Slashdot Mirror


Wearable Motorcycle Design

A motorcycle design student recently came up with a wearable motorcycle design that, while cool, is unlikely to see public adoption. The bike would be capable of doing 0 to 60 is just 3 seconds with a top speed of 75 miles-per-hour and would theoretically be controlled by 36 pneumatic muscles and 2 linear actuators. I would imagine the results of a crash would be much like being strapped to the hood of your car during a collision — bonus points for form, however.

234 comments

  1. Why wearable? by stoolpigeon · · Score: 5, Insightful

    What defines wearable? I would have thought wearable means - it goes where I go and can go anywhere I go. This vehicle appears to me not to do that. It looks like the rider goes where the trike goes - and the trike cannot go anywher the rider can go. But maybe I'm missing some key factor or my definition is insufficient.

    --
    It's hard to believe that's how Micronians are made. Why don't we see it right now by having you both kiss one another?
    1. Re:Why wearable? by damn_registrars · · Score: 1

      I was wondering the same thing. It looks like the rider is just sitting on a really tall tricycle. I don't see anything about it that supports the concept of "wearable" by any definition I'm familiar with. I don't even see any reason to suspect it to be any lighter than a traditional motorcycle.

      Though it may deserve kudos for likely trumping the motorcycle in sheer danger factor.

      --
      Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
    2. Re:Why wearable? by stoofa · · Score: 5, Funny

      'Wearable' (adj.) description of any garment that allows the wearer to wander through a crowded London pub without starting a fight on a Friday night.

      This isn't wearable.

    3. Re:Why wearable? by Culture20 · · Score: 1

      Perhaps the middle wheel curls back into the backpack, and the outer wheel struts fold back like angel wings? It still looks terribly cumbersome that way, but you might be able to clear an obstacle in the road or climb some short stairs.

    4. Re:Why wearable? by Drooling+Iguana · · Score: 4, Funny

      But would someone wearing it be an Autobot or a Decepticon?

      --
      ... I'm addicted to placebos
    5. Re:Why wearable? by damn_registrars · · Score: 5, Funny

      'Wearable' (adj.) description of any garment that allows the wearer to wander through a crowded London pub without starting a fight on a Friday night.
      Well now I'm not so sure. I figure if you can wander through a crowd at 75mph, you shouldn't have to worry much about anyone starting a fight with you.

      Though the "garment" part of the definition might not fit this item well...
      --
      Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
    6. Re:Why wearable? by geekoid · · Score: 0

      It is controlled by how you move your body. In effect, you are wearing it.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    7. Re:Why wearable? by Retardical_Sam · · Score: 1

      It is controlled by how you move your body. In effect, you are wearing it. By that definition, a pilot wears an aeroplane.
    8. Re:Why wearable? by Hojima · · Score: 1

      I think you wear a part of the motorcycle in order to keep you inside. If you could detach what looks like the built-in jumpsuit, you could wear it anywhere. Still, I don't see how this is not a step back. Regular motorcycles seem much better in almost every aspect. FTA, it says that it's to be environmentally friendly, but if they really wanted it to do that, they would make a design based on The air car. And to make it safer, they could make the front of the motorcycle a dome-like structure that spreads the force of the impact (the bike could lock you in to prevent you from hitting it). Though the glass of the dome would have to be very strong, and probably costly.

    9. Re:Why wearable? by geekoid · · Score: 0

      Not exactly.

      I meant your who body as a unit. For example:
      If a pilot leans right he can still move the airplane counter to that. Plus he can get up and walk around while the airplane is taking him someplace.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    10. Re:Why wearable? by schlick · · Score: 1

      Yeah if they could power this I think it would actually be a wearable motorcycle.

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1rgWl_7nH4w&feature=related

      --
      "It's because they're stupid, that's why. That's why everybody does everything." -Homer Simpson
    11. Re:Why wearable? by monkeyboythom · · Score: 2, Funny

      This is not the Tron I am looking for. There should be a glowing stick somewhere in the design...

    12. Re:Why wearable? by Culture20 · · Score: 4, Informative

      They'd be a Cyclone pilot.

    13. Re:Why wearable? by Retardical_Sam · · Score: 1

      Ok, I see your point, but there still should be a distinction between wearing the control mechanism and wearing the actual transportation device. So while in this case, the control mechanism and the device are essentially one and the same, that's not true in all cases. I suppose your wording could still imply that, it just depends on how it's read.

    14. Re:Why wearable? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But would someone wearing it be an Autobot or a Decepticon? Neither, but given the right kind of crash, they could become Spike.
    15. Re:Why wearable? by Soft+Cosmic+Rusk · · Score: 1

      So would you say that a Segway is wearable?

    16. Re:Why wearable? by meatspray · · Score: 1

      It's electric, just where do you expect them to put the batteries... wait, I don't want to know.....

    17. Re:Why wearable? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      It would be wearable if they made it like the Cyclone Ride Armor from MOSPEADA aka the New Generation Robotech.

    18. Re:Why wearable? by Scrameustache · · Score: 1

      'Wearable' (adj.) description of any garment that allows the wearer to wander through a crowded London pub without starting a fight on a Friday night. Well now I'm not so sure. I figure if you can wander through a crowd at 75mph, you shouldn't have to worry much about anyone starting a fight with you. You're pretty much starting a fight with everyone you meet.
      Fortunatly, you have a helmet, and they don't, so you'll win... until you meet a fatty.
      --

      You can't take the sky from me...

    19. Re:Why wearable? by Hatta · · Score: 1

      By that definition, is anything wearable?

      --
      Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
    20. Re:Why wearable? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      so then a regular motorcycle...

    21. Re:Why wearable? by 3vi1 · · Score: 1

      You're pretty much starting a fight with everyone you meet. At 75MPH you're pretty much *winning* a fight with everyone you meet.
    22. Re:Why wearable? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'd like to see a drunk in a London pub start a fight with you as you go by at 75 miles per hour.

    23. Re:Why wearable? by jollyreaper · · Score: 1

      'Wearable' (adj.) description of any garment that allows the wearer to wander through a crowded London pub without starting a fight on a Friday night.

      This isn't wearable. Neither, by your definition, is gay S&M gear. Or the wrong footie team's jersey.
      --
      Kwisatz Haderach
      Sell the spice to CHOAM
      This Mahdi took Shaddam's Throne
    24. Re:Why wearable? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      To me, wearable means you can at least fit through a typical interior household door (usually 30 inches wide in US) without being some kind of contortionist.

    25. Re:Why wearable? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, this article is bullshit. When I read the headline, I was thinking more along the lines of a Mospeada style motorbike. This thing is nothing more than a glorified Segway.

    26. Re:Why wearable? by lisaparratt · · Score: 1

      Neither, by your definition, is gay S&M gear.

      You clearly don't frequent the same London pubs as I do!

    27. Re:Why wearable? by lisaparratt · · Score: 1

      You mean like a... motorcycle.

      The wheels of a motorcycle act like gyroscopes, and the slightest move of the body has an effect on it. Hell, I can move from one side of a lane to another, in a completely different lean angle with a simple wiggle of my bum.

  2. Where do I sign up? by aeskdar · · Score: 0

    Sounds like fun.

    1. Re:Where do I sign up? by spun · · Score: 3, Funny

      Sounds like fun. Yes, but what they don't show are the penis shaped "safety devices" that you must shove up your ass before using the device. And the penis shaped steering device that you control with your mouth.
      --
      - None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
    2. Re:Where do I sign up? by phpmysqldev · · Score: 1, Redundant

      I've been riding for several years now and one thing I have learned is the ideal way to wreck a bike (oxymoron i know) is to lay it down. This way you have some control over which way the bike slides, you can keep most of your head of the ground, and it does less damage to the bike while ideally causing only severe road rash, which is quite painful, but you'll be alive. That is one flaw I see with this bike's design, there is no effective way to lay it down in the event you need to.

    3. Re:Where do I sign up? by MalleusEBHC · · Score: 1

      Riders who speak of "laying it down" and road rash should not speak of actual motorcycle safety. "Laying it down" is a term used by riders who intentionally induce a crash out of a perceived fear of a worse crash. You are going to be much better off staying in control of your bike as long as possible. When you lose control of your bike, you subject yourself to the whims of oncoming traffic, immovable objects, and other disadvantageous applications of Newton's laws. Suffering road rash simply means that you failed to wear the proper safety gear. While you cannot fully protect yourself from brunt force trauma by wearing gear, good riding gear can 100% prevent road rash.

    4. Re:Where do I sign up? by hassanchop · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      Reliving your college days I see...

      I meant watching South Park of course.

    5. Re:Where do I sign up? by phpmysqldev · · Score: 1

      Laying a bike down is an actual last resort safety method taught at most motorcycle safety courses. It is almost always more desirable to lay the bike down in the face of an impending crash. you are correct though, good riding habits and safety can prevent most crashes. However there are sometime when you are at the whim of another driver and I would rather lay a bike down than plow into the back of some guy that didn't see me.

