Segway, GM Partner On Two-Wheeled Electric Car

Slartibartfast was one of many readers sending in news of GM's partnership with Segway to develop a two-seater urban electric vehicle. It's called the Personal Urban Mobility and Accessibility, or "PUMA." This is just a prototype, so don't get your credit card out yet. Its total cost of ownership could be about 1/4 that of a traditional car, GM says. The prototype runs for 35 miles, at a top speed of 35 mph, on lithium-ion batteries. It features the now-familiar Segway balancing technology, though fore-and-aft training wheels are visible on the prototype. Some commentators have likened it to a high-tech rickshaw, others to a golf cart. Engadget describes how the ride feels.

Comments

Yeah, but what's the point?

[kkrajewski]

Add a third wheel and suddenly now you don't need thousands of dollars of gyroscopes and such.

Re:Yeah, but what's the point?

[myxiplx]

Yup, and I'd love to see how it manages an emergency stop!

A far better design would be two electric drive wheels at the front and a simple free steering wheel at the back. You've got all the advantages of this when it comes to size & simplicity (no complex steering rack), but you then don't need all that complex balancing software, it's more stable both at rest and in motion, it uses less power, and has far better emergency brakes.

Oh, and it doesn't fall on its arse when the battery runs flat.

Re:Yeah, but what's the point?

[Rei]

Apparently where you come from, the position of the wheels and the location of the center of gravity is irrelevant, and all that matters is wheel count.

Meanwhile, back in the real world....

Re:Yeah, but what's the point?

[grodzix]

But with 3rd wheel it loses it's cool factor (and then no one for sure will buy it).

Re:Yeah, but what's the point?

[memorycardfull]

You don't need gyros OR a third wheel to keep a two-wheeled scooter upright.

Re:Yeah, but what's the point?

[ElizabethGreene]

I could be mistaken, but haven't we had 2 wheeled urban transports for > 180 years? Link:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bicycle

Re:Yeah, but what's the point?

[PopeRatzo]

They were unsafe.

Unless the third wheel was in the back.

These US car companies are simply a relic from an earlier age. It has nothing at all to do with the UAW contracts, either. Labor costs for Toyota and Honda in the US are not so much lower than for GM or Ford that it should make a difference. [I'm not going to waste time trying to make a case for labor unions here, because if you don't easily see how important they are to us, then you're too stupid for me to talk to.] Then next time I hear someone say that union workers in the GM plant are "making $80/hr" I may just put my size 11 union-made shoe up their ass.

I came back from a trip to Rome and Milan in March, and when you see the level of technology and good design that is available on the road in Europe, you realize just how badly run American car companies are and have been. And the companies making these cars are manned with strong unions who have rich contracts that American workers can only dream about. Yet, they're able to make money. Shit, Germany is probably the most pro-labor union workforce in the World, but they export three times more goods than CHINA.

Let's be honest: The US car companies don't make big, inefficient cars because that's what Americans want. Rather, Americans want big, inefficient cars because that's what they are sold. SOLD, as in "sold on" by layers and layers or marketing by companies that profit from selling shit to idiots. From the oil companies on down to the parts manufacturers, it's an industry that's based on waste. Expensive waste that costs lots of money.

Oh, one more thing: All the pants-wetting that's going on from "conservatives" about those horrible, fascistic/socialistic CAFE standards that are "just killing" the car companies. It's a complete load of bullshit. The standards have changed at a glacially slow pace and are fundamentally the same that they were in 2005, which was a year of record-breaking profits for the car companies. Standards that are weaker by far than in many places in the world where car companies are making a profit.

You know what? I just realized that about 30-some percent of our country (the ones that listen to Fox News, Talk Radio, and are running around at these "tea-bagging" parties lately) are simply too stupid to try to engage. The best we can hope for is that we'll be able to ignore them and try to get things going in this country again without them. Let them have their teabagging parties and perpetrate killing sprees on each other because they think "Obama's gonna take our guns!" ("the took our jobs!" in south park parlance).

