dilation has caused twin A's clock to record less time than twin B's. This is correct.

From twin A's perspective, it was twin B who moved with velocity v, and so he figures that time-dilation has caused B's clock to record less time than A's. This seems paradoxical until twin A accounts for the fact that he was accelerated at the far end of his trip. During that acceleration, everything not attached to his rocket (including twin B) seemed to accelerate in the direction his engine was pointed. There's a bunch of math one can do to justify it, (see chapter 13 of Misner, Thorne, and Wheeler's "Gravitation", if you want the full scoop) but the short version is that acceleration acts just like gravity (and vice versa). So twin A figures that twin B's clock must be gravitationally blueshifted relative to twin A's clock (twin B is 'higher' in the apparent gravitational potential produced by the acceleration). It turns out that over the amount of time twin A must accelerate to return to his twin, twin B's clock seems to gain exactly twice as much time as he seems to lose while twin A is coasting, which is just enough to bring each of the twins' calculations into full agreement upon their reunion.

Relativity is fun. :-)

And every one of those cars has a couple of dings and dents in them. Dings and dents that become gaping holes in carbon fiber bodies. gaping holes that drastically degrade the vehicle's aerodynamics, which in turn have an outsize impact on the vehicle's fuel efficiency. While it's true that there are plenty of cars that are still going after 20 years, none of those cars are the lead models of an entirely new and untested design.

Nice try for putting words in my mouth. My concern is whether the damn thing will still be running in 20 years, or whether the company which is supposedly paying for all your fuel will be around for 20 years to make good on its side of the bargain. If I had any reason to be confident in both of those points, I'd be all for purchasing this kind of rollerskate (provided that the price made sense, of course). Based on the cursory descriptions presently available, which do not address these issues at all, I tend to the conclusion that this whole thing is more PR fluff than substance.

Not everything can be made of carbon fiber. The metal parts (engine, exhaust system, etc) will still rust. Plus, 20 years is a very long time to commit to a car. Lots of expensive components tend to wear out over such a long period. We're supposed to believe that the company (which has zero track record building, selling, and maintaining cars) is even going to be here after that amount of time?

Of course, based on the fine article, it rapidly becomes clear that this is a vaporware economic model for a vaporware car design. This isn't a plan for designing and building a car --it's a plan for getting media attention for the design firm. As such, it's been successful.

Well I guess that means they aren't planning on marketing this in the Northeast, or anywhere that there's occasionally snow on the ground. I doubt that much of that 700 lbs would *not* be riddled with rust long before that lease would run out. Seriously, why lease a car for 20 years? And what'd the lease payment be? Not to mention the fact that you could probably just buy the damn thing (or maybe even a nicer car) using a 20 year car loan and cover the fuel out of pocket for far less than what you'd pay these jokers. Effectively locking in the cost of fuel for 20 years may sound attractive, but in practice it's more likely a win-win for the company --sure, you don't pay extra when fuel prices go up, but you also miss out on the downward fuel price fluctuations. The company is certain to make more money from you than you'll get out in fuel in any case, since if the prices are such that the deal would seem to work out in your favor, the company will just go bankrupt.

Of course, the natural response of the wittier bootleggers will be to wear a Guy Fawkes mask to the theater. :-)

Such a system seems quite dangerous to deploy, since it would inevitably be assumed to be targeting nuclear launch sites (no difference between an ICBM and an anti-sat rocket). Because of its speed to target, an opponent would have no choice but to launch immediately if he saw the slightest hint that you were *preparing* to deploy these puppies.