      And yes proper gear can prevent road rash, but if you go down going 60+ and you're not wearing full leather or kevlar (which most people don't), you're gettin burned.

    6. Re:Where do I sign up? by MalleusEBHC · · Score: 1

      No reputable motorcycle safety course will ever recommend that you lay it down. The Motorcycle Safety Foundation (MSF)either trains or provides the training curriculum for nearly all motorcycle licensing programs across the nation, and they never recommend that you lay it down. Their training course specifically instructions you on emergency braking and maneuvering so that you can avoid an accident instead of intentionally crashing.

    7. Re:Where do I sign up? by Lumpy · · Score: 1

      Most of us learned that in Motorcycle safety training. at least 20 years ago that is what they were teaching they did. Is this not common knowledge?

        You know you've ridden too much when you know how to land safer when you are thrown over the handlebars. nothing like having a kid in a civic run you into oncoming traffic because they did not want to go around the block to turn. That is what they told the cop. "I saw him, I did not want to go around the block again." It took 2 officers to keep me from killing the turd right there. the cop was amazed I was unhurt except for scrapes being run into oncoming traffic nailing the front of a car and flying through the air 12 feet landing on my back. NOTE: if you dont wear your leathers and helmet you are an organ donor.

      --
      Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
    8. Re:Where do I sign up? by Afecks · · Score: 1

      the ideal way to wreck a bike (oxymoron i know) is to lay it down Myth 8: If You Are Going to Crash, Lay It Down
    9. Re:Where do I sign up? by spun · · Score: 1

      Thanks for making me feel old. I graduated four years before Matt and Trey had even started on Cannibal! the Musical, let alone South Park.

      Now git offa mah lawn, I have to go crap myself or buy dentures or whatever it is old people are supposed to do.

      --
      - None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
    10. Re:Where do I sign up? by KillaBeave · · Score: 1

      Another rider here. If you're going down try to scrub off speed and get away from the bike! Don't try and control it's slide, just let it go and stop youself if possible!

      As the saying goes...

      If you love it let it go,
      if it comes back to you, you've high-sided!

    11. Re:Where do I sign up? by Richy_T · · Score: 1

      Agreed totally. As someone who has taken both the BMF (British Motorcycling foundation) and MSF courses, I can say that laying down was recommended against in each.

      As someone who has also actually (unintentionally) put a bike down a couple of times, I can testify that it's not much fun.

      Rich

    12. Re:Where do I sign up? by mav[LAG] · · Score: 2, Informative

      Amen. I just cannot ever see myself making a conscious decision to lay my bike down. I'd rather stay upright, on the rubber, on the clutch and on the front brake as much as possible to bleed off speed. In the average urban accident scenario, a rider has two seconds to react. In that time I can go from 35mph to 0 without skidding (and yes I practice regularly).

      Today's tyre compounds have way more friction than your fairings, you're in control right up until the point of impact (if any) and twin caliper front brakes are insanely good on modern machines.

      You're dead right that as soon as you lay your bike down, all bets are off about stopping distance and control.

      --
      --- Hot Shot City is particularly good.
    13. Re:Where do I sign up? by tbuskey · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Lay it down == crash intentionally.

      I'm sure there's a way to crash intentionally on this thing.

      As for laying down a bike intentionally, I bet you've never done it. You lose all control and it's *always* better to be in control.

      Most of the comments here tell how wrong this is on the road.

      It's also wrong off-road. I've been racing since I was nine, 30 years ago. I've done motocross, ice racing, flat track, etc. You can't use the brakes to slow down when you've laid it down. You can't save it & get back in the race either.

      Well, maybe you can: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K1UlEQtdUGc but these guys are at the top of the game.

    14. Re:Where do I sign up? by MarkVVV · · Score: 1

      What's with you and your penis obssession?!

    15. Re:Where do I sign up? by AdmiralAudio · · Score: 1

      Go here and watch Episode 11 of Season 5 of South Park.

      Only then will you understand.

    16. Re:Where do I sign up? by smoker2 · · Score: 1

      If the back end of the bike slides out on a bend, and there's no way you're going to get it back up, you let go and push backwards. You do not ever want to be connected to the bike when it stops. And who ever said that "laying it down" meant you had to stay with the bike anyway ? If you can see that a collision is imminent, it is far far better to distance yourself from the crash, and that often means causing a back end slide, and ejecting while you still can.
      I have a friend who stayed with the bike after it went down and broke his pelvis in two when it hit the kerb. I have always practiced the safe eject, and so far I've never broken anything other than a patch of skin.
      there is no benefit to being "in control" of a bike when you t-bone a car, or a railing or a tree. You don't get to claim bragging rights. It's only a bike, it can be replaced. Believing you can control a crashing bike is asking for trouble and pain. Having ridden bikes since I was 16 (26 years ago), I think I know what I'm talking about. I've been riding 1000cc + since I was 20.
      The ideal thing is not to get into the situation in the first place. But once you're there, get away from the bike as soon as you can. I'm not suggesting you jump off at the first sign of trouble, but when you see the side of that car coming towards you and there is no where to go, lay it down and let go. You'll slow down quicker and the bike will take the energy into the crash. You may slide into the wreckage, but it's still better than being part of the initial collision.
      Of course if you have no feel for riding or situational awareness, then the accident will be over before you can react anyway, so just ignore me. Most people these days think that the brakes are the answer to all lifes problems, when quite often the opposite is the best solution.

    17. Re:Where do I sign up? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      so what you are saying is that you lost the back end and then laid it down intentionally? seems like the bike laid you down.

      and as far as seeing that a crash is imminent, logically one does everything to avoid anything that he sees as a potential accident and once it is imminent, one has no time or distance to avoid the accident and "lay it down" to try and avoid injury.

      there is ALWAYS benefit of being in control of the bike until the point that it is out of control.

      how is this even a debate?

      "You may slide into the wreckage, but it's still better than being part of the initial collision."

      yeah - happened to my brother. he low-sided when he lost the rear end in a skid after someone pulled out in front of him. he slid into the wreckage and broke his collar bone.

  3. Wheelbase issues by Harmonious+Botch · · Score: 5, Insightful

    As shown, there is no way that it is going to do 0-60 in three seconds. If power is on the front wheels, they can't get enough traction because the rider's weight is over the rear wheel. They will spin. If power is on the read wheel, it will do a wheelie and dump him on his ass.
    I therefore conclude that it has one of two undocumented features: either there is a ultra-high speed gyro concealed behind the wearer ( which I regard as very unlikely ), or the frame bends so as to lean the rider forward thus lengthening the wheelbase and moving the center of gravity forward.

    1. Re:Wheelbase issues by adonoman · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I would expect that the acceleration could be linked to how much you lean forward (a la segway) - and with in-wheel electric motors, all three could be powered.

    2. Re:Wheelbase issues by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      I also conclude, from the picture depicting the vehicle/device, that a mild breeze or headwind and that "wearable motorcycle" would topple. At 75mph - I doubt that would be fun.

    3. Re:Wheelbase issues by MalleusEBHC · · Score: 1

      Even assuming that the rider leans forward to lengthen the wheelbase and move the center of gravity, I have serious doubts that you could do 0-60 in 3 seconds. That's literbike territory, and those machines are putting out 160-180hp. Even if you consider that the weight of the rider with the wearable motorcycle could be as little as half of the weight of a rider on a traditional sportbike, that's still a lot of power that you would need to put out to reach those speeds.

    4. Re:Wheelbase issues by lazlo · · Score: 1

      From the article that the article links to:

      "With seven artificial vertebrae behind the helmet that support the rider's head you could control the 'Deus Ex Machina' via 36 pneumatic muscles and 2 linear actuators with your body. Leaning forward the rider extends into the more traditional riding position but there is nothing traditional about this machine."

      So, I believe you are entirely correct. My guess is that the rear wheel is powered, and the two arms allow you to lean forward for acceleration, and that that the arms have independent angle control, allowing you to modify the overall side-to-side lean, thus achieving steer.

      I think it's a fascinating design, and I'd dearly love to ride one. As the article states though, I seriously doubt that'll ever happen.

      --
      Pound! Bang! Bin! Bash! is this a shell script or a Batman comic?
    5. Re:Wheelbase issues by pavon · · Score: 1

      Considering that this was done by a student at an Art Design Center, I'm sure that the numbers given are just very rough optimistic guestimates.

    6. Re:Wheelbase issues by geekoid · · Score: 1

      Yes, the faster you go, the more forward the front wheels extend.

      It's a shame there isn't an article about it~

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    7. Re:Wheelbase issues by esampson · · Score: 2, Informative

      It's not all that unbelievable. I recall seeing something on TV recently where an electric motorcycle was raced against an internal combustion motorcycle and it turned out the electric one was quicker. Both bikes were drag race style bikes.

      The electric motorcycle was quicker (crossing the finish line first) but not faster (had a lower top speed). I believe it had something to do with the power range of the electric motor in relation to the power range of the IC engine. It also possibly had to do with the electric bike not having to shift gears, but don't quote me on that.

      I'm sure some other slashdotter can provide better specifics as to why it happened.

    8. Re:Wheelbase issues by randyest · · Score: 1

      While I'm not sure this thing can do 0-60 in 3s either, but the comparison you used in your reasoning is flawed. Electric motors can (and usually do) have much greater acceleration than internal-combustion engines.

      --
      everything in moderation
    9. Re:Wheelbase issues by Harmonious+Botch · · Score: 1

      Thanks for the link.

      I recall years ago ( 1981? 1982? ) reading an article in a motorcycle magazine in which the writer interviwed the lead engineers at the four major Japanese motorcycle companies. The interviews with the Honda, Yamaha, and Kawasaki people were predictable and boring.
      But the Suzuki engineer said that he wanted to design cycles that behaved like animals. The particular example he gave, IIRC, was a cheetah.
      He noted that when a cycle turns, it leans inward. That's good - just like an animal. But when braking, it tends to lean forward, and when accelerating it leans back. Both of those are the wrong way.
      This vehicle may finally be doing it right on the acceleration. To do it right when braking would require that the arms extend foraward and the rider lean back.

    10. Re:Wheelbase issues by peragrin · · Score: 1

      does that mean when you hit 75mph your nearly lying horizontally being held in only be straps while the road rushes underneath you?

      while I wouldn't mind trying it out a couple of times, a segway with a beefier battery sounds far safer.

      --
      i thought once I was found, but it was only a dream.
    11. Re:Wheelbase issues by Altus · · Score: 1


      not only that but the foremost portion of the bike in the middle would be your head. Sure, you have those big wheel arms out to the side but if you hit a tree head on it would literally be head on.

      Sounds like a bad plan.

      --

      "In America, first you get the sugar, then you get the power, then you get the women..." -H. Simpson

    12. Re:Wheelbase issues by PitaBred · · Score: 1

      I'm betting he can lean forward in it. That design isn't unstable if you lower the center of gravity. Having it up high like that is more for parking, like it says in TFA.

    13. Re:Wheelbase issues by lazlo · · Score: 1

      ...He noted that when a cycle turns, it leans inward. That's good - just like an animal. But when braking, it tends to lean forward, and when accelerating it leans back. Both of those are the wrong way.

      This vehicle may finally be doing it right on the acceleration. To do it right when braking would require that the arms extend foraward and the rider lean back. From the image, it appears that the front wheels both have disc brakes, however, given the design inspiration, I wouldn't be too surprised if "slow" braking were done via regenerative braking on the rear wheel, which seems a bit more "cheetah-like", saving the front brakes for quick stops that wouldn't be accompanied by much of an angle change.

      To me, the concept of being more like an animal is great for acceleration and turning, but not so great for stopping. My gut feeling is that animals just don't stop very well. Evolutionarily, there's not too much reason to. If there's something in your way, it's easier to turn to miss it than to stop. With a vehicle, your options are more limited because you generally want to keep on the pavement, so there can be a need for quick stopping. When I watch my cats try and avoid running into a wall, they sometimes hunch down and put out their front legs (which is how I'd envision this vehicle would stop if it needed to quickly - by fully extending the front wheels and applying the front disc brakes), but most times they just turn sideways and re-vector their momentum parallel to the wall.
      --
      Pound! Bang! Bin! Bash! is this a shell script or a Batman comic?
    14. Re:Wheelbase issues by hurfy · · Score: 1

      Whereas hitting a tree head-on with a current motorcycle just throws you into the tree head-first.... Six of one vs half-dozen of the other?

    15. Re:Wheelbase issues by PitaBred · · Score: 1

      Electric motors provide constant torque. An internal combustion engine doesn't, not to mention not needing to shift (no "drop outs" of power for moments while gears change). And that's pretty much all there is to it.

    16. Re:Wheelbase issues by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So.... don't hit the tree.

    17. Re:Wheelbase issues by redxxx · · Score: 1

      I therefore conclude that it has one of two undocumented features: either there is a ultra-high speed gyro concealed behind the wearer ( which I regard as very unlikely ), or the frame bends so as to lean the rider forward thus lengthening the wheelbase and moving the center of gravity forward. I wonder what the two linear actuators are for.
    18. Re:Wheelbase issues by Itchyeyes · · Score: 1

      Interesting idea. However, there is one problem with that. As you decelerate the vehicle you're raising its center of gravity and increasing the likelihood that it will tip in an abrupt stop.

    19. Re:Wheelbase issues by zeoslap · · Score: 1

      You are right as can be seen in the Gizmodo article

    20. Re:Wheelbase issues by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      .. or the rider could be asked to jump in the air just as the motorcycle is about to accelerate.

    21. Re:Wheelbase issues by heinzkunz · · Score: 1

      It will only do the 0-60 in 3 seconds in reverse.

    22. Re:Wheelbase issues by adonoman · · Score: 1

      It would be easy enough to tune things so that the attempt to stand up would cause the vehicle to slow down, and it wouldn't actually let you stand up until you got down to an appropriate speed.

    23. Re:Wheelbase issues by tomthegeek · · Score: 2, Informative

      You're right, look at the center of the billboard in this picture. It shows it transforming from upright to laying down forward.

    24. Re:Wheelbase issues by rts008 · · Score: 1

      You have obviously not ridden a 'good' working quarter Horse. (working as in: trained and used to work cattle-I've seen cutting horses good enough that once you pointed them on a cow/steer/bull/heifer, you could climb off and the horse would cut the cow out of the main herd and herd it to the holding pen.

      Anyway, they can stop and move hella quick!

      BTW, I basically agree with you though, Quick starts and maneuvering seem to be the order of the day with both prey and predators...after the danger, you can always slow down, look back, and decide from there.

      Very few animals make graceful high-speed stops as a common practice.
      Horses seem to be one of the few exceptions.
      Anything from yearling under will engage in a rough form of 'tag' if there are at least three of them, and fequently will use quick high-speed stops w/ direction (okay-this is /.-vector changes!) as dodging tactics.

      --
      Down With Slashdot BETA!!! I've been around the corner and seen the oliphant; you can only abuse me from your perspecti
    25. Re:Wheelbase issues by Sir+Holo · · Score: 1


      It's actually the third thing.

      All of the numbers are made-up.

  4. Thanks slashdot by sw155kn1f3 · · Score: 1

    Image of Cowboy Neal wearing this and driving to the work in the traffic will haunt me forever from now

    --
    - Arwen, I'm your father, Agent Smith.
    - Well, you're just Smith, but my father is Aerosmith!
  5. Just make sure to have a camera rolling by iminplaya · · Score: 5, Funny

    when this thing hits a pothole.

    --
    What?
    1. Re:Just make sure to have a camera rolling by thewiz · · Score: 1

      It would certainly give "head crash" a new meaning.

      --
      If "disco" means "I learn" in Latin, does "discothèque" mean "I learn technology"?
  6. That's so '80s by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Didn't I see that in a movie somewhere?

  7. Aerodynamics? by lobiusmoop · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Given that this keeps the 'driver' standing upright, similar to the Segway, I dread to think what the aerodynamics of this thing are like at speed, it must be very inefficient.

    --
    "I bless every day that I continue to live, for every day is pure profit."
    1. Re:Aerodynamics? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What part of the article said they drive upright? The article did however, mention that the vehicle parks vertically.

    2. Re:Aerodynamics? by benjamindees · · Score: 1

      Who said it keeps the driver standing upright?

      --
      "I assumed blithely that there were no elves out there in the darkness"
  8. Wait... by Oxy+the+moron · · Score: 5, Funny

    Does this mean I can now be one of those robot overlords that everyone is so eager to welcome?

    --

    Proudly supporting the Libertarian Party.

    1. Re:Wait... by pha7boy · · Score: 1

      you can be their gopher :)

      --
      -- All this knowledge is giving me a raging brainer.
    2. Re:Wait... by geekoid · · Score: 3, Insightful

      A Libertarian Robot Overlord? I think not.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    3. Re:Wait... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I, for one, welcome our robot liberators.

  9. Dangerous, huh? by WK2 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I would imagine the results of a crash would be much like being strapped to the hood of your car during a collision

    Welcome to the world of motorcycles, where safety is not our primary concern. Motorcycles don't offer any protection in a crash, and never have, with few exceptions. The best you can hope for in a crash is that you get thrown one way, and your bike another so that it doesn't crush you. And wear a helmet. If safety is your primary concern, cars and buses are much safer.

    --
    Write your own Choose Your Own Adventure. http://www.freegameengines.org/gamebook-engine/
    1. Re:Dangerous, huh? by pha7boy · · Score: 3, Funny

      tanks are even better then that. Safety First

      --
      -- All this knowledge is giving me a raging brainer.
    2. Re:Dangerous, huh? by neumayr · · Score: 1

      While it's true that motorcycles do not at all qualify as "safe", they usually have the rider thrown forward, and, most likely, over the the opposing object during a collision. This contraption on the other hand seems to ram the rider right into the opposing object.
      Meaning the survival chances go from infitesmal small to nil.

      --
      Truth arises more readily from error than from confusion. -Francis Bacon
    3. Re:Dangerous, huh? by phpmysqldev · · Score: 4, Informative

      As a long time rider, and as most riders would tell you, you don't want to be thrown from the motorcycle. This can throw you into traffic or into a tree at high speeds, or a myriad of horrific deaths (i remember reading an article about a guy who was thrown from a bike while racing doing 100+ mph and hit one of those steel cables that hold power line poles up, as you can imagine the outcome was pretty gruesome).

      the ideal way to wreck a bike (oxymoron i know) is to lay it down. This way you have some control over which way the bike slides, you can keep most of your head of the ground, and it does less damage to the bike. That is one flaw I see with this bike's design, there is no effective way to lay it down in the event you need to.

    4. Re:Dangerous, huh? by Yold · · Score: 4, Informative

      To clarify parent, the "safest" way to crash is a low-sider, which is sort-of falling behind the motorcycle when you lay it down. A "high-sider" is the opposite, laying it down and being in-front of the motorcycle can get you crushed pretty bad.

    5. Re:Dangerous, huh? by phpmysqldev · · Score: 1

      Yes, thank you, I didn't really think about non riders not knowing you'd want to be behind the bike

      Someone mod parent up, and my original post if you want =)

    6. Re:Dangerous, huh? by Altus · · Score: 1


      This would be worse.

      A while back there was some guy that wanted to mandate seat belts on motorcycles. This isn't a good idea since, in a crash bikes go every which way and you don't want to end up crushed under it. The belt that connects you to your safety gear is your helmet strap.

      If this thing went off its wheels I cant imagine it would provide all that much protection to the rider who is strapped into it. If nothing else your limbs are free to be torn off.

      --

      "In America, first you get the sugar, then you get the power, then you get the women..." -H. Simpson

    7. Re:Dangerous, huh? by Quiet_Desperation · · Score: 1

      I always though an ejector seat and a small, rapidly deploying parachute might help. :-)

      Up and out of the impact zone, waft gently to the Earth and make your escape on foot.

    8. Re:Dangerous, huh? by VeNoM0619 · · Score: 1

      If at first you don't succeed Post again looking for kharma? -1 Redundant?

      --
      Disclaimer: I am not god.
      We may not be created equal
      But we can be treated equal.
    9. Re:Dangerous, huh? by Bill_the_Engineer · · Score: 1

      What about road debris? (Rocks, Tires, Trash are dangerous at high speeds too).

      At least with a motorcycle, you have the windshield and the actual bike. I don't see much protection offered by this design...

      --
      These comments are my own and do not necessarily reflect the views or opinions of my employer or colleagues...
    10. Re:Dangerous, huh? by speleo · · Score: 4, Insightful

      You never want a lay a bike down. All bikes stop better sticky side down.

      Once you lay a bike down you have no control and you're just sliding along dragging your axle nuts into the pavement (usually with your leg trapped under the bike, too).

      Ideally, you do everything possible to avoid a collision. But if you can't, the best thing you can do is lay on the brakes with proper (and practiced) technique and decrease your speed as much as possible before hitting the object.

      This is also the recommendation of the Motorcycle Safety Foundation.

    11. Re:Dangerous, huh? by dedave · · Score: 2, Informative
      Actually, a high-side is a bit more dangerous (and violent) than just ending up in front of the bike. A high-side happens when the motorcycle suddenly regains traction after a loss of traction, and it can end up *flipping* you off the bike in the direction of travel. So, you get to bounce off the ground from about 6 feet up, and then, if you're "lucky", you slow down faster than the bike, and it comes along and adds insult to injury.

      See: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3iWWuW4U73s @ 1min 40 secs in.

    12. Re:Dangerous, huh? by MagdJTK · · Score: 1

      I can testify about not wanting to be thrown from the bike. Near where I live, a milk float didn't see a biker overtaking and turned suddenly. The biker went in one side, through a lot of glass and out the other side. He was dead instantly.

      Personally, I really want a motorbike, but I'm not sure I have the balls having heard that story!

    13. Re:Dangerous, huh? by uniquename72 · · Score: 2, Informative

      If we're thinking of the same guy (some politician in the Pacific Northwest IIRC), he was being facetious about requiring seatbelts on motorcycles. His comment was something like, "I'll support ending helmet laws when motorcycles are equipped with seatbelts."

    14. Re:Dangerous, huh? by Skuld-Chan · · Score: 1

      As a rider - safety is a primary concern. You should be doing everything you can to avoid accidents - including avoiding or watching out for drivers committing moving violations.

      Safety includes wearing safe clothes (helmet, jacket and riding pants - also riding boots and gloves), and making sure all the safety features on my bike work before heading out.

      I know its not the safest way to travel, but there's a lot you can do to mitigate that risk.

    15. Re:Dangerous, huh? by ColdWetDog · · Score: 2, Funny

      I always though an ejector seat and a small, rapidly deploying parachute might help. :-)

      Safety sticker for same:

      WARNING: Do Not Crash or Otherwise Eject in Tunnel or Underpass! WARNING!

      --
      Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
    16. Re:Dangerous, huh? by Mordok-DestroyerOfWo · · Score: 1

      Safe or not, my little Ninja gets 55 mpg and with the way gas prices are going it's more and more becoming my primary mode of transportation.

      --
      "Never let your sense of morals prevent you from doing what is right" - Salvor Hardin
    17. Re:Dangerous, huh? by tbuskey · · Score: 1

      Sometimes that flip can pound you into the ground.

      Like if you high side in sand - speaking from experience.

    18. Re:Dangerous, huh? by tomthegeek · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I'd agree with this, "I had to lay it down" is just the excuse used by people who've crashed and don't want to look like the bad rider they are.

    19. Re:Dangerous, huh? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That is one flaw I see with this bike's design, there is no effective way to lay it down in the event you need to.
      This makes absolutely no sense. Why would you ever "need" to lay down a motorcycle?

      Given a choice between hitting something and sliding along the ground without hitting anything, you're a lot better sliding along the ground without hitting anything. But that's not a choice a driver gets to make. You can't avoid hitting things by laying down a motorcycle. If you're about to hit something, throwing yourself on the ground just creates an accident where you slide along with no brakes or steering, and then you hit something.
    20. Re:Dangerous, huh? by boomfart · · Score: 1

      I have always wondered what would happen if you hit around 100 MPH on a bike and pulled the ripcord on a parachute.

    21. Re:Dangerous, huh? by DCGaymer · · Score: 1

      Bill that's exactly what I was thinking. I've seen a couple of motorcycle accidents caused by tire treads coming off of big rigs. In this system the rider wouldn't stand a chance of being able to avoid a direct hit to his/her person.

    22. Re:Dangerous, huh? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      probably shouldn't be tailgating 18 wheelers. they ar e well known for running retreads and running a tire to failure.

    23. Re:Dangerous, huh? by Quiet_Desperation · · Score: 1

      Well, make sure you or your next of kin Youtubes it. :)

    24. Re:Dangerous, huh? by lavalamp70 · · Score: 1

      Us 'metric' riders have a hard enough time with the Harley crowd as it is. I'd love to see some rich biker wanna be show up at Sturgis on this.....

  10. Races by Fearless+Freep · · Score: 1

    reminds me of the races in Battle Angel Alita...

    1. Re:Races by pokerdad · · Score: 1

      Not the actual picture of it, but the headline "wearable motorcycle" had me thinking of Robotech.

  11. Bugs? by mackil · · Score: 1

    I think the main problem would be bugs with this thing. Imagine your helmet, as well as other parts of your body looking like the front of your car. It isn't pretty and its hell to wash off.

    1. Re:Bugs? by Ant+P. · · Score: 1

      How is that any different than a normal motorbike?

    2. Re:Bugs? by lazlo · · Score: 1

      I think the main problem would be bugs with this thing. Imagine your helmet, as well as other parts of your body looking like the front of your car. It isn't pretty and its hell to wash off. Which isn't all that different from a normal motorcycle these days. Some motorcycles have windshields, which sometimes keep some bugs off. Many motorcyclists wear full-face helmets or helmets with full face shields. Those that don't almost always wear glasses and/or goggles, and tend to be very tight-lipped while riding. I haven't done it myself, but I have been told that a 60 mph dragonfly sandwich is quite unpleasant. I will accept that as fact without any desire for personal experience.
      --
      Pound! Bang! Bin! Bash! is this a shell script or a Batman comic?
    3. Re:Bugs? by Altus · · Score: 1


      well at least a normal motorbike has the option of a windshield. But from experience I can tell you that you are right and that junebugs hitting you in the chest at 60 MPH hurt... a lot.

      --

      "In America, first you get the sugar, then you get the power, then you get the women..." -H. Simpson

    4. Re:Bugs? by uniquename72 · · Score: 1

      And unfortunately, bees can sting you even after being crushed to death.

      The worst I've seen was a guy who got hit in the face with monarch butterfly at around 70mpg. Not only was he bleeding slightly from the impact, but his face was covered in yellow butterfly goo.

    5. Re:Bugs? by scaverdilly · · Score: 1

      I'm sorry, but a bug to the helmet sounds a lot better than a bug to the sac!

  12. Is there a reason... by geminidomino · · Score: 1

    that we were meta-linked through the equally content-free endgadget blurb instead of right to the page?

    http://www.greencardesign.co.uk/site/item.php?id=1210936143&category=news&subcat=

    1. Re:Is there a reason... by neumayr · · Score: 1

      Because Engadget can handle a slashdotting?
      Just a guess...

      --
      Truth arises more readily from error than from confusion. -Francis Bacon
  13. just one question by OrochimaruVoldemort · · Score: 1

    what could possibly go wrong?

    --
    If people can get past, can they get future? Best way to confuse a stoner
  14. Cool! by TrebleJunkie · · Score: 1

    It's like a Segway with training wheels!

    --

    Ed R.Zahurak

    You know, oblivion keeps looking better every day.

  15. can't wait to see by butterflysrage · · Score: 4, Funny

    what will happen the first time a truck going the other way tosses a pebble up to about crotch height.

    --
    the preceding post was not spell checked... suck it.
  16. That makes you look like a robot. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Take a second look at the picture.

  17. 0-60 doesn't match with top speed by pudding7 · · Score: 1

    I'm curious how a "motorcycle" that can do 0-60mph in 3 seconds is limited to a top speed of only 75mph.

    1. Re:0-60 doesn't match with top speed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      electronically

    2. Re:0-60 doesn't match with top speed by g0bshiTe · · Score: 1

      I'm curious how this goes 0-60 in 3 seconds when high performance sports cars do it in 4 with larger engines.

      --
      I am Bennett Haselton! I am Bennett Haselton!
    3. Re:0-60 doesn't match with top speed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Higher power to weight ratio probably.

    4. Re:0-60 doesn't match with top speed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The article (which you clearly read) said it was capped at 75. So I think it's an artificial limitation.

    5. Re:0-60 doesn't match with top speed by Zakabog · · Score: 1

      "I'm curious how a "motorcycle" that can do 0-60mph in 3 seconds is limited to a top speed of only 75mph." It's electric, just like the electric car that's "faster than a Ferrari" it's faster accelerating to it's top speed, but the top speed is limited to 60-70MPH.

    6. Re:0-60 doesn't match with top speed by Yold · · Score: 1

      weight-to-power ratio. Bikes are basically an engine with wheels. 3 seconds is exaggerated, it's probably more like 3.8 on a 90 degree day with hot-tires and a pro-rider. It is pretty common to see 4 second 0-60 times advertised on bikes, actually getting to 60 that fast is quite a feat, even on a liter-bike.

    7. Re:0-60 doesn't match with top speed by lazlo · · Score: 1

      My understanding is that electric motors (which this vehicle uses) have significantly different torque characteristics than an IC engine. I believe that it's very normal for an electric motor to be able to come up to its maximum speed very quickly, and with a large amount of torque available, while for an IC engine, if it has sufficient torque to get up to a reasonable speed in a reasonable time, there's still a whole lot of room left before it gets to its top speed.

      But I could just be wrong.

      --
      Pound! Bang! Bin! Bash! is this a shell script or a Batman comic?
    8. Re:0-60 doesn't match with top speed by Altus · · Score: 1


      like I would ever ride a bike that topped out at 75. I rarely ride that fast but when you are at highway speeds and need to get out of the way of something hitting some artificial speed limitation is about the last thing you want.

      --

      "In America, first you get the sugar, then you get the power, then you get the women..." -H. Simpson

    9. Re:0-60 doesn't match with top speed by randyest · · Score: 1

      Electric motors have different characteristics than the internal-combustion engines you're thinking of. DC motors often have very, very high ascelleration with relatively low top speeds.

      --
      everything in moderation
    10. Re:0-60 doesn't match with top speed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Light weight and electric motors which produce near maximum torque instantaneously instead of having to rev up first, that's a good combination for quick speed.

    11. Re:0-60 doesn't match with top speed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm curious how this goes 0-60 in 3 seconds when high performance sports cars do it in 4 with larger engines. Weight
    12. Re:0-60 doesn't match with top speed by DragonWriter · · Score: 1

      I'm curious how this goes 0-60 in 3 seconds when high performance sports cars do it in 4 with larger engines.


      F = ma

      HTH
  18. Knight Sabers! by argent · · Score: 1

    Which one's Priss?

  19. Three wheels = ? by nixman99 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Isn't this a tricycle?

    1. Re:Three wheels = ? by blackjackshellac · · Score: 0

      Yes, agreed, this is not a motorcycle, if anything it is a motortricycle. Not nearly as sexy. Oh, and it doesn't really look like it's wearable, so much as that one drives it in a erect position. This does nothing to instill erectness in this commenter.

      --
      Salut,

      Jacques

    2. Re:Three wheels = ? by fiannaFailMan · · Score: 1

      Isn't this a tricycle?
      It is. It's still a motorcycle though, since the word 'motorcycle' doesn't contain 'bi' as in 'two' like the word 'bicycle' does. A three-wheeled motorcycle is still a motorcycle. I could see there being a problem with the word 'motorbike' since 'bike' is a contraction of 'bicycle.'
      --
      Drill baby drill - on Mars
    3. Re:Three wheels = ? by himurabattousai · · Score: 1

      By law, three wheels is still a motorcycle. You still need a motorcycle operator's license, though (at least in Illinois) a special designation limits your motorcycle endorsement to three-wheeled vehicles until you pass the licensing exams on two wheels.

      Trikes do have some advantages over traditional motorcycles. Cornering ability is not one of them, but straight-line stability and traction are. Plus, you never have to lay down a trike. I know that there are those who say that you should never have to lay down a bike, but theory and practice are two different things.

      I'd hate to see what happens when you lay this thing down.

      --
      "osake no hou ga, biiru yori ii" to omotteiru.
    4. Re:Three wheels = ? by geekoid · · Score: 1

      A tricycle with a moter is a motorcycle...motorized cycling of the pedals.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    5. Re:Three wheels = ? by sm62704 · · Score: 1

      Three wheeled motorcycles are tricycles, but if a bike or trike has a motor, it's a motorcycle.

      --
      mcgrew's razor: Never attribute to stupidity that which can be explained by greedy self-interest
    6. Re:Three wheels = ? by HexRei · · Score: 1

      notice the lack of "bi" in "motorcycle"? :)

    7. Re:Three wheels = ? by Drewmeister · · Score: 1

      So you're saying that number of wheels has nothing to do with being a motorcycle? I suppose an 18-wheeler is a motorcycle because it has motorized wheels. I'll see if DMV will let me drive one with my motorcycle license.

  20. That's the "parking" configuration by mbessey · · Score: 2, Insightful

    It's obviously intended to change shape when in motion, hence the pneumatic actuators, etc. While you're racing down the street, it's change into a more-streamlined shape.

  21. Interesting design by benjamindees · · Score: 1

    The problem with motorcycles is, of course, safety. The rider is on the *outside* of the vehicle, meaning in a collision, he gets hit/thrown/generally injured. The solution is to put the driver on the inside (hello car), but while also maintaining the small size of a motorcycle and not just building a full blown car.

    This design comes pretty close to fitting the bill. One thing I like is that the integral helmet and racing-style seatbelt pretty much eliminates the possibility of whiplash. In my humble opinion, though, it needs a few more features. 1) a scoop on the front to deflect road debris and 2) the ability to withstand being run over by an SUV. :D

    --
    "I assumed blithely that there were no elves out there in the darkness"
    1. Re:Interesting design by MalleusEBHC · · Score: 1

      This device is far more dangerous in a crash than a traditional motorcycle. If you are wearing proper gear, you can walk away from a long, smooth slide at almost speed. In a crash, the best you can hope for is to separate from your bike and slide without any interruptions. With this machine, you would have a much greater chance of it clipping something and sending you tumbling, and that's when the real pain is going to start.

    2. Re:Interesting design by Gordonjcp · · Score: 1

      the ability to withstand being run over by an SUV

      You do realise that in a 30mph shunt with *anything*, the occupants of an SUV are dead? Usually fairly slowly, from massive internal injuries?

  22. More pictures. by pavon · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Yeah, that was my first though. It does say "vertically parking", so maybe that is what the image is depicting. Ah here are some more pictures. That said, it looks scary as hell to ride - when the two wheels move forward, you would also tilt forward, but there is nothing underneath you! You are being help up by the straps around your chest, while the road rushes beneath you. Plus having the helmet attached to the bike seems like a bad idea.

    1. Re:More pictures. by Amouth · · Score: 1

      i agree the helmet attacked to the bike does sound like asking for trouble.. but that thing would be fun as hell to drive.. atleast in short sperts..

      trying to do a road trip with that would kill yourneck

      --
      '...if only "Jumping to a Conclusion" was an event in the Olympics.'
    2. Re:More pictures. by rebelcan · · Score: 1

      Seeing as how the current cycle time on the bike is one hour, I doubt you'll be doing much road tripping.

      It looks like the motorcycle is intended more for in-city commuting ( ie, getting somewhere quicker than your segway can get you there ). I have to say though, if they could increase the battery power so you could go on four or five our trips before needing to power up, I'd love to take that thing on a road trip.

      --
      God is dead -- Nietzsche
      Nietzsche is dead -- God
      Zombie Nietzsche lives! -- Zombie Nietzsche
    3. Re:More pictures. by LandDolphin · · Score: 1

      Scary? Yes, but scary can be fun too.

      --
      Spelling and Grammar errors have been added to this post for your enjoyment
  23. Crash results. by fahrbot-bot · · Score: 2, Funny
    I would imagine the results of a crash would be much like being strapped to the hood of your car...

    In Soviet accident, Yamaha Deus Ex Machina wears you!

    --
    It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
    1. Re:Crash results. by Drewmeister · · Score: 1

      In Soviet Russia, they got really tired of this joke. Oh wait, that was here too.

      And yes, I am aware that in Soviet Russia, I am the joke. Or this joke got really tired of me. Or a joke walking in from of a wearable motorcycle is likely to get tired.

    2. Re:Crash results. by Oktober+Sunset · · Score: 1

      In soviet aware, joke Russia you is.

  24. It's been done, and it's on YouTube. by Animats · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Here's one that actually works. It's an exoskeleton for street luge.

    1. Re:It's been done, and it's on YouTube. by smorken · · Score: 1

      Thats one weird ass show, so much random stuff happening.

    2. Re:It's been done, and it's on YouTube. by Tran · · Score: 1

      I have seen taht too - but big difference is that the buggy roller is not powered, iirc

    3. Re:It's been done, and it's on YouTube. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Works great till you have to go uphill.

  25. M.A.S.K. by boris111 · · Score: 1

    Anyone think of M.A.S.K. when they saw this?

    1. Re:M.A.S.K. by mattgoldey · · Score: 1

      Before I clicked through and saw the pic, I immediately thought of the Cyclones from Robotech.

  26. Don't listen to this guy by hassanchop · · Score: 3, Informative

    The best you can hope for in a crash is that you get thrown one way, and your bike another so that it doesn't crush you. And wear a helmet.


    No. The best you can hope for is that when you low side, you slide along on your back armor, while your leathers are soaking up the damage. Afterward, you get up and brush yourself off. With only a helmet, you slide along on your ass until you have no ass left, then it starts in on the bones underneath.

    A helmet isn't enough. There are plenty of synthetic, breathable mesh riding outfits that will protect you far better than the jeans and t-shirts that most riders wear.

    1. Re:Don't listen to this guy by Lurker2288 · · Score: 1

      I always get a kick out of seeing those 20-something boneheads riding rice rockets at 80mph in nothing but shorts and a tank top. Can anyone else say "future skin graft candidate?"

    2. Re:Don't listen to this guy by cos(0) · · Score: 1

      There are plenty of synthetic, breathable mesh riding outfits that will protect you far better than the jeans and t-shirts that most riders wear. I am planning to buy a motorcycle soon, so this is a genuine question: can you provide some links to some breathable mesh riding outfits that offer good protection? In Texas, weather all-out leather is suicide in the summer.
    3. Re:Don't listen to this guy by enos · · Score: 1

      Look for a "mesh jacket". Here are some: http://www.newenough.com/protective_apparel/mesh_jackets_and_pants

      The best is to go to a local shop and try them on, especially now when you don't yet know what you need. Also buy a helmet in person. Don't forget gloves, there are many breathable kinds, get something that has thick pads on the palms. They're not as comfortable on the grips but that's the area that gets the most rash when you're down because your instinct is to fall on your hands.

      Find an internet bike forum, many have new rider sections where you can read all sorts of suggestions. sportbikes.net is one that i frequent, but there are lots.

      Good luck and have fun!

      --
      boldly going forward, 'cause we can't find reverse
  27. Re:Why wearable? If you can mount or don it? by davidsyes · · Score: 1

    In the vein of transportation

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W1czBcnX1Ww

    Imagine that being standard military apparel...

    (wait for it to trot in the ice, and walk the slick lot...)

    But, to me, it kinda looks like a headless horse, or a giant spider trying to take dump on-the-move, or a pair of footless dragon dancers under a box...

    --
    Previously: "Linux... Toward the Sunrise..." Now: "Linux... Toward the-- No, now, part of Every Sunrise"
  28. Easy, really by mbessey · · Score: 1

    It's electrically-driven, so you can easily limit the top speed with software. More to the point - this is a design concept, not a real product. Apparently the designer thought 3 seconds 0-60 would be useful, but that 75 MPH was a fast enough top speed. I'm guessing he's not a motorcycle rider :-)

  29. Bubblegum Crisis! by snarfies · · Score: 1

    Wearable motorcycles are just the thing for killing Boomers!

    Wearable motorcycles were an element of the early 90s OVA series Bubblegum Crisis (and its bastard children Bubblegum Crash and BGC 2040). See http://www.daedalnexus.net/bubblegum/crisis/bgctech.html#ksveh for more information.

    1. Re:Bubblegum Crisis! by mattgoldey · · Score: 1

      They work pretty well against the Invid, too. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PBkYcCXOwpE

    2. Re:Bubblegum Crisis! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh come on this is definatly more like Genesis Climber MOSPEDA

    3. Re:Bubblegum Crisis! by Oktober+Sunset · · Score: 1

      Just like normal motorbikes are perfect for killing baby-boomers.

  30. Um, it should be very very obvious by hassanchop · · Score: 1
  31. Wearable? by FurtiveGlancer · · Score: 1

    IMO, This invention offers a great chance to be wearing road rash, assuming you survive the crash. But, hey, on some people road rash might be an improvement. Go for the sympathy vote.

    --
    Invenio via vel creo
    1. Re:Wearable? by sm62704 · · Score: 1

      IMO, This invention offers a great chance to be wearing road rash

      A wearable computer game? Cool!

      --
      mcgrew's razor: Never attribute to stupidity that which can be explained by greedy self-interest
  32. Is a crash really that different? by GeekZilla · · Score: 1

    "I would imagine the results of a crash would be much like being strapped to the hood of your car during a collision,"

    "is unlikely to see public adoption."

    Why not? How is a crash on this type of vehicle any different from a crash with a regular motorcycle? Ok, so you have some impact absorption from the front fork, but you are still going to be catapulted off the bike and into either the ground or some other object (vehicle, light pole, llama, etc.). I guess the difference is then that you won't be catapulted off of this one and whatever it hits, you hit. No chance to be be rocketed off of it and maybe hit/land on something softer, like maybe a poodle.

    In the case of a motorcycle, you will be thrown head first. In the case of the wearable you will impact something chest first. Hmmm...can they make a helmet for your chest?

    --
    Veritas patesco per quaestio questio. Truth is revealed through questions.
    1. Re:Is a crash really that different? by sm62704 · · Score: 1

      Indeed. A friend of mine died instantly when someone ran a red light (and there were witnesses, unfortunately for the witnesses) and she went over the handlebars, breaking her neck and killing her instantly.

      --
      mcgrew's razor: Never attribute to stupidity that which can be explained by greedy self-interest
  33. Movie concept by CopaceticOpus · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I don't think the wearable motorcycle is realistic, but it could be great fun in an action movie. I'm picturing a guy who jumps off a bridge onto a sloped road below, hits a button in midair to transform his suit into motorcycle mode, and then zooms away. I could see this in the next Iron Man movie, as a product made by someone trying to compete with Iron Man on technology, or even as a suit built by Iron Man for an assistant/sidekick.

    Yeah, it's a cheesy idea, but it could be fun anyway.

    1. Re:Movie concept by __aaoeqw8112 · · Score: 1

      When I read the story I was thinking Tron! Could totally work in Iron Man (though not if it looked like that!)

  34. Maybe it's for... by CartoonFan · · Score: 1

    Kamen Rider 2010! (or 2009...)

  35. Slshdot has let me down by NMerriam · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I'm disappointed in the complete lack of Mospeada references posted so far.

    If it doesn't have wheels on my shoulders and a jet pack, I'm not interested.

    --
    Recursive: Adj. See Recursive.
    1. Re:Slshdot has let me down by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think cars would be more courteous to motorcyclists once these get made...

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x31eMNCa7Qg&feature=related

  36. You never know... by Quiet_Desperation · · Score: 1

    I was all prepared to say "it wouldn't go the the general public because people generally don't want to look like tools."

    Then I looked at it and, DAMMIT, I WANT ONE!!!!!!

    Damn you, Slashdot, for making me retract a kneejerk reaction! It hurts!!

  37. Rock + crotch = ??? by JonTurner · · Score: 1

    Redefines the phrase "crumple zone" now, doesn't it?

    The gravel-transport trucks will have to update their signs "Stay back 200 feet. Not responsible for windshields or your hoo-hoo."

    1. Re:Rock + crotch = ??? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As much as it'd hurt getting hit in the crotch, imagine if you're going fast enough, rock is going fast enough, and your arm gets hit. Which would break first, do you imagine?

  38. Nobody's mentioned Kinetica yet? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Add some gravity control and this thing's right out of Kinetica.

  39. Um, how incorrect can you get? by Gewalt · · Score: 1

    Not only is it not a cycle, its not even wearable.

    Tagged: !cycle and !wearable

    --
    Modding Trolls +1 inciteful since 1999
  40. Re:Art Student "engineering" by Migraineman · · Score: 1

    Artists seem to have a reality-distortion field similar to Steve Jobs, only more introverted. "I'll use chromium-doped litho-phosphate batteries ..." and all the real-world issues become moot. Ugh. I don't mind folks pushing the envelope, but this is just mental masturbation. Don't print a pile of technical specifications in an attempt to rationalize the "art." If it's art, just say so. Don't pretend it's an engineered product that actually exists.

  41. GTA by CmdrPorno · · Score: 1

    $1000, insane stunt bonus!

    --
    Sent from my iPhone
  42. Stability concerns by Excelcia · · Score: 1

    I'm deeply concerned about the unit's stability. Tri-wheeled ATCs have been banned in most jurisdiction due to their high center of gravity leading to tipping. This unit has an even higher center of gravity, and goes significantly faster than most ATCs would. ATCs mostly tip when braking while turning, due to the single wheel being forward. In this case the single wheel is rear and the driver is sitting almost on top of it. This would make the unit prone to tipping when turning while accelerating. Common manoeuvres like accelerating out of curves, or veering out from behind a vehicle to pass would seem to be very likely to cause tipping. Especially given the very high acceleration of the unit.

    I would like to see the "driver" in a much lower, sitting position, perhaps with his feet resting ahead of him on an "axle" linking to two forward wheels. The axle doesn't have to provide any structural support, so can be collapsing or foldable. As it is, I'm virtually certain than it would not pass road-worthiness tests at the speeds given.

    1. Re:Stability concerns by HTH+NE1 · · Score: 1

      I'm deeply concerned about the unit's stability. Tri-wheeled ATCs have been banned in most jurisdiction due to their high center of gravity leading to tipping. This unit has an even higher center of gravity, and goes significantly faster than most ATCs would. ATCs mostly tip when braking while turning, due to the single wheel being forward. In this case the single wheel is rear and the driver is sitting almost on top of it. This would make the unit prone to tipping when turning while accelerating. You're seeing only the images where the vehicle is stationary. When in motion, it reconfigures.
      --
      Oh, say does that Star-Spangled Banner entwine / The myrtle of Venus with Bacchus's vine?
    2. Re:Stability concerns by jbeaupre · · Score: 1

      I'm not sure this applies, but this particular arrangement of wheels has problems for planes (scroll down a bit): http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question/design/q0200.shtml. This motorcycle doesn't use a swivel caster, but could steering with the rear wheel cause the same problem at times?

      --
      The world is made by those who show up for the job.
    3. Re:Stability concerns by PenGun · · Score: 1

      It's true every steering crash on a trike is a "high side". The nastiest way to crash a bike. Even this in lower travel mode is vulnerable to "high sides". Not for serious carving. You need a dirt bike with street tires and wheels for extreme elbow scraping ;).

  43. hmm, so thats what its like... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ... to be a transformer!

  44. because your vespa isn't ghey enough -- N/T by OglinTatas · · Score: 0, Troll

    no text

  45. gravel gravity by Paradise+Pete · · Score: 2, Funny

    I'd recommend wearing at least an athletic cup. At any kind of speed loose gravel and pebbles will make it feel like you're being attacked by a swarm of stinging bees.

  46. Deus ex Machina was well chosen as a name. by nickull · · Score: 1

    The Latin phrase "deus ex machina" (promounced "Day-us ex mack-in-a") has its origins in Greek tragedy (how fitting). It refers to situations in which a mechanical crane was used to lower actors playing a god or gods onto the stage. Though the phrase is accurately translated as "God from a machine," in literary criticism, it is often translated to "God on a machine."The machine referred to in the phrase is the crane employed in the task. It often referred to situations where the god solved an apparently unsolvable problem, then simply was lifted out, like the student would be if Yamaha ever produced this and it killed thousands of bystanders. The Greek tragedian Euripides is notorious for using this plot device as a means to resolve a hopeless situation. For example, in Euripides' play Alcestis, the eponymous heroine agrees to give up her own life to Death in exchange for sparing the life of her husband, Admetus. In doing so, however, she imposes upon him a series of extreme promises. Admetus is torn between choosing death or choosing to obey these unreasonable restrictions. In the end, though, Heracles shows up and seizes Alcestis from Death, restoring her to life and freeing Admetus from the promises. The first person known to have criticized the device was Aristotle in his Poetics, where he argued that the resolution of a plot must arise internally, following from previous action of the play. Source: Largely plagarized from Wikipedia. IN this case the machine is a wearable motorcycle which has not useful purpose.

    --
    "Question everything, including this!" - http://technoracle.blogspot.com/
    1. Re:Deus ex Machina was well chosen as a name. by PenGun · · Score: 1

      Nobody knows how the Latin was pronounced. I grew up in England and learned lots of it. We pronounced the Vs as Ws but even we knew that was just our way of doing it.

  47. Here's better picture by michal · · Score: 2, Informative

    Here is better picture that show's how bike transforms during ride:
    http://gizmodo.com/photogallery/deusexmachina/1001615643

    1. Re:Here's better picture by smoker2 · · Score: 1

      Any idea why he's got an erection in that picture ?
      Maybe he planning to cut a furrow ...

  48. The inspiration by British · · Score: 1

    The inspiration is clearly from the PS2 game "Kinetica".

  49. Re:Why wearable? If you can mount or don it? by Verteiron · · Score: 1

    If you look at the related videos to that one, you'll find this one which is in its way even more impressive.

    All these sorts of things are out there... they're just waiting for the right kind of power supply. Even our best batteries couldn't keep these little guys going for longer than about half an hour.

    --
    End of lesson. You may press the button.
  50. tagged... by spazdor · · Score: 2, Informative

    !motorcycle
    !wearable

    --
    DRM: Terminator crops for your mind!
  51. brilliant by nguy · · Score: 3, Funny

    the frame bends so as to lean the rider forward thus lengthening the wheelbase and moving the center of gravity forward.

    This means riders crash head-forward into things. That eliminates disability and pain. Great design!

  52. motorcycle? by theTrueMikeBrown · · Score: 1

    Call me crazy, but in my opinion, a motorized tricycle shouldn't be considered a motorcycle.

  53. In other news... by felipekk · · Score: 1

    Authorities are still puzzled over the huge decline in motorcycle theft. Research suggests it is related to the increased occurrences of kidnaps. More at 11.

  54. V.E.N.O.M. by Drewmeister · · Score: 1

    Thanks for the Wikipedia link. I now know that the corniest name for an evil organization is already taken:

    V.E.N.O.M.
    Vicious Evil Network of Mayhem

  55. Re:Art Student "engineering" by NMerriam · · Score: 3, Informative

    Artists seem to have a reality-distortion field similar to Steve Jobs, only more introverted. "I'll use chromium-doped litho-phosphate batteries ..." and all the real-world issues become moot. Ugh. I don't mind folks pushing the envelope, but this is just mental masturbation. Don't print a pile of technical specifications in an attempt to rationalize the "art." If it's art, just say so. Don't pretend it's an engineered product that actually exists.


    Just to clarify, Art Center is where many of the world's best professional transportation designers get their training. It's not unheard of for a car company to pay for a promising new designer to take off a couple years and study there. These aren't bunch of computer graphics nerds sitting around scribbling cool motorcycles in their notebooks, these are folks with money and advisers from every major auto company on Earth. They use the same engineering software and tools that GM or Ducati would use to develop a new product.

    Their designs are no different from any concept car you'd see at an auto show -- sure, it may cost $20 million to make, but they aren't inventing critical materials and demanding that the whole frame is made out of Unobtanium. It may well be made entirely out of stuff that is still impractical for mass production, and that seems to be the case with a lot of these designs, but it all exists. If they say it'll do 0-60 in however many seconds, you can bet that under ideal conditions and with a couple million dollars to actually build it, that the claim is only a bit less accurate (due to more exotic materials) than the specs for any new vehicle design that hasn't yet had the first production run.
    --
    Recursive: Adj. See Recursive.
  56. Good luck... by hardlyleet · · Score: 1

    Looking at that, obviously the first thing I think of if very unsafe, it looks hard to drive, (Whilst looking amazingly fun), the insurance companies probably wouldn't go near it. I doubt it could be even legal to drive in some countries. Although a cool concept, will stay a concept.

    --
    Fortran is for pimps.
  57. No way 0-60 in 3sec by 2max · · Score: 1

    The thing would flip over on it's back. Maybe backwards but I doubt it. Not enough tire loading.

    --
    I'd like an order of free speech, hold the spittle please.
    1. Re:No way 0-60 in 3sec by hardlyleet · · Score: 1

      You can't assume that, that's where engineers come into the game.

      --
      Fortran is for pimps.
  58. Re:Why wearable? If you can mount or don it? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The power supplies are out there... except you know the record profits Exxon Mobile and other oil companies have? Yep, they are buying patents for batteries that actually have real energy per weight, and are disallowing use for anything bigger than a laptop.

    The real cool toys will have power packs in 25 years or so, when the patents expire... just like how touch on devices was locked up until recently due to key patents expiring.

  59. ORE NO TAAN by Icegryphon · · Score: 0

    But were do I put my duel deck and my place to draw my cards from? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yu-Gi-Oh!_5D's

  60. I've seen this before... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Real-life version of Final Fantasy 3 Mag Roader?

    http://www.videogamesprites.net/FinalFantasy6/Enemies/Mag%20Roader1.gif

  61. Can lean forward by Laebshade · · Score: 1
    FTA:

    Leaning forward the rider extends into the more traditional riding position
  62. Segway meets Motorcycle...my preference by PrimalChrome · · Score: 1
    How about a sportbike built on Segway technology.
    Real, functional, and looks like hella fun...

    dailymail.co.uk

  63. Robotech by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Perhaps these folks loved "Robotech". Or, more likely, the original "Genesis Climber Mospeda" which was used as the latter portion of "Robotech" in the US.

  64. 75 is not fast enough by BattyMan · · Score: 1

    ...if you can wander through a crowd at 75mph, you shouldn't have to worry much about anyone starting a fight with you.

    That depends _very_ much on the crowd!

    In a pub, the thing would be merely bulky and awkward. We'll assume that it will work as well at walking speed as at 75MPH. IMHO it would have to be as agile as a pair of rollerskates in order to avoid hostility.

    Coming south into Phoenix (from Flagstaff) on Arizona's Interstate 17 on Sunday afternoon, where the Speed Limit is 75MPH and the traffic is moving at 80-90, you'd be in a heap of trouble if all you could do was 75. Honestly, a Harley-Davidson Softail is a bit on the slow side there. I settled for a Buell, which is perfectly happy at 85.
    --
    Exceeding the recommended torque is not recommended.
  65. Drat! There goes the neighborhood by nikolajsheller · · Score: 1

    once the Invid show up.

  66. picture of wearable motorcycle by siewsk · · Score: 1
  67. Hmmm by EEPROMS · · Score: 1

    What a big bike stand you have...

  68. Return to Oz by FiloEleven · · Score: 1

    This thing looks almost exactly like the wheelers from Return to Oz, sans creepy face-looking helmets.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WM0RFE3QGAU

    I always thought something like that would be tons of fun.

    1. Re:Return to Oz by dafing · · Score: 1
      I bought the DVD of that movie, thinking I would get over my fear of the movie I watched by myself a few times when I was like 8 or so. It IS still more terrifying in my memory, I reckon being on tape made it scarier with the sound quality kinda humming/echoing and random static crackle bits.

      Scariest. Movie. Ever.

      --
      --- ...or a new slashdot signature. Dear aunt, let's set so double the killer delete select all
  69. An Unfortunate Reality by Drenaran · · Score: 1

    Frankly, I think this would be safer in practice than a regular motorcycle - it would of course require paying attention and at least some inherent common sense (painfully true of any type of motorcycle), but would offer great improvements in terms of responsiveness and stability, as well as being able to maintain traction and control under a far larger range of emergency situations (i.e. those that typically result in accidents if a certain narrow safe path isn't taken) due to the three points of ground control (the independent nature of the two guiding wheel arms also increases the intuitiveness of maneuver control). The extended arms may look odd at first glance, but in practice any long Harley is the same (with the front tire on long extension, and the way he designed it while looking elegant is fundamentally simple and has few points of failure (comparable to existing motorcycle design). The actuation points that are referenced in the design go to making maneuvering more natural and solid, but in fact are such that even if they do break (even multiple simultaneous failures) vehicle control would not be lost - it would just feel stiffer and more machine like. In otherwords it would become like an ordinary vehicle.

    Unfortunately almost no one who will be responsible for whether or not this product becomes real (nor the political organizations responsible for legislating vehicle design for public use) are capable of realizing that sort of understanding, and will be stuck on it's unconventional appearance. *sigh* Essentially we're still in the "Get a horse you jackass!" days

  70. Power Xtreme by p.gogarty · · Score: 1

    Anyone else think of the Centurions?

    --
    Paul Gogarty
  71. Can't be any more dangerous than the ZX14 I ride.. by Agent__Smith · · Score: 1

    I would love to try something like this... Looks interesting. I have ridden plenty of motorcycles, cannot see how this could be any more dangerous...

    --
    "It seems that we are at the age where life stops giving us things, and starts taking them away..." Indiana Jones
  72. Reminds me of the body blading vid.. by xtal · · Score: 1

    Some madman going down the grimselpass with what I assume to be inline skate wheels attached.

    http://youtube.com/watch?v=jS31BVj9g-A&feature=related ..at least he's got a spine protector.

    --
    ..don't panic
  73. This would allow for efficient airbags by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Hmmm seems to me that the whole area in front of the driver could be filled with airbags in the event of a crush. The only requirement would be for the front wheels to be able to hold a semi-rigid structure so maybe they can be connected with some elegantly arched telescopic arms to the back wheel.

    On a classic bike there is no way, and no point, to put airbags in the front, unless you want to obtain some kind of weird Mars landing device.

  74. Awesome. by streetphantom · · Score: 1

    Its a hoax! Thats a pre-production shot for "Return to Oz- Reloaded". Looks cool. I'd wear it !

  75. Re:Movie concept or real . . and further by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    rather wear Yves Rossy' jetman-suit, or the Project Pegasus suit:
    http://home.people.net.au/~vortexau/images5/pp.png

    Only seagulls to dodge . .

  76. Re:Art Student "engineering" by Migraineman · · Score: 1
    Unfortunately, this particular case does require Unobtanium. A metric ton of Expens-O-Lite won't bring this puppy back into the realm of reality. And I quote [from another article]:

    ... motorcycle controlled by 36 pneumatic muscles with 2 linear actuators.
    Mkay, where is the compressed air stored? I'll grant that it could be stored in the backpack, or possibly in the front yoke arms, but even assuming that you're using 5000psi tankage, you'll use all the available space to store a reasonable buffer. The article cites electric wheel motors. I like that general concept in motorcycles. But they require batteries or a generator. Am I displacing the air tanks for the batteries? Again, where do these go?

    I'm sorry, but the engineer in me can't make the leap of faith that the details have been done here. I see a pretty artistic concept that someone has plastered some random specifications onto in an attempt to make it something that it's not. It's art, not engineering.

    In 20 years or so, we can re-address this issue. That's about the timeframe it'll probably take to see 10x battery/ultracap improvements such that the electric drivetrain of this vehicle may be viable.
  77. So, this is for the next... by whitroth · · Score: 1

    Batman movie?

            mark

  78. Re:Art Student "engineering" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It does have an on board air compressor mounted low in the back pack, a high pressure accumulator at the top(which can be recharged externally), batteries are red units outboard of the air compressor and ultra capacitors next to the hub motor in the lower pod. Nothing about the packaging was random and all based on existing technology.

    And to clarify- although I am an artist to a certain degree, I am working on a B.S. in Industrial Design at the premier design school in the world. I am also an electrical engineer with 17+ years experience with hydraulics, pneumatics, electromechanical actuators and intelligent positioning systems.

    claims are 1 hour cycle time with 15 minute recharge PTA.

  79. Re:Art Student "engineering" by Migraineman · · Score: 1

    Yeah, I read that, and I'll give the artist credit for touching on the required elements. However, this is where the reality-disconnect happens. Just because you drew a red cylindrical thingy and declared it to be an ultracapacitor or high-pressure accumulator, doesn't make it so.

    Power density is the issue. If you look at gasoline, you're talking about 45 MJ/kg. The best batteries in the world don't approach that energy density; ultracaps are worse. With Li-ion batteries in the 250 Wh/l range, and say a 10kW motor, your 1-hour run time will require at least 40 liters of battery (assuming 100% conversion efficiency.) I'll spot you a 4x improvement in the battery tech in the short term. You still need 10 liters of battery. The "artist" batteries are ... volumetrically optimistic.

  80. Wasn't there a video game about this? by FazzMunkle · · Score: 1

    Except it was women wearing nothing but those contraptions with tiny pieces of hardware to cover them. I just remember the silly picture of one with her butt up in the air. I think it was a magazine advertisement.