I'm ready to buy the first American car that is even close to a foreign car in terms of safety, efficiency and value. My daughter just turned 21, so I'll buy her one too just to help the economy. But a Chevy Cobalt, Ford Focus or Dodge "Caliber" ? No friggn' way. Who do they think is their target customer anyway, with the "Magnum" and "Caliber"? Are they gonna put out a "Dum-Dum" and a "Cop Killer" too?

Re:Yeah, but what's the point?

[Anonymous Coward]

Yea but with a scooter it's your body acting as athe gyro :)

Re:Yeah, but what's the point?

[Duradin]

The thing about the roads in Europe is the next city or, more often than not, country is a stone's throw away from your current location.

Their weather (if you can call it that) is just a wee bit different as well. One of those little SMART cars would be the dumbest choice you could make for winter driving here.

Re:Yeah, but what's the point?

[MaWeiTao]

I'm not going to waste time trying to make a case for labor unions here, because if you don't easily see how important they are to us, then you're too stupid for me to talk to.

That fact that you refuse to listen to arguments why unions can be a problem shows that perhaps you are too stupid for someone to bother arguing with.

In 2007 Germany exported 11.4% more than China, not 3 times more so I'm not sure where you got that claim. That is impressive, nonetheless, I'll grant you that. I fail to see, however, how this has anything to do with unions.

Additionally, you're seriously misguided about the quality of American cars. You're either stuck in the past, living in the 70s and early 80s when American cars were crap, or you merely eat up whatever the media feeds you.

I realize that it is the latest fad to bash the American automotive industry. But the fact is that they do produce very good cars. Chrysler, not so much, but GM and especially Ford have great vehicles. They've certainly made poor decisions, and continue to do so. They invested too heavily in SUVs, they react too late to consumer demand, and there are other problems. Unions haven't caused them, but they have crippled the automotive industry in a way that makes them inflexible.

One good example is how catering to union demands turned the Ford GT into an unreliable mess. And explain to me how forcing factories to remain open, regardless of demand, merely to appease the unions doesn't hurt these companies?

Anyway, visiting Europe gives you no insight whatsoever into what European cars are like outside the fact that they're all small. Italian cars are a joke because of how unreliable they are. The french cars are better, but still not great. Then we have the Germans, which certainly much better, but not very good either. The safety for most of those econo-boxes is also quite lacking. Having most of my family being European gives me a lot of insight into what vehicles are actually like.

One thing I'll grant you is that Europeans tend to make great looking cars and the Germans especially tend to be very thoughtful about how the driver interfaces with the car. But reliability is absolutely a weak point. Anyone who believes otherwise is deluding themselves. And I do have a german car, so I should know.

As for the Japanese, you've got Honda and Toyota who's legitimate reputation for reliability have created this illusion that all Japanese cars are equally reliable. Mitsubishi is pretty bad, Subaru is okay, and Nissans are known for inconsistent reliability as well. Toyota is starting to have problems as they slowly turn into the next GM.

So spare us your biased, uninformed tirades.

Re:Yeah, but what's the point?

[JBMcB]

> Then next time I hear someone say that union workers in the GM plant are "making $80/hr" I may just put my size 11 union-made shoe up their ass.

OK, then I'll say that it takes three union workers to accompany one industrial engineer to replace one fuse on the floor of a factory. Happens to my friend nearly every day.

> I came back from a trip to Rome and Milan in March, and when you see the level of technology and good design that is available on the road in Europe, you realize just how badly run American car companies are and have been.

Different != better. My Italian engineering prof claimed that every Italian car he owned while growing up there was a piece of garbage.

> Rather, Americans want big, inefficient cars because that's what they are sold.

Riiiight. It has nothing to do with relatively cheap gas, and the difference in cost between "big" and "small" cars relatively small. Poor consumers, unable to think for themselves...

> CAFE standards that are "just killing" the car companies. It's a complete load of bullshit

Yes, CAFE is crap, if that's what you meant, but probably not. Want people to buy less gas? Increase the price of gas, don't create some nonsensical average fuel economy standard that forces companies to build subcompacts that don't sell, so they can build SUVs that do.

Re:Yeah, but what's the point?

[CompMD]

FYI, the Chevy Cobalt includes parts from some of GM's European parts bins. The SS for example has the manual transmission from Saab. The new Ford Focus is now a shared platform car using international parts. The Saturn Astra is actually the Opel Astra, but unfortunately the engine, transmission, and options they are selling in the US are crap compared to what Europe gets. Chrysler just builds crap in general, I will never forgive them for what they did to Mercedes.

I wouldn't buy any of the American cars you mentioned either. But they are heading in the right direction. They very much need a forceful push though. Diesel engines would be a good "forceful push."

Re:Yeah, but what's the point?

[camperdave]

Electronics are light. The weight of the balancing hardware would probably be less than the weight of the tire on the third wheel. So going to a third wheel would require adding a bunch of weight (hub, frame, fairing, etc.) that you don't have on the two wheeler.

Re:Yeah, but what's the point?

[memorycardfull]

Thanks for pointing this out to me, FiloEleven. I stand corrected: what makes a bicycle work is more complicated than I surmised. Learning new information always brings new questions to my mind. Please consider these ideas. To say that a bicycle with counter-rotating gyroscopes is still "rideable" is not the same thing as to say that the conservation of angular momentum does not play a role in keeping a normal bicycle upright. In the same way to say that it is difficult or impossible to steer a bicycle without negative trail does not exclude the role of conservation of angular momentum in stabilizing the vehicle either. I accept that my explanation was overly simplistic, and I see now that I was wrong to dismiss the rider's skill as a stabilizing factor, with apologies to Anonymous Coward. ;) I also now see that the design of the steering is critical to make a bicycle practical to ride at all and contributes to stability while turning; but I don't see that this information excludes the angular momentum of the wheels as a stabilizing force. It would seem to me that there is a interplay of all of these factors at work. Thank you again for this information...I am fascinated and intend to read more to improve my understanding of this as this is a subject of interest to me as a thinking bicycle rider.

Re:Yeah, but what's the point?

[lgw]

I couldn't imagine anything much better than that

I could - a 5000 pound, 600 horsepower luxocruiser that runs dual fuel - gas, and crushed hippies.

Also, unsprung mass is bad. "Wheel in a box" hub-motor designs are problematic because of this. You want the motors separated from the wheels by some sort of suspension, or the ride quality will suck and the wheels will spend too much time in the air, except on perfectly smooth pavement.

Re:Yeah, but what's the point?

[LWATCDR]

"More importantly, they're losing aerodynamics."
Are you freaking nuts.
Top speed 35 mph. And take a look at it. A small third wheel would add diddly to the drag of that beast. It goes so slow and already has such poor aerodynamics that it just doesn't matter.
This is nothing but a cool "look I am high tech" toy.
Really where is a less than 50 mile range going to work in the US?
New York is the only place where I can see this working. Chicago is too spread out and you have the L. LA? Also way to spread out, Atlanta, Boston, Dallas, Phoenix?
You can say all that you want about how we need to end sprawl but this would be a solution after sprawl is ended.
Now this could work in Japan.
The only good way I can see this work is if you could ban personal cars from a city and have these as sort of a rental system. You pick one up at a train station and drive it to where you want to go in the city.
Then you drive it back.

Re:Yeah, but what's the point?

[LWATCDR]

Bull.
Every car company pushed SUVs and Trucks except Honda.
Toyota has a full sized pickup and several largish SUVs. All of them get bad mileage.
They have a few cars that get good millage plus the Prius.
Nissan? Also A good number of SUVs and trucks.
Even Honda has an SUV.
Gas was cheap. When gas is cheap you don't care about mileage as much. Heck I was looking at some big SUVs back when gas was $1.00 I didn't get one because I just didn't like them.
I find this picking on US car companys annoying.
Toyota has three small cars that get very good milage. The Yaris, Corolla, and the Pirus.
I will leave out Scion and Lexus for now.
Ford has one which is the Focus and they are bringing the Fiesta next year. They also have the Fusion Hybrid which gets better millage than the Camry and is much bigger the Pirus.
Also the Fusion gets top reliabity rating from Consumer Reports.
Chevy has three cars which get good millage. The Aveo, Cobalt, and HHR.
These three cars have been in the line up for while. People did choose bigger cars, suvs, and trucks because they wanted them.
And EVERY manufacture I can think of pushed them in the US.
I am sick of people blaming "advertising". That is the new "The Devil Made Me Do It". Damn companies trying to sell me what will make them the most money!
Yes the car companies sold big SUVs because people wanted them and gas was cheap!

 

Re:Yeah, but what's the point?

[Anonymous Coward]

People wanted SUVs because the were sold fear. "Get a bigger vehicle (more expensive, more profit) and you and your family will be safer."

Re:Yeah, but what's the point?

[Sporkinum]

"Four legs good, two legs BETTER! Four legs good, two legs BETTER! Four legs good, two legs BETTER!"

Is it safe?

[MrEricSir]

I mean, let's say a bus is coming towards you. If you're in this thing, you're toast. But if you just WALK, you can always jump out of the way.

Re:Is it safe?

[Quothz]

I mean, let's say a bus is coming towards you. If you're in this thing, you're toast. But if you just WALK, you can always jump out of the way.

I suspect GM may include some sort of control for controlling the direction of movement. If so, you could, y'know, turn. I doubt it'll be any less safe than bicycles and motorcycles in that regard.

Walking is an excellent option and I do so whenever possible. However, it's tricky to walk at 35mph; I never got the knack.

Something like this looks like it'd be an okay option for someone who needs to travel a fair bit within a city metro area. I'm strictly meh on it from what's said in TFA, but I don't think your specific criticism is particularly valid.

That's just sick

[Anonymous Coward]

The idiots are facing bankruptcy, living off taxpayer bailouts and here they are toying with one of the century's worst failures in venture capital backed technology.

Ride a motorcycle?

[cornercuttin]

You can get better mileage out of a small CC motorcycle engine, go faster, and not look as much like an idiot.

I know a motorcycle is still gas, but a battery will be using up other energy somehow, and if you live in Oklahoma like I do, it's just coming from coal or oil.

better yet, just get a horse.

Seems rather silly

[dasunt]

35 mph, 35 miles before a recharge is needed.

A bike will easily go 15 mph, doesn't have a range restriction, and uses no electricity.

A motorized scooter will go the same speed or faster, and has a greater range, plus has the advantage of being able to stop almost anywhere for gasoline.

So which niche is this targetting?

GM... Seriously

[Anonymous Coward]

Just stop

Fail already and go into bankruptcy.

You wouldn't know innovation or style if it bit you in the ass.

Your cars suck, your business model sucks, your concepts suck.

Just stop, I don't want any more of my tax money to going to GM so they can make things like this and continue their normal practices of sucking ass.

I'm sorry...

[Thelasko]

but this thing is an epic fail. It's a prime example of why GM is going into bankruptcy.

Re:PUMA?

[sarahbau]

Maybe this is some joke that went over my head, but since when are pumas mythical?

Re:Campus life...

[cornercuttin]

what happened to bicycles?

when i was in college (not too long ago), people still rode bikes. the only problem was in the snow, as people would try to ride up a steep hill and bust their ass. you wouldn't catch me in one of these segway things on a steep, snowy hill either tho.

this seems a little too "road 2.0" to me.

No range limit?

[DigitalReverend]

For me a bicycle has a range limit to about the end of the driveway.