Bombardier's Hot Wheel

Anonymous Chris writes "Following the release of the Segway, Bombardier (the makers of such things as Ski-Doo and Lynx snowmobiles) announce their prototype Embrio - a motorcycle-like unicycle that uses gyroscopes to balance itself and runs off hydrogen fuel cells. It also features a landing gear that automatically retracts once you reach 12 m.p.h. The story is at Forbes. You can also get more information directly from their website."

Comments

Fun design. What's the point?

[JanneM]

The design is really, really cool. But other than that, I don't really see the advantage of this. It seems to give no advantage compared to a normal bike, and has quite a few disadvantages (less space, more complexity). Throwing in a fuel cell-based drivetrain could just as easily (if not easier) be done for a two-wheeled bike as well - and would incidentally be a pretty good idea (with the electric motors in the wheels, you would get rid of the chain, and could have practical two-wheel drive).

Re:Fun design. What's the point?

[tarquin_fim_bim]

On the cited 'website' they used the word concept about a dozen times, it is exactly that, a concept. A design tool to invite discussion, and induce comment. What would you imagine the advantage of having two driven wheels on a motorcycle might be, apart from to get you to the next accident more quickly?

One essential bit...

[Max Romantschuk]

From the article: The vehicle is designed as a guess at what transportation in the year 2025 might look like.

This might be pretty darn accurate. The thing that sets this apart from the Segway is one crucial element: Speed. If a Segway malfunctions you're not going wery fast... but with a vehicle like this you're pretty much doomed if there is a serious malfunction. At the very least the car behind you will run you over.

Current vehicles like cars and motorcycles can be stopped safely if you run out of power/propulsion, but something like this has to have safeguards which keeps that from happening.

Back to the whole 2025 thing: In order to make this stuff safe it requires testing, testing and some more testing. An that requires time.

Don't get me wrong... I love the idea, but it has to be done correctly and without compromises.

dangerous = don't make it

[kaltkalt]

It's so sad we've come to calling an idea "stupid" simply because it is easily conceivable as to how someone could hurt themselves with it. Whatever happened to assumption of risk? Those hoverboards in back to the future 2 (and 3) could really hurt someone if they're not careful, that doesn't mean it is something mankind should never get to voluntarily experience. Products liability is a good thing, but there has to be limitations. Wear a fucking helmet and don't cry when you get hurt. Products liability is holding us back... it's like intellectual property in that respect. It hinders innovation. Will we get sued for infringement? Will we get sued because people will hurt themselves? The bottom line is unavoidably unsafe products are too risky to develop nowadays, and that's a shame because they're quite often the coolest, most innovative, interesting things man ever makes.

Re:dangerous = don't make it

[BigRedFish]

Whatever happened to assumption of risk?

Yeah, I see where you're coming from, I'm old enough to remember high-dives at public swimming pools, trampoline parks, skate parks, and all that.

OTOH, there's one big difference between this device (or a Segway for that matter) and a similarly dangerous vehicle such as a motorcycle: unlike the motorcycle, they're defective by design.

Motorcycles have a secondary method of stabilization when moving, as a side effect of the forks pivoting against the frame, allowing the vehicle's mass to move perpendicular to the direction of motion. This allows one to keep the bike upright even if one loses power.

These unicycle things, and Segways (all the costs of two wheels, none of the benefits!) do not have any secondary method of stabilization should the power or on-board gyro system fail, and this too is by design. Given that a certain number of failures will inevitably occur (ya really gotta hope these gadgets age gracefully), and the result of failure is inevitably catastrophic, I would call the design defective. Anyone who's ever had to replace a malfunctioning fuel-injection sensor in their car should be rightly terrified.

This kind of tech might be acceptable in military aircraft, where the probability of in-flight computer failure killing the pilot is small compared to the maneuvering advantage it gives the pilot in combat, which is a life-threatening situation to begin with. In consumer vehicles, however, it's an unacceptable risk if better designs exist.

And for what? 'Cause it looks cool? There's no advantage in a unicycle design. It's a liability. Why convert to alternative fuel, just to waste it fighting gravity when you could use a known stable design and not have to? At least they had the good sense to label it a concept vehicle, but I certainly hope that intentionally unstable vehicle designs with no fault-tolerance are NOT the norm in 2050. This is one of those instances, I think, where just because you can doesn't mean you should.

Re:Yikes!

[black mariah]

Blah blah, ha ha, motocycles kill. Dude, look, shit happens no matter what you drive. I know people that have driven a motorcycle daily for 20 years or better that have never had a wreck, and I know people that can't keep their cars out of the shop. It's all in the driver.