Is it worth mentioning that we've never seen a ground transport like this before and that it might have something to do with the use of transport inhibitors used heavily in the second Klingon-Fed war and possibly in the Dominion WarLogan 5 23:27, 30 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- For all we know it's still a prototype and had never used in active duty up to that point. Other that merely mentioning the fact that it is the first "wheeled gound vehicle" we've seen in the 24th century - including anything else incites far too much speculation. --Gvsualan 23:40, 30 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Still, it's strange that Starfleet, having technologies like transporter and antigravity, need something as primitive as a wheeled vehicle. Also, harry Kim in "the 37's" didn't recognize a car, suggesting this type of vehicle are osolete for decades of century.
- A plausible explaination (the only i see) : this car was developped specifically for situations where a visual contact with a "primitive" civilisation can't be avoided. Using ostensibly advanced technologies (like antigrav) in front of them would violate the prime directive.
- This is what happened in Nemesis. But, to be consistent, they shouldn't have flought the shutl in front of the aliens. --Rami 10:28, 13 Dec 2005 (UTC)
- It was supposed to be like an undercover vehicle like you say, why then would they stick a phaser cannon on the back?
-I figured it was either a rarely used low energy ground transport vehicle, or maybe even a recreational vehicle that a starfleet ally had provided Starfleet with... it's a shame that we don't see more traditional vehicles in Star Trek, I'd love to learn more instances of wheeled vehicles in its Cannon. --Talon Lardner 19:19, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
-I was thinking about this one recently myself. My thinking was that it would be good for situations where flying vehicles and antigravs were, for whatever reason, difficult, dangerous, counterproductive, or impossible to use, although I find the Prime Directive idea to be possible as well. I'm thinking that this time counted as counterproductive, since they were searching for small objects on a desert planet. They couldn't safely fly low enough to see such things, so they used the ground vehicle. As for wheels instead of antigravs, I'm thinking either increased maneuverability (unlikely), stability (if the power goes out on a wheeled vehicle, you don't fall a few feet and land on the wheels, but if they lost power in an antigrav vehicle, they'd fall and land right on the antigrav generators), and, well, that's about it. Mewtroid 21:16, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
-My theory is that this type of vehicle is used with atmospheric difficulties. The Atmosphere of the planet they used it on was in danger of an ion storm, which is why they did not want to use transprters. This may be a safe, "primitive" vehicle to work in ion and electromagnetic conditions that would render both transporters and anti-grav uneffective.– Nmajmani 01:14, 4 April 2007 (UTC)Nmajmani
- I think there's absolutely no reason in-universe to justify the Argo Buggy. I think it's just something that was written into the movie to people other than your typical geek. 126.96.36.199 22:15, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
- Personally, I think there are dozens of reasons in-universe to justify vehicles such as the Argo Buggy--to fit in on planets where such ground transport is the norm; to cover the type of terrain explored on Kolarus without using aerial transport; to move large objects over a variety of terrains (though clearly anything larger than B-4 would have required a larger cargo compartment) without access to transporter beams or shuttles; and others. Unfortunately, I can't justify the money this took out of the budget, or the time this scene and resulting subplot took out of the film, or out of my life. ;) I'm sure Ivan "Ironman" Stewart, the off-road legend who reportedly contributed four of his own Toyota-based Baja all-terrain racers (two for "hero" shots and two for more arduous stunt shots, and who reportedly lost time and money replacing axles the Trek production staff swore they wouldn't break, wasn't enthused about the experience either. (I'm trying to find a link to the story about Stewart's frustrations, but so far, no joy.) Boomshadow 22:20, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
Did anyone on the Nemesis production staff object to this being used in the movie? It looked pretty anachronistic and I cannot believe that no one objected to the thing, even if their objections were over-ruled (say, by the director). RobertM525 07:35, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
Stewart and the Buggy Edit
I removed the following note, as I can't find a citation for it. If one can be found (DVD special features perhaps?), feel free to return it: