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?

[sarahbau]

Exactly my thoughts. A 3 wheel design would also use less energy since it wouldn't have to use motors to keep it balanced.

Re:Yeah, but what's the point?

[kkrajewski]

Oh, well, it's a good thing they got rid of that third wheel for this one, then. For safety.

Re:Yeah, but what's the point?

[rdavidson3]

Does anyone know how much energy is lost turning the extra wheel + friction?
And does that amount of energy gained greater than the amount to drive the gyros and electronics?
How do you park the thing?
And trying to pick up 300 lbs of car is not going to be fun (trying picking up a dumped motorcycle).

Re:Yeah, but what's the point?

[hansamurai]

Or add two more wheels, a couple more seats, a larger engine, and enclose it so you're better protected at higher speeds...

Obviously this is just GM wasting more (of my) money. A cell phone acting as the dashboard? Some proprietary wireless communication between pumas? Destined to fail.

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]

Ideally, none. In a perfect world, the reduction on friction on the other two wheels equals the increase in friction from the third. Now, in practice, things don't work out quite that way (for example, the heating profiles change, which changes the coefficient of friction), and the third wheel also adds some weight (although they're losing the weight of the balancing hardware).

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?

[memorycardfull]

Your concept sounds like a Dymaxion car.

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?

[blhack]

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

Look at the Photo of the thing.
It has wheelie bars on the front and back that prevent it from tipping over on a hard stop.

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?

[RyoShin]

I agree, but the lack of the third wheel can probably help in adapting it for an automated-rental style system, as well as extra parking room (a big deal in places like NYC). They have such rental systems in other countries, where you rent a bike/mini car from an automated machine, and I imagine such a thing would be useful in large American cities.

It would certainly save money, but then so would just adapting a golf cart.

Re:Yeah, but what's the point?

[Rei]

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

Thank you! Sometimes it's like talking to a brick wall, those people who insist that the Big Three were just selling what people wanted. As though they don't spend over 7 billion dollars a year on marketing. That's about 40% of NASA's annual budget, all on pushing the vehicles they want you to buy the most -- and this decade, those ads have been overwhelmingly for big, heavy, inefficient vehicles. They've been pushing them because they have the highest profit margin; it doesn't cost them that much more to make a vehicle bigger, but Americans have been historically willing to pay more, proportional to the size of the vehicle.

Re:Yeah, but what's the point?

[vlm]

Three wheelers have terrifying cornering problems. Note that you can't buy three wheeled ATVs anymore because too many people drove them like four wheeled cars and killed themselves.

Re:Yeah, but what's the point?

[Reece400]

FTA: Burns implied that the vehicle was not intended to meet the sort of collision standards that ordinary automobiles are subjected toâ€"meaning no airbags or crumple zones. â€oeOur aim is to do collision avoidance,†said Burns.

So, basically if you screw up, your dead. Yeah, that's a real seller..

Re:Yeah, but what's the point?

[amliebsch]

Shit, Germany is probably the most pro-labor union workforce in the World, but they export three times more goods than CHINA.

What is your source for this?

Re:Yeah, but what's the point?

[Tumbleweed]

Three wheelers have terrifying cornering problems. Note that you can't buy three wheeled ATVs anymore because too many people drove them like four wheeled cars and killed themselves.

That would depend on the configuration. If you have the two wheels up front, and the rear wheel the one with power, that changes the dynamics considerably.

Re:Yeah, but what's the point?

[memorycardfull]

The spinning wheels are the gyroscopes that keep vehicles with 2 in-line wheels upright. The rider needs only to not do things to interfere with that stabilizing effect. :P

Re:Yeah, but what's the point?

[Rei]

Two wheels forward, one back ("tadpole") is a very stable design (assuming a reasonable CG -- low and near the front)... but rear steering is not. It's hard to get used to and is very prone to oversteer.

Re:Yeah, but what's the point?

[fugue]

Yeah! While you're at it, add a human as an energy source and suddenly now you don't need thousands of dollars of batteries, electronics, fuel costs, health care, and such... well, maybe you still need a little health care, but much less!

Re:Yeah, but what's the point?

[stoolpigeon]

I did not know that - and was curious. Found this and it seems to back up the claim.

Re:Yeah, but what's the point?

[BigJClark]

ahhh, my geeky brethren, then you would have a trike. As I grew up riding trikes and quads, I can say they are inherently unstable. So what to do? Add a... fourth.. wheel... oh... maybe the car isn't such a bad design ;)

Re:Yeah, but what's the point?

[Rei]

FYI... the Aptera 2e three wheeler has the cornering radius of a Porsche Boxter.

Two wheels forward, a low CoM, and a wide stance do wonders for stability. What matters is where your CG is during a turn -- basically how long of a "lever" the force is being exerted on and at what angle. So, with two wheels forward and the CoM low just behind a wide track, when you brake into the turn, the CG is right near the middle of your track, and thus you're applying a force at a very shallow angle across a very long axis. And that means very hard to overcome the downforce from gravity (and thus flip).

But hey, act like high-CoM, one-wheel-forward narrow-track vehicles (RVs) represent all three wheelers all that you like.

Re:Yeah, but what's the point?

[stoolpigeon]

oops - not the 3 times part. Not close - but that Germany is ahead of China at all is surprising and impressive to me.

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?

[Rei]

Erm... ATVs, not RVs. Blah. I should porff raed bettre. P:

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?

[fugue]

What do you mean? Just changing where the power goes does not affect stability in a turn (unless you count adding power to the lateral-stability wheels when you start to flip in order to help them break traction so they don't flip you).

What you describe is a standard configuration ("tadpole") on HPVs. Trikes need to have a very low center of gravity in order to stay upright in a turn. On HPVs, if the single wheel were in front then either the rider's legs would have to be above it (as opposed to between them) or the trike would be prohibitively long. I'm not sure what that means for the current discussion, but I'm quite sure it's somehow relevant ;)

Re:Yeah, but what's the point?

[myxiplx]

Yeah, right. You might want to update your knowledge on 3 wheelers a little:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=38TFetQAe2o

Re:Yeah, but what's the point?

[MickLinux]

So use the two steering wheels up front.

FWIW, the way I'd like to see an EV constructed, build a wheel in a box, with an electric motor. Make that work well, maybe with bicycle chain/gears. Then set the wheel boxes as paired front wheels on pivots, controlled by ackerman steering.

Now, set those two powered wheel boxes up front, and give the rider a normal recliner bicycle chain to the back. Let the midpoint chain tensioner be toothed and on a spring, and let a combination of the compression of the spring, plus direction of pedalling, plus braking and hand throttle, determine how much electricity to give to the motors (and which direction).

Now throw a fairing over everything. Build the fairing out of bicycle helmet foam, and fiberglass the entire thing.

So now you have your crumple zones, your 3 wheel stability (tadpole configuration), a convenient throttle/braking system, and a relaxed driving position. As long as you keep the power less than 3/4 hp and electronically limit zero-pedal speeds to 25 mph, you also have legal bicycle status.

I couldn't imagine anything much better than that.

Re:Yeah, but what's the point?

[Deanalator]

http://www.thebestpageintheuniverse.net/images/segsuck2.jpg

Re:Yeah, but what's the point?

[rdavidson3]

Yeah, I was thinking about this too. The cross area for wind drag on this thing would be much higher than for a motorcycle.

Re:Yeah, but what's the point?

[Whorhay]

I can't speak for whether or not european cars are as safe as american cars. But I can say that the idea that everyone driving a larger vehicle makes everyone safer. Larger is almost always heavier, more mass means more damage caused to whatever you hit. And possibly more speed retained after an impact where you no longer have control of the vehicle.

If safety were a real concern we would see more light weight vehicles with built in crash cages and harnesses not just seat belts.

Re:Yeah, but what's the point?

[FiloEleven]

I'm pretty sure that this information is false. Let me see...yeah, here we go:

Groundbreaking research in bicycle dynamics was published in 1970 by David Jones. He mounted counter-rotating gyroscopes on bikes to counteract the gyroscopic effect of the wheels. The resulting bikes were quite rideable. So why do bikes stay up?

The answer is: trail. Trail is the difference between where the bike's front wheel contacts the ground and where the steering axis (drawn through the fork of the front wheel) meets the ground. Well-designed bicycles have negative trail--that is, the wheel contacts the ground behind where the steering axis meets the ground. When you tilt, the trail causes the wheel to turn, thus converting the tilting motion into a turning motion, etc., as per my original report. The acid test done by Dr. Jones is in creating bikes with positive trail. Even professional cyclists can't ride those very far.

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?

[Znork]

why unions can be a problem

Frankly, I suspect unions is much less of a problem than the white collar and management parts of the work force. Administration and process related overhead tends to grow with the age of large companies, and if there's anything such overhead is good at it's at hiding its own cost.

Toyota is starting to have problems as they slowly turn into the next GM.

It's probably unavoidable at large public companies. If they're not defectivized from within early on, it's just a matter of time until some buddy circle of fund managers and professional board members get onto the board and they bring in their pals. Then it'll just rot as job protectors, back-patters, yes-men and others turn a viable business into a bureaucracy and feeding trough.

Companies that get too big need to get bankrupted, chopped up, sold off, and remade as viable companies again. Burying two or three barely functional economic drains could spawn thirty new nimble companies that could actually produce desired products at reasonable costs.

Re:Yeah, but what's the point?

[Chosen Reject]

build subcompacts that don't sell

This last weekend I bought twelve 8 ft 2x6 boards for a raised garden. I brought them home all inside my Honda Fit, totally enclosed, all doors shut, all windows closed. All I'm saying is that some of those subcompacts are not as compact as people think they are.

Re:Yeah, but what's the point?

[2short]

"The spinning wheels are the gyroscopes that keep vehicles with 2 in-line wheels upright."

This is a common misconception. A bicycle (or motorcycle) has a steering axis that slants at an angle, and intersects the ground in a position relative to the wheel, such that when the vehicle is moving forward and begins to tip sideways, forces are produced (by the weight and momentum of the vehicle/rider) that turn the front wheel back under the center of gravity. That is what makes such vehicles inherently stable.

Gyroscopic forces from the wheels are orders of magnitude smaller, and not significant.

Re:Yeah, but what's the point?

[arugulatarsus]

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.

My friend has a smart. My boss has a mini. We live in sunny Montreal. Here we hit 30 degrees in summer and -30 in winter. That's a 60 degree c swing yearly and in 2007-2008, we had 3 (three) meters of snowfall. In winter they put on winter tires and driver very comfortably through snow. Moreover, my boss had a jeep explorer beforehand, and he had a harder time driving it on ice than the mini.

I think countries like Norway may actually know what snow is, ice and black ice are. I understand that from an intuitive point of view, it looks weird as it seems natural that a hummer with huge tires would get a better grip on the street than a dinky little car, but the issue of sliding is more a question of friction, and these car were designed to grip the road. Their wheels are placed "SMART"ly and the weight is "SMART"ly distributed.

Re:Yeah, but what's the point?

[c]

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

Yes, but how will you know you're living in the future?

c.

Re:Yeah, but what's the point?

[rossifer]

No, the gyroscope effect of the wheels on motorcycles and bicycles is minimal. The dynamic stability of two-wheeled vehicles occurs because the point of contact on the front tire is behind the axis of rotation of the steering head. So as the bike moves forward, the front tire is being "pulled straight" and can be easily maintained on a track by the rider.

If the gyroscope effect was significant enough to keep a motorcycle upright, it would prevent leaning the vehicle over during turns, which doesn't happen.

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?

[sexconker]

If you had seen the pictures you would not have claimed it to have a "cool factor".

Re:Yeah, but what's the point?

[MattskEE]

Thousands of dollars? This isn't a specialized military guidance unit, it will only need gyros on par with what the Segway already has. A hobbyist can buy a good 3-axis gyro on a ready to use board for ~$100 from Sparkfun, and I'm willing to bet that Segway already knows of some good sources for buying large numbers of gyros. The prices are also always decreasing, with the ever increasing MEMs and micro-manufacturing capabilities.

Now in exchange for the gyros and software to use them you can eliminate a moving part which introduces loss, requires maintenance, and added frame size and weight to accommodate. So some simple sensors and processing power is all it takes to eliminate a physical part from the vehicle. Without seeing their specific numbers it's hard to say if this will make the vehicle any cheaper or more expensive, but it does allow it to be lighter and more efficient. And I'm sure this prototype will let them find out if the concept can be done for cheaper overall.

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?

[wisdom_brewing]

thats not the point and not the target market for this type of vehicle

there are a lot of smarts around in major cities - London, Paris, Rome, etc... but in smaller towns where parking isnt an issue? where you can actually build up some speed? on a highway? hardly ever, if at all

the thing is theres a target market, there are a lot of people who live in London who never leave the city unless they go abroad, a lot of people who live in Paris and have a fantastic rail network that will get them across the country in less time and in greater comfort than driving, not to mention at a fraction of the price (a litre of petrol in France at the moment is around EUR 1.10, so say $1.50 - ~$6 a gallon)

what proportion of these firms revenues comes from the US market? what proportion of their profits? im sure that there would be people in New York that would be interested, not everyone drives hundreds of miles every other weekend.

the smart is expensive for what it is. it is usually a second or third car in a family, predominantly used for going into town from the suburbs, or even closer. there is a HUGE market for this type of vehicle, though i completely agree its not the right choice for most people in the US.

Re:Yeah, but what's the point?

[MattskEE]

Emergency stops aren't necessarily a problem, it has "limit" wheels front and back. If I were designing the controller, when I detected a hard stop which would destabilize the vehicle, I would apply a measured braking force until the front limit wheels hit ground and then apply full braking force. Would this be as effective as just slamming the brakes in a 3/4 wheeled vehicle? I'm not sure without running simulations or tests, but I can't imagine that the designers just forgot about this problem.

Adding a third wheel also reduces the maneuverability compared to a two-wheeled vehicle, and introduces increased losses which reduce the overall efficiency.

This is a new piece of technology which can make a smaller, lighter, more maneuverable, and hopefully cheaper vehicle viable. They have their design goals, and those goals do not include mimicking old three-wheeled vehicles, they want to use new technology to make a new vehicle and see how well it ultimately works.

Re:Yeah, but what's the point?

[2short]

"...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."

The conservation of angular momentum does not play a role in keeping a normal bicycle upright.

Yes, gyroscopic effects exist. They affect keeping your bike upright the same way finding change on the street affects your income: Not enough to be mentioned in a reasonable discussion.

I'm trying to avoid sounding like an ass, and probably not doing a very good job, sorry. Incredibly persistent erroneous memes like this get under my skin.

Re:Yeah, but what's the point?

[mattack2]

I like the idea of the Smart car.. But it (1) takes premium gas, and (2) doesn't get all that great milage anyway.

If we ever get a true full hybrid or all-electric one in the US, I'd be very interested in getting one the next time I buy a car (though the only new car I've ever gotten, a '99 model that came out around tax time '98, actually has only the low 60K miles on it)...

Actually, while most people are totally making fun of this GM/Segway thing in the various articles I've read about it, I think it's a good idea.. or at least a good start. (Then again, GM had a good start 10 years ago!)

Re:Yeah, but what's the point?

[BikeHelmet]

More importantly, they're losing aerodynamics.

Electric cars are quite cheap to make; the cost of parts and assembly is a fraction of what you'd actually pay for one. They technically cost less than regular gasoline cars, assuming you use quality parts for both. (I'm not talking about that $3000 car from India, obviously)

Right now electric cars are expensive because they're new; a lot of very smart people designing them have to be paid a decent wage, which drives their prices up a lot. If mass produced in the millions, their cost to manufacture might hit 4 digits.

We could also save a lot of money on our cars by paying the guys on the assembly lines less than $70/hr; but I digress... we're not India. ;)

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?

[SupremoMan]

I have solved this problem. Add 4th wheel.

Re:Yeah, but what's the point?

[Heather D]

Two front wheels and one rear wheel = understeer. The other way around = oversteer. The former is generally considered to be safer.

The center of gravity is also a big concern. The reason those three-wheeled ATV's that vlm mentioned above were a problem was that they were top heavy and the engine was too far forward. If they'd put the engine a bit aft of the rear wheels and made it a flat configuration they'd have been much more stable.

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?

[gandhi_2]

This is a blatantly simplistic view.

Unless the third wheel was in the back.

What happens when you are driving backwards, jumping sand dunes? Where is your God now?

Re:Yeah, but what's the point?

[Sensible Clod]

Ah, a fellow Fit owner. Good choice. I routinely carry my keyboard (you know, the musical kind) and passengers with their stuff. 40 MPG on the freeway, and that's with the automatic.

Re:Yeah, but what's the point?

[Heather D]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=38TFetQAe2o

Damn, that's some machine! Nice. I remember the old Trihawks. I got the opportunity to drive one once and it was nice but compared to that it looks to be positively sedate.

I'd bet that thing likes to be steered with the throttle.

Re:Yeah, but what's the point?

[memorycardfull]

You don't sound like an ass at all, no need to apologize! I hope I am not sounding like an ass by aggressively questioning new ideas that challenge my old accepted ones. I don't want to just accept new ideas...I want to actively understand them. I guess like to I do that by first questioning them. I have been discussing this offline with a bicyclist friend of mine who builds frames and he is telling me very much the same things you and FiloEleven are here. He has provided me with an book by David Gordon Wilson w/Jim Papadopoulos titled "Bicycling Science". I expect it to be a excellent read, though I'll admit some of it seems a little over my head. Please, keep up the good fight challenging persistent erroneous memes! Is there any other way to fight ignorance than with truth and reason? I am quite happy to have both learned and unlearned something here today.

Re:Yeah, but what's the point?

[99BottlesOfBeerInMyF]

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've owned numerous domestic made cars, Ford and GM. I care about longterm reliability, cost of repairs, gas mileage, offroad performance, and price. All the domestic cars I've owned were made in the 80's and 90's and (quite frankly) I got sick to death of fixing them, both performing the repairs and buying the parts or hiring people for stuff I couldn't do. They simply sucked. They rusted everywhere and everything broke and there were design flaws I could see at a glance. When I finally started making a little money, I unloaded my old Pontiac and bought a Geo Tracker. It was sold by GM but made by Suzuki and was an incredibly reliable and cheap and performed very well for what I needed. It was also fun to drive. It was just about bulletproof. Aside from minor maintenance I had to do one or two minor repairs over the whole time I owned it and when I found a really good deal on a larger, newer Suzuki truck (made in Canada) I upgraded and sold my old one to a friend who got another few years out of it (including rolling it at speed on the expressway in a snow storm and driving it home after the accident) who traded it in on his new car. I still see those well made little things driving around. They look odd, but they work. My new truck has similarly been pretty decent about reliability with some minor issues with accessories.

So, after my horrible experiences with US cars and very good experiences with foreign brands, what have domestic auto makers done to win me back and convince me their vehicles have improved and are on par? Why in the world would I consider buying another US car? When I buy something I usually do the research, but for newer cars, it takes many years for long term reliability to show up as hard data and anything else is probably just marketing. So as of a few years ago, what were independent review companies, who are paid entirely by their subscribers and don't take any cash or even donated vehicles from automakers saying:

Of the 47 vehicles on the most-reliable list, 39 were from Japanese automakers. Six came from the domestic automakers, and one each came from South Korea and Europe. Twenty-one Toyota vehicles earned top ratings. Honda had 11 vehicles at the top of our ratings. Ford, General Motors, and Subaru each had three, Mitsubishi and Nissan each had two, while Hyundai and Mini each had one.

Of the 45 least reliable models, 19 were European, 20 were from U.S. manufacturers, 5 were Japanese, and 1 was South Korean. General Motors had 12, Mercedes-Benz had 8, Ford and Nissan each had 5, Chrysler and Volkswagen each had 3, BMW and Jaguar each had 2, while Kia, Land Rover, Porsche, Saab, and Volvo each had 1.

And what do they say about long term reliability numbers?

And those reliable older models tend to be Hondas and Toyotas. If they're well-maintained, they still have a long, useful life ahead.

And:

Overall, the most reliable vehicles come from Asian nameplates. Though domestic cars are getting better, they still trail the Japanese models.

They also provide the data from their studies that backs up their claims. So with US automakers decades later still significantly behind japanese manufacturers, why should I support their failure to deliver. If US automakers want my money, the answer is simple, make reliable cars that meet my needs and keep the reliability at that level for 5 years so it shows up on the hard data. Don't promote the jackass who finds another way to cut costs at the expense of long term reliability that doesn't show up until years after they have been promoted and moved on. Make a real commitment to invest in the brand and make me respect it again.

Right now, in my mind and based upon the data I pay unbiased third parties to provide me, American cars really do seem to suck (in general).

Re:Yeah, but what's the point?

[gmhowell]

How did catering to the unions result in the Ford GT being an unreliable mess? I haven't followed the car much at all.

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?

[Heather D]

Two wheels forward, one back ("tadpole") is a very stable design (assuming a reasonable CG -- low and near the front)... but rear steering is not. It's hard to get used to and is very prone to oversteer.

Hm, yes it would be if it weren't managed somehow. An electronically assisted system would relieve that problem and leave you with increased maneuverability for parking. It'd also jack up the weight and cost though.

Re:Yeah, but what's the point?

[joggle]

Yes, gyroscopic effects exist. They affect keeping your bike upright the same way finding change on the street affects your income: Not enough to be mentioned in a reasonable discussion.

I wouldn't say that. Yes, under normal circumstances you don't need to rely on gyroscopic forces. However, try riding a bike on ice sometime. There's a very noticeable difference between the ease of riding a mountain bike on ice than a road bike, mainly due to the much greater gyroscopic force generated by the more massive wheels of the mountain bike. I suppose you can ask whether it's reasonable to ride a bike on ice but I do it a couple of times every year (not that that necessarily makes it reasonable, but I digress...).

You can also observe this difference by riding a mountain bike without using your hands versus riding a road bike in similar fashion.

Re:Yeah, but what's the point?

[fugue]

Two front wheels and one rear wheel = understeer. The other way around = oversteer. The former is generally considered to be safer.

Why? I would have expected under/oversteer to depend more on weight distribution and on acceleration than on wheel configuration. If more than half-ish of your traction is forward of your axis of rotation, you get oversteer, and vice versa. No? Then if you assume 33/33/33% weight distribution, two in front would tend to yield oversteer, wouldn't it? But that weight distribution is rather arbitrary.

I'm missing something. Help?

Re:Yeah, but what's the point?

[memorycardfull]

I've now been well convinced by 3 other commenters, an acquaintance, and 2 authors that gyroscopic forces actually have a minimal effect in stabilizing bicycles. I think that the difference you are describing has more to do with the traction of the tires. I don't suggest that you just believe me; but you may want to question these ideas by reading about this a little more. The link provided above in FiloEleven's comment would be a good starting place if you are interested in learning more. It was time well spent for me.

Re:Yeah, but what's the point?

[Macrat]

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

Was he driving cars in Italy that were made by the American car companies?

Re:Yeah, but what's the point?

[severoon]

I can't say anything about how the ride feels, but whoever shot that video was certainly a fan of motion sickness.

Re:Yeah, but what's the point?

[ShieldW0lf]

If I had one of those, I'd want to yell "EXTERMINATE! EXTERMINATE!" at people while I was driving it...

Re:Yeah, but what's the point?

[memorycardfull]

This comment should not have been modded "Troll"! I made the parent comment and found this comment to be valuable and informative and not offensive or provocative, even if it is slightly flippant. Please mod up!

Re:Yeah, but what's the point?

[ColdWetDog]

So, basically if you screw up, your dead. Yeah, that's a real seller..

A motorcycle for the masses! Just wait until Harley-Davidson thinks about this for a while.

Re:Yeah, but what's the point?

[Brett Buck]

Damn good question, pointless complexity for no advantage. Just put the motor in a golf cart, save $50000.

          Brett

Re:Yeah, but what's the point?

[Heather D]

Why? I would have expected under/oversteer to depend more on weight distribution and on acceleration than on wheel configuration.

It does. It's nothing fundamental it's just that it's usually more practical to put the engine nearest the end with 2 wheels.

Most 3 wheelers with the 2-front configuration are also front engined front wheel drive in order to reduce costs and weight and to help keep the center of gravity low.

Most of the rear wheel drive 3-wheelers Ive seen are similar for the same reasons.

There are exceptions though, the Scorpion and the T-Rex that someone else mentioned further down, for instance. The designers responsible for the T-Rex managed to get a low CoG with a rear-engined rear drive design.

Re:Yeah, but what's the point?

[Ritchie70]

One BMW makes up for a lot of 2-cent trinkets.

Re:Yeah, but what's the point?

[Ritchie70]

Chrysler didn't do anything to Mercedes except be acquired by them.

Mercedes may now smell but they rolled in the manure on their own.

Re:Yeah, but what's the point?

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, actually, we in Norway usually prefer a proper 4x4 car... [Lamborghini with skiboks]

Re:Yeah, but what's the point?

[jhol13]

I drive bicycle on ice (or snow) every day (for a few days more).

There is a noticeable difference in favour of mountain bike because it has wider wheels and therefore bigger friction. You really should try spiked wheels, however.

Re:Yeah, but what's the point?

[iron spartan]

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

If it goes insanely fast, I'll have my pre-order in!

Re:Yeah, but what's the point?

[CruisinAdam]

Really wishing I had points to mod you up!

Re:Yeah, but what's the point?

[BlueParrot]

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.

Oh please. If the people of Kiruna can drive standard cars from the European market you don't need a stinking SUV in because you live in the US.

Re:Yeah, but what's the point?

[ArcherB]

You'd have a good argument if you didn't pepper it with partisan, stereotype insults. It took what would have been an insightful, well thought statement and turned it into a hateful, partisan based attack.

Nothing personal. It's just sad that you ruined it.

Re:Yeah, but what's the point?

[N30V3RL0RD]

I'm assuming that you didn't actually look at the thing, or you might not be so worried about losing the "cool factor"...

Re:Yeah, but what's the point?

[manekineko2]

Your theory that it's all marketing is interesting, but without facts to back it up, I don't see any reason to suppose it's the case.

We are currently seeing the biggest expansion of marketing of green features and emphasis on green cars from a societal point of view in history. You would think this would be causing people to want to go green.

Instead, what we've seen is that as soon as gas prices declined, Americans went right back to buying the big SUVs that they seem to tend to buy.

Source: Wall Street Journal
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123776430557508813.html
"Last summer, when gas cost $4 a gallon, buyers snapped up small cars so fast that dealers couldn't keep them in stock. Now, with gas prices half that level, almost 500,000 fuel-thrifty models are piled up unsold around the country."

It seems like it's mainly cost that's a motivator on the green car versus SUV debate for the American public. As soon as the cost factor is removed, people go back to driving SUVs. Sure, it's possible to say this is just because they're brain-washed by marketing, but what evidence is there for that (especially in light of the decline in small car sales during a time of increased green marketing)?

Re:Yeah, but what's the point?

[profplump]

If you are driving the front wheels independently it's not really rear-steering, at least not any more than the two-wheel design -- it doesn't rotate around one of the front tires in a tight turn, it rotates around the center of the front axle.

Re:Yeah, but what's the point?

[manekineko2]

I haven't seen much evidence for the idea that public companies are significantly more susceptible to rot than private companies. This makes me think that big company rot probably has little to do with fund managers and professional board members, but rather they are just a demographic that is easy to hate and scapegoat.

Private companies that reach a certain size seem to have just as much danger of bureaucratic rot, and I also don't see much evidence for the idea that this is because of management professionals or buddies of insiders that are brought on board. If so, you would see companies that are run by management professionals being outcompeted in the marketplace by those that are not. In fact, the opposite seems to be true, contrary to what many people on Slashdot seem to believe. Technology companies are often started by scientists and engineers, but after a while they get too ungainly without management direction from people who are trained or talented in management as opposed to science and engineering.

I think the real problem is just that running a big organization is hard, and once it gets big, there are certain inherent problems such as agency problems on the part of employees.

Re:Yeah, but what's the point?

[FiloEleven]

You're welcome.

For the record, the tone of my post was intended to be conversational, the ellipsis signaling my pause for a web search of "bicycle gyroscope balance trail", but it must not look that way since it's currently modded troll. I forget sometimes that my personality is a complete mystery to most people who come across my posts, and today those armed with mod points mistook my text as flippant.

Oh well, I'm glad that you're glad to have learned something new; that's more fulfilling to me than karma, though it's a shame that less eyeballs will see the interesting mechanics in the linked article.

Re:Yeah, but what's the point?

[FiloEleven]

And now, fully offtopic and replying to my own post to boot, I swear I wrote the one above before reading your (memorycardfull) other post calling my first one flippant =) I suppose I have to take some blame for my tone since we all independently arrived at the same conclusion.

How wonderfully post-structuralist!

Re:Yeah, but what's the point?

[ieatcookies]

I think some people are quite surprised when they find out thier favorite car company is in bed with their "competitor". Mazda and ford ring a bell..

Re:Yeah, but what's the point?

[jtgd]

It looks to me like the fore and aft wheels don't touch the ground during balancing and normal driving, so I don't think friction is an issue. I think they are there for a) when it is off, and b) when the balancer fails at 35MPH. Probably also good to have that one in front during a panic stop.

Re:Yeah, but what's the point?

[akadruid]

actually even Honda has a truck too:
http://automobiles.honda.com/ridgeline/
(2 tonnes, 15mpg)

Re:Yeah, but what's the point?

[kauttapiste]

You have good points but you also miss one important thing, the fact that nobody but the car makers themselves ran the industry into overcapacity and ensured their ruin. In Finland alone (where I happen to live) there's an estimated 100'000 cars waiting to be transported to Russian market but nobody is buying them. And there we were told for years now that cars were only manufactured to orders. Now THAT was bull.

Re:Yeah, but what's the point?

[adisakp]

Another thing... you push forward to go forward and pull back to slow down. You also have forward momentum when moving forward. Assuming you're about to smack into something and want to slow down, pulling back on the controls is fighting momentum. If you accidentally do hit something (say a pedestrian) and are pushed forward by your momentum, you'll end up continuing to try to run over the poor fellow after you've knocked him down.

It'd probably have been smarter to have pedal controls (accelerate / break) or some form of breaking independent from the push/pull control.

Re:Yeah, but what's the point?

[u38cg]

Interesting. I had always thought that bicycles maintained their stability because they follow a (very large) circular path and hence all the rider has to do is balance against the force of the turn (mv^2/r) which is typically pretty small.

Re:Yeah, but what's the point?

[isorox]

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.

A Focus is a big car. Ford do have the Ka, personally I prefer a Micra though. A Fiesta is better than a Corvette if you're shopping or going to Normandy though.

Re:Yeah, but what's the point?

[jambox]

Ah but the Chevrolet's small cars are all terrible. They don't sell small cars in Europe because the competition is so much better. They're losing out now because they concentrated too much on gas guzzlers while European and Japanese companies had a broader range that allowed them to change direction faster. True Ford got their asses kicked for a while but they'll come back, GM may even do ok in the next 5 years because they have great smaller cars like the Astra or Corsa that they can bring to the US market. Chevy has had it though if you ask me, they've got nothing.

Re:Yeah, but what's the point?

[Znork]

I haven't seen much evidence for the idea that public companies are significantly more susceptible to rot than private companies.

Not significantly, no, the difference is that in private companies it is at least possible to keep the rot out. IKEA would be one example of a large privately held company that seems fairly successful at keeping the rot at bay.

I'm not saying that management professionals are the problem, I'm saying that it's hard to separate actual management professionals from perk seekers and drains who are good at gaming pay systems and creating bad performance indicators. When it's not your money there may simply not be enough incentive to do so, nor the political will or power; those who make themselves look good make you look good whether it's real or not. And if it blows up, you can usually play the 'but everybody else' game; witness many of the big public banks.

there are certain inherent problems such as agency problems on the part of employees.

Indeed, but with the publicly held companies there can also to a larger extent exist agency problems with the board.

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?

[Bonobo_Unknown]

Thank you! Sometimes it's like talking to a brick wall, those people who insist that the Big Three were just selling what people wanted ...but Americans have been historically willing to pay more, proportional to the size of the vehicle.

I was happy agreeing with you, but then at the end I think you just contradicted yourself.

Re:Yeah, but what's the point?

[oodaloop]

Yeah, gas was (is) cheap in the US because the auto industry lobbied the govt to keep taxes low. They also lobbied against public transit and for repealing the higher fuel efficiency law the Carter administration put in effect. The US auto industry fought making better cars so they could sell their low-mileage big cars. Meanwhile Europe and Japan have had laws requiring higher mileage and much higher taxes on gas, as well as better public transit. We've bought big cars in the US partly because we wanted them and partly because the auto industry wanted us to buy them.

Re:Yeah, but what's the point?

[MickLinux]

It seems to me that the wheel-in-a-box would work as I indicated, though, because there'd be a bicycle-style gearshift. That requires a sprung tensioner gear, which would in turn also allow the motor to be decoupled from the wheel.

I didn't mention it at the time, but for aerodynamic purposes, you would also want the motor to be set behind (not above) the wheel.

The three big advantages of wheel-in-a-box are (1) unitary design, making development, maintainance, and replacement easier... (2) an elimination of long and heavy transmissions (3) a separation of the electromechanical units from the rider. Basically, in a bad accident you'd want the wheels and motor to shear off, carrying energy away and reducing the severity of the accident.

I also didn't mention it, but if the wheels are out on struts, I wouldn't leave the struts uncovered. I'd rather fair it with a low-speed airfoil to generate downward lift, and direct downwash (in this case upwash) upwards around the body. That would reduce undercarriage drag significantly.

Re:Yeah, but what's the point?

[Syberz]

Don't forget that currently, many places don't even allow you to use a Segway (in Montreal, you can only use them in parks) so I doubt this thing'll be allowed to go anywhere.

Re:Yeah, but what's the point?

[home-electro.com]

I two do not understand the obsession with two wheels.

Re:Yeah, but what's the point?

[AvitarX]

From what I can tell Smart tries too hard to be all things and fails.

They wanted to be cheap, so they used steel, they wanted to be safe, so they used lots of it, they wanted to be high mileage, but lots of steel kills that.

And somehow they aren't that cheap either.

Compare a Yaris-S 3-door to a Smart Passion Coupe.

Same price essentially, Smart gets 33/41 MPG to the Yaris's 29/35.

Unless you are in a situation where parking by driving towards the curb is a HUGE benefit, the Yaris is almost certainly a better deal.

Thar Smart needs to drop 3K from the price, or get it's mileage past 45 MPG. Especially if Diesel starts to take-off.

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!"

Re:Yeah, but what's the point?

[LWATCDR]

Actually the HHR is pretty good. I am not fond of the others myself but I know some people like them.
Chevrolet doesn't sell them in Europe because they own Opel, Vauxhall, and Saab. Which they do sell in the EU.
While I happen to like European style cars most people in the US don't. In the US it is hard to find a hatch back or estate car. If you want a diesel you are going to be getting a VW Jetta or a MB. Those are you choices here.

Re:Yeah, but what's the point?

[LWATCDR]

We wanted them. They all offered small cars and we still kept buying SUVs. I actually never did but.
Heck even the big cars get pretty good milage. I have an Intrepid and it is HUGE. I get around 25 mpg out of it.
GM and the rest of the car companies offered small cars as well as the SUVs. People bought the SUVs.
As far as the taxes on gas? Yea the voters wanted to pay more tax sure we did.
Laws on millage? They never repealed the CAFE standards. They never applied to light trucks.
The problem is I don't want to tax so poor farmer/plumber/carpenter to death just because too many folks want to play urban cowboy.
We bought them because we wanted them and because we didn't want to pass the laws that took away your freedom to choose.
I don't own a truck or SUV. I may someday get a small truck for weekend projects but I tend to buy cars. But that is my choice.

Re:Yeah, but what's the point?

[LWATCDR]

I have only driven in Ireland. All I can say is in Ireland no call is too small for those roads.
The Corvette is actually a pretty good car even for shopping. It is one of the more practical sports cars.
In the US the Focus is a small car, the Fusion is midsized, and the new Tarus is considered full sized.
A full sized us car is about the same as BMW series 7 or and S Class MB.

Re:Yeah, but what's the point?

[jambox]

Chevy don't own Opel, Vauxhall and Saab - GM do. Chevy only sell (as far as I know) rebadged Daewoo crud in Europe. That's what I mean - as tastes change, GM and Ford have at least got products to go with. Chevy have got d1ck all, I'm afraid.

Re:Yeah, but what's the point?

[CompMD]

The thing with acquisitions though is that one company has to have something the other wants. Chrysler had nothing that *the inventor of the automobile* wanted. Mercedes on the other hand had a lot of things Chrysler wanted, including engine technology, safety concepts, ergonomics, and reliability. The crap flowed from Chrysler to Mercedes, there is no doubt about it. Chrysler *tried* using Mercedes technology to their advantage (Crossfire) and it didn't go over as well as they hoped. Chrysler innovation is an oxymoron; they've done nothing and shown no advances. They even have to rely on the "HEMI" badges they put on their cars to sell them. It pissed me off to no end when they tried a stunt like that with Mercedes by bringing back the "6.3" label and slapping it on cars across the entire product line. No. A 6.3 is a full size sedan, sorry; anyone who knows what it means and its history knows where a 6.3 engine belongs.

Chrysler did the opposite of what Ford did. Ford realized they were dying and turned to their subsidiary Volvo. Ford successfully integrated Volvo technology into their cars and they have done an excellent job regaining respect. They've even gone so far as to have a Volvo T5 engine as an option for the 2010 Mondeo. Fusions are selling very well here in the US, put one next to a Volvo S60 and the family resemblance is striking.

Re:Yeah, but what's the point?

[oodaloop]

They all offered small cars and we still kept buying SUVs.

Yeah, they offered small crappy cars. Great choice we had. What good small car was available in the 70s and 80s? Our cars have been fucking huge for years. In England they call our cars Yank Tanks.

Heck even the big cars get pretty good mileage. I have an Intrepid and it is HUGE. I get around 25 mpg out of it.

That's actually pretty piss-poor mileage. It only appears great next to a 10mpg Dodge V-10 pickup truck. Europe has MUCH higher fuel efficiency standards.

Yea the voters wanted to pay more tax sure we did.

Like voters in Europe, Japan, and the rest of the world wanted higher taxes. It's what was best and the govt did it for the betterment for all.

They never repealed the CAFE standards.

The standards were rolled back in the 80s under Reagan, because the auto industry lobbied for it. And the auto industry made sure that SUVs fell under the light truck category and so had lower fuel standards. BUt even regular cars had lower standards than before.

We bought them because we wanted them and because we didn't want to pass the laws that took away your freedom to choose.

Well, we also wanted usable mass transit but we didn't get it. Again, because the auto industry lobbied against investment in it. What we want and what we get are obviously not the same thing. And what we want is heavily influenced by what is available and economic incentives and disincentives like gas taxes, mass transit, etc.

Re:Yeah, but what's the point?

[highfidelitychris]

I live in Chicago and this could work here. What you mean is that it couldn't work for people who live in the suburbs of these cities, not the cities themselves.

Re:Yeah, but what's the point?

[BlackSnake112]

Not many people want a trike.

Although the one I saw built from the engine from a semi does have something about it.

Re:Yeah, but what's the point?

[LWATCDR]

first of thing all cars in the US in the 70 and 80s stank.
The US was the first country to have strong emissions testing.
Even VWs where pretty bad all through the 70s and into the mid 80s. That is when cars became more drivable thanks to computers.

I for one do not want to be manipulated into doing "the right thing" by government.
Also don't compare us to eu mileage. They us imperial gallons which are a lot larger than us gallons.
The one place they do have an advantage is that a lot of diesels are available in the EU. Heck my Intrepid would be at around 40 us MPG if I could have gotten it as a TDI. Oh and that Intrepid was designed in large part by Renault. Probably why I like it so much.

Re:Yeah, but what's the point?

[Fumus]

Remove one wheel and you've got a unicycle.
You won't even need the gyroscopes as the human will do all the balancing.

Re:Yeah, but what's the point?

[LWATCDR]

When I was in Chicago the L and walking where good enough.
But then it was in the summer. Then again I sure wouldn't want to try driving one of those during a Chicago Winter.

Re:Yeah, but what's the point?

[lgw]

For a wheel that isn't centerline, I suspect you'd be better off with the motor near the centerline driving the wheel via a half-shaft. Chains have some mechanical inefficiency compared to a u-joint (as long as the U-joint never bends more than a couple of degrees). I guess for driving the front wheels a chain drive might actually come out ahead of any kind of CV joint - but it would be one tricky chain drive, so I don't know.

Re:Yeah, but what's the point?

[Hognoxious]

Also don't compare us to eu mileage. They us imperial gallons which are a lot larger than us gallons.

26 of the EU countries do not use any kind of gallon.

Re:Yeah, but what's the point?

[Hognoxious]

Winter? What the hell are you talking about? I spent 6 months in California, it rarely rained and it never snowed once.

Over generalising? Well it seems I'm not alone. Hint: Spain has a slightly different climate to Sweden.

Re:Yeah, but what's the point?

[2short]

"However, try riding a bike on ice sometime."

As it happens, I live in Colorado, and sold my car years ago. As an aside, I would recommend spiked tires and fixed gear. I do track stands on ice, because it is fun, and because I'll slip and hurt myself if I put a foot down.

In any case, the differences you observe are not due to gyroscopic forces from the more massive wheels. They are due to the different frame geometries. As I described previously, it is the frame geometry that makes a bike stable at all. Slight changes in the geometry determine how stable. Mountain bikes have a less-vertical head tubes (i.e. steering axis) and more trail (distance from steering axis to tire contact patch) than road bikes specifically to make the steering more stable. Going down a bumpy bit of dirt track, you want more help maintaining your line than on a smooth road, and you have more leverage to overcome it with wide mountain bars. Cruiser bikes will be even more stable than mountain bikes, track bikes are even less stable than road bikes. But all of these differences are intentional choices by the frame designer, not inadvertent effects of gyroscopic forces, which, again, are insignificant.
    "Gyroscopic forces are insignificant" is not my intuitive opinion. It is the mathematical result of well understood physics.

Re:Yeah, but what's the point?

[LWATCDR]

I thought they still did for ads.
I can only read English so I can only read car sites in Ireland and the UK. They all offer mileage in MPG.... I do find it odd. What drives me crazy is at one motorcycle mag from England will give a bikes mileage in MPG then the tank size in liters!
Have to break out a spread sheet just to figure out the range on the bloody thing.

Re:Yeah, but what's the point?

[jgoemat]

That's what the gyroscopes are for. You don't need the third wheel, it's safer and it gives you a better ride. That's the point the grandparent missed when they asked "Why not just get rid of the gyroscopes and put on a third wheel?"

Re:Yeah, but what's the point?

[srvivn21]

I understand that from an intuitive point of view, it looks weird as it seems natural that a hummer with huge tires would get a better grip on the street than a dinky little car, but the issue of sliding is more a question of friction, and these car were designed to grip the road. Their wheels are placed "SMART"ly and the weight is "SMART"ly distributed.

I'd posit that in the example of the SMART or the Mini versus the Hummer or Jeep, it's less a function of friction (the Hummer and Jeep are going to have more tire contact and therefore more friction) but instead a matter of inertia. Less mass, therefore less inertia and less chance of overcoming what friction is available.

Re:Yeah, but what's the point?

[Sparr0]

Are you sure that the third wheel gives a better ride? Consider the simple case of a speed bump. With two wheels, you get a single rise and fall of the entire chassis. With three (or four), you get the front going up, then down, then the back going up, then down, producing a much "bumpier" ride. This applies to smaller less uniform bumps as well. Also consider the additional maintenance costs of a third wheel, including suspension and bearings.

Re:Yeah, but what's the point?

[Sparr0]

A Geo Metro hatchback holds a standard (American) dishwasher, clothes washer, clothes dryer, or oven, entirely enclosed with the hatch closed. Hooray subcompacts!

Re:Yeah, but what's the point?

[Sparr0]

I believe IQ 100 is the mean, not the median. In which case it is likely that the vast majority have an IQ slightly under 100, while a minority have an IQ significantly higher.

That is, IQ distribution could be 95 95 95 95 120.

This, interestingly, is also the distribution of penis length and girth, whereby the majority of men are actually below average.

Re:Yeah, but what's the point?

[Sparr0]

Bicycles are quite hard to balance once you enclose them. I don't think I could track stand a 200lb bike, especially without the head room to stand up.

Re:Yeah, but what's the point?

[ElizabethGreene]

Another comment a little further down I ask (beg) for someone to come out with a faired (enclosed) recumbent trike with electric assist. I still haven't found one for under $5k.

If Tata can make a minicar for $5k, we should be able to make an electric bike under $1k.

Re:Yeah, but what's the point?

[Ritchie70]

At the time of the purchase, Daimler was saying things like "buying Chrysler gives us access to their front-wheel-drive technology." It didn't make much sense, but I distinctly remember that one, because we had some good laughs about it.

I was in the auto repair business at the time, doing general auto repair with a guy with a strong import autos background. This guy couldn't figure out how to change the tail light bulb on a Mustang (I literally had to stop him from prying the lens off) but he sure knew the Japanese and European stuff.

We had some good laughs at the that and some of the other foolishness coming out of Daimler.

Chrysler was crap then and it's crap now, although the full size RWD platform seems less bad than a lot of their stuff.

That said, all the domestics - Chrysler included - seem to be making better cars than they were 15 years ago.

Re:Yeah, but what's the point?

[jambox]

Sorry sorry sorry meant Chrysler! Damn.

Re:Yeah, but what's the point?

[Uzuri]

Friction doesn't depend on area.

Wow. I actually remembered something from Physics class :p

The inertia thing makes sense, thought.

My Dad Had a 2 wheeled car

[stoolpigeon]

Built by a company called Yamaha.

Re:My Dad Had a 2 wheeled car

[palegray.net]

Actually, the Honda Gold Wing comes pretty close to being a car on two wheels. Of course, the S2000 is really a motorcycle on four wheels...

Re:My Dad Had a 2 wheeled car

[dkleinsc]

Those are definitely 2-wheeled cars, not motorcycles.

Re:My Dad Had a 2 wheeled car

[Anonymous Coward]

"Built by a company called Yamaha."

Your dad drove a piano?

Re:My Dad Had a 2 wheeled car

[stoolpigeon]

My dad told my mom he was going to get her a Yamaha and she was very excited. She even cleared a spot for it in the living room. When he rode up on his motorcycle she didn't find it to be funny at all.
 
He was in a huge wreck within a couple years that nearly took his life. After that they did get a piano and dad never did get another motorcycle.

Re:My Dad Had a 2 wheeled car

[bobbuck]

I had one. It was OK, but the 88 keys made it hard to operate.

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?

[palegray.net]

Hey man, I heard you like segways, so I built you this new segway that's got segway tech inside of it.

Re:Is it safe?

[Asic Eng]

They actually want to use "collision avoidance". Vehicles would be outfitted electronically to "exchange speed, direction and position data, then one of them could make a decision to brake in an emergency situation to avoid an accident". In principle this is a great concept, but given that most vehicles don't have this yet, that's not something you can solely rely on for the time being.

Re:Is it safe?

[MrEricSir]

A malicious hacker would have a field day with such a system. Causing computers to fail is one thing, but causing massive traffic jams takes hacking to a whole new level.

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.

Re:Is it safe?

[Asic Eng]

He could accomplish the same thing by standing on bridges and throwing stones at cars, or shooting out cars' headlights. Things like that have happened before unfortunately, and it's not going to be possible to prevent someone from endangering people in that way. However it's quite possible to find that person and lock him up for murder or attempted murder.

Re:Is it safe?

[PCM2]

Yeah, but with this thing, after you collide at 35mph the car will right itself automatically using gyroscopes. Just hang onto the controls and start screaming for help!

Re:Is it safe?

[Quothz]

In principle this is a great concept, but given that most vehicles don't have this yet, that's not something you can solely rely on for the time being.

In fairness, this thing's still a long way from seeing the market. Possibly GM predicts, or hopes, that such systems will have begun to proliferate before that day comes.

I'll agree with you anyway, but go further and say it's not something you'll ever be able to solely rely upon. Until cars can recognize pedestrians, animals, obstructions, big potholes, sudden lane changes, stuff falling off an overloaded truck, and suchlike, as well as take appropriate actions other than braking, this will be no more then an assist. If it lessens accidents, however, I'm all for it.

Re:Is it safe?

[morcego]

Forget hackers.
All it takes is 1 car with a malfunctioning system, and boom.
We really don't need hackers for this to turn into a catastrophe.

Re:Is it safe?

[pwfffff]

Not even close, man. Not even close.

Re:Is it safe?

[pwfffff]

Could I combine an antenna with said stones and take out all the cars within a mile? No? Then it's not the same thing.

Nice try.

Re:Is it safe?

[mattack2]

Presumably you would also have some kind of backup system (cars are already coming out that have distance detection to hit the brakes)..

They could improve the general situation, even if they continue to work in the suboptimal situation (malfunctioning cars).

Re:Is it safe?

[Cor-cor]

You also can't use stones to play Tetris with the cars on a 12-lane highway. Can't wait for that video to hit Youtube.

Re:Is it safe?

[fyrewulff]

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 don't see how the situation changes if you're in a normal car, or truck. The bus will always win, unless you're driving in a semi, in which case both the drivers lose but the bus passengers may survive if they're in the back.

A truck rear ended a bus recently at about 40mph. The bus just looked like it had a big dent in it.

Re:Is it safe?

[mk2mark]

Those pesky buses, always trying to clip people!

Re:Is it safe?

[Sparr0]

We of course make the naive assumption that the computers in the car won't be subject to the types of malicious interference that you get with poorly written software.

Input from other cars, even hackers pretending to be other cars, are just suggestions. Your car still makes all the decisions. If the input from the radar does not agree with the input from the radio, there are viable options that do not require coming to a halt. At worst, you are back to manual control, no worse off than not having the system to begin with.

Another take on it

[rdavidson3]

A canadian website has a slightly different take on it.
http://www.nationalpost.com/news/story.html?id=1473014

Re:Another take on it

[HanzoSpam]

So did Moonbattery.

Boy this has politics written all over it...

[tjstork]

"Hey GM, if you want to get another gov't loan, you have to do this partnership with Segway..."

Will create the perfect urban vehicle that sells as much as the original Segway does.

Why not just have GM resell these... Maybe bring the Oldsmobile name back just for them...

Oldsmobile Golf Cart!

Re:Boy this has politics written all over it...

[Asic Eng]

GM claims they've been working on this for 18 months.

Re:Boy this has politics written all over it...

[morcego]

GM (worldwide) has been working on dozens, if not hundreds of different projects.
The real question is not how long they have been working on this, but why they decided to advertise this NOW.

Re:Boy this has politics written all over it...

[tjstork]

possibly make you look more of a dick in it than on a segway!

Dude, nothing even GM could come up with would make you look like a bigger dick than being on a segway... if they could, they would be profitable.

Re:Boy this has politics written all over it...

[Heather D]

"Hey GM, if you want to get another gov't loan, you have to do this partnership with Segway..."

Will create the perfect urban vehicle that sells as much as the original Segway does.

Why not just have GM resell these... Maybe bring the Oldsmobile name back just for them...

That's probably not far from the reasoning behind this. It does look a lot like a Hoveround for the road. They even point out the aging baby boomer demographic.

35 miles, at a top speed of 35 mph

[Culture20]

I'm bad at math, but isn't that just one hour of drive time?

Re:35 miles, at a top speed of 35 mph

[Anonymous Coward]

You forgot to allow for the relativistic effects.

Re:35 miles, at a top speed of 35 mph

[smooth wombat]

When I read various articles on this (and submitted my own story), what it should read is:

It can reach a top speed of 35 miles an hour or go for 35 miles on one charge.

It does not mean it can go at its top speed for 35 miles. Only that it can reach that speed but the charge won't last 35 miles at that speed.

At least that's how I took it after reading and re-reading the blurbs.

Re:35 miles, at a top speed of 35 mph

[Thelasko]

I'm bad at math...

So is the management at GM.

Re:35 miles, at a top speed of 35 mph

[BobZee1]

one of the best comments on /. in a really long time. excellent. of course, my nose is burning now from the coffee expulsion...

Re:35 miles, at a top speed of 35 mph

[Sponge Bath]

If the commute is anything like Austin, you won't get above 26mph anyways.

Re:35 miles, at a top speed of 35 mph

[Znork]

Nah, in 18 month's it's 30 minutes. Gotta love lithium ion bomb, eh, battery technology.

No mention of any price either; one article mentions it'd cost 1/2 to 1/4 of an ordinary car in city driving, but I'd bet that neither includes capital cost or battery replacement cost.

Companies like Tata are so going to eat GM's lunch.

And really. I'd rather buy a Nano.

Re:35 miles, at a top speed of 35 mph

[megamerican]

So is the management at GM.

Don't worry, they're now being run by an organiztion which spent its entire GDP in 6 months. A company that lost billions of dollars a year is now being run by an organization which loses over a trillion a year. I hope that works out for them. :\

Re:35 miles, at a top speed of 35 mph

[MickLinux]

Lithium-ion phosphate is not a bomb. Try a123 's batteries, now used in DeWalt batteries. Or Try Valence.com 's batteries getting set to be used to power electric-only Toyota Prius' in CA.

Aside from that, there is a woman up at MIT who is using viruses to build Li-ion-phosphate batteries.. So those may have even better lifetimes, and be cheaper yet while being stable.

That said, I'd still worry about DeWalt batteries blowing up. They're made in China, and China is the king of fake. DeWalt, if you're listening, kindly take your business elsewhere. I don't trust Chinese-manufactured stuff. They've committed murder for profit too many times, with only the most nominal penalties *after the fact*.

Re:35 miles, at a top speed of 35 mph

[soupforare]

I may be wrong but the impression I got from the demo on one of the morning TV shows was that its cruising speed was 12MPH. I'd wager that's where it gets 35 miles.
Really for the cost of the damn thing, you're better off getting a moped or scooter. No rollcage, but a hell of a lot more active defense and range!

Prior Art

[Akido37]

It's called a motorcycle.

Re:Prior Art

[will_die]

Doen't even look like a motorcycle. Closest prior art is a motorized wheelchair, or maybe a Rascal

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.

Re:That's just sick

[StikyPad]

The question is not whether the market rewards success, but whether we should allow it to become a 0-sum game where the winners get everything and the losers get nothing, or whether we should allow the failure of a few to cause many to fail in turn. That's what we've been trending towards, and if it was allowed to continue, it would likely result in something like France circa 1789.

Re:That's just sick

[jackspenn]

I heard part of the government agreement requires GM to build smaller cars that nobody wants.

Re:That's just sick

[ILongForDarkness]

Hey, GM needs a high volume popular vehicle to save itself. Segway seems like a logical partner.

Re:That's just sick

[GWBasic]

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.

There's a lot of buzz about robotic cars in Silicon Valley. I have a feeling these might end up being robotic taxis to ferry the drunks home at 2AM.

PUMA?

[Anonymous Coward]

I think it looks more like a Warthog.

Re:PUMA?

[ILikeRed]

I can't help but notice it looks a lot like this guy's ride. If they could work out immunity from DWI than I suspect they could probably sell quite a few of them.

Re:PUMA?

[sarahbau]

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

Re:PUMA?

[theelectron]

Puma? You mean like the shoe company?

Re:PUMA?

[stoolpigeon]

Red vs. Blue

Re:PUMA?

[Chyeld]

Red vs Blue - Season 1 Episode 2 - Red Gets a Delivery

Sarge: Hurry up ladies, this ain't no ice cream social!

Simmons: Ice cream social?

Sarge: Stop the pillow-talk you two. Anyone want to guess, why I gathered you here, today?

Grif: Um, is it because the war's over and you're sending us home?

Sarge: That's exactly it, private. War's over. We won. Turns out you're the big hero, and we're gonna hold a parade in your honor. I get to drive the float, and Simmons here, is in charge of confetti!

Grif: I'm no stranger to sarcasm, sir.

Sarge: God dammit private, shut your mouth or else I'll have Simmons slit your throat while you're asleep!

Simmons: Oh, I'd do it too.

Sarge: I know you would Simmons... good man. Couple of things today, ladies: Command has seen fit to increase our ranks here at Blood Gulch Outpost Number 1.

Grif: Crap, we're getting a rookie.

Sarge: That's right dead man. Our new recruit will be here within the week. But today, we received the first part of our shipment from Command. Lopez... bring up the vehicle.

A jeep emerges from the hill behind Sarge

Simmons: Shotgun!

Grif: Shotgun! Fuck!

Sarge: May I introduce, our new light reconnaissance vehicle. It has four inch armor plating, maaag buffer suspension, a mounted machine gunner position, and total seating for three. Gentlemen, this is the M12-LRV! I like to call it the Warthog.

Simmons: Why 'Warthog' sir?

Sarge: Because M12-LRV is too hard to say in conversation, son.

Grif: No, but... why 'Warthog'? I mean, it doesn't really look like a pig...

Sarge: Say that again?

Grif: I think it looks more like a puma.

Sarge: What in sam hell is a puma?

Simmons: Uh... you mean like the shoe company?

Grif: No, like a puma. It's a big cat. Like a lion.

Sarge: You're making that up.

Grif: I'm telling you, it's a real animal!

Sarge: Simmons, I want you to poison Grif's next meal.

Simmons: Yes sir!

Sarge: Look, see these two tow hooks? They look like tusks. And what kind of animal has tusks?

Grif: A walrus.

Sarge: Didn't I just tell you to stop making up animals?

Church is looking at the red team through the sniper rifle, and Tucker is with him

Tucker: What is that thing?

Church: I don't know, but it looks like uh... looks like they got some kinda car down there. We'd better get back to base and report it.

Tucker: A car? How come they get a car?

Church: What are you complaining about man? We're about to get a tank in the very next drop.

Tucker: You can't pick up chicks in a tank.

Church: Oh, you know what, you could bitch about anything, couldn't you. We're gonna get a tank, and you're worried about chicks. What chicks are we gonna pick up man!? Firay, and secondly, how are we gonna pick up chicks in a car that looks like that?

Tucker: Well what kind of car is it?

Church: I don't know, I've never seen a car that looks like that before, it looks like a uh... like a big cat of some kind.

Tucker: ... ... what, like a puma?

Church: Yeah man, there ya go.

Back to the reds

Sarge: So unless anybody else has any more mythical creatures to suggest as a name for the new vehicle, we're gonna stick with 'the Warthog'. How about it Grif?

Grif: No sir, no more suggestions.

Sarge: Are you sure? How 'bout Bigfoot?

Grif: That's okay.

Sarge: Unicorn?

Grif: No really, I'm... I'm cool.

Sarge: Sasquatch?

Re:PUMA?

[clam666]

If it was called COUGAR, it would just start randomly bumping into all the brand new cars on the road.

YES, it's clever.

Re:PUMA?

[Tumbleweed]

I think it looks more like a Warthog.

I think a Warthog looks *much* better.

Re:PUMA?

[AnalogyShark]

Chupathingy, how 'bout that?
I like it, got a ring to it.

Re:PUMA?

[noidentity]

If a transport product is going to be called PUMA, it should at the very least allow me to stalk prey from tree branches, rocky outcroppings, or tall grass, silently leaping with claws outstretched, to hamstring them and then choke them with my jaws, so I can drag them back to my lair and devour their tender innards at ease.

That's what the thing does to the occupants when it crashes.

PUMA?

[stoolpigeon]

Why name it after some mythical creature when it clearly looks more like a warthog?

White and nerdy

[rminsk]

They see me roll on, My Segway, I know in my heart they think I'm white and nerdy.

PUMA?

[Red Flayer]

PUMA? Portable Urban Mobility and Accessibility?

Is that the best they could come up with?

If a transport product is going to be called PUMA, it should at the very least allow me to stalk prey from tree branches, rocky outcroppings, or tall grass, silently leaping with claws outstretched, to hamstring them and then choke them with my jaws, so I can drag them back to my lair and devour their tender innards at ease.

I think this product should be called COUGAR, for Compensatory Object for Urban Guys Against Railtransit.

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.

Re:Ride a motorcycle?

[MozeeToby]

if you live in Oklahoma like I do, it's just coming from coal or oil

And as has been shown many, many times before, the net impact on the environment is still much less than burning fuel in a small internal combustion engine. Power plants have the advantage of higher temperatures, more consistant loads, unlimited weight and size, and being always on. They are much more efficient at pulling energy out of fossil fuels, even including losses due to transmition, charging, and the electrical engine.

Re:Ride a motorcycle?

[Rei]

If you want an electric motorcycle, why would you pick this? If you're on a budget, I'd go for something like this. If you've got coin to spare, perhaps this (gotta love G-forces almost as high as those on the Space Shuttle ;) ).

Re:Ride a motorcycle?

[Thelasko]

Okay, so an electric motorcycle?

They currently exist in various forms. My dad recently purchased electric bicycle that can go around 10 miles on a charge. It only cost around $500. The best part is, when the battery runs out, you can peddle home!

Re:Ride a motorcycle?

[99BottlesOfBeerInMyF]

Wow, the selection listed on wikipedia is just sad. The fastest electric motorcycle in production tops out at 70 mph (that's not fast enough for the expressway with comfort and safety) and has a range of 60 miles. The only bike scheduled to be made that has decent range and speed is forecast to cost almost 70 grand. Ouch!

I own an old Honda cruiser. It goes 140 mph, gets 70 mpg, has a range of about 200 miles, and cost me about a grand used. It looks like it will be a long time before electric is an economic alternative for anything other than a short range scooter for local commutes.

Re:Ride a motorcycle?

[Capt.DrumkenBum]

I am developing a love of motorcycles, and I have always loved the concept of an electric vehicle.
Perhaps it is time for me to combine these loves and build myself an electric motorcycle.
Like I need another project.

Re:Ride a motorcycle?

[im_thatoneguy]

And I live in Washington. >85% of our electricity comes from Hydro, Nuclear and Wind.

Re:Ride a motorcycle?

[SPY_jmr1]

I thought that the space shuttle was low on the scale of acceleration compared with previous space vehicles.

Now, if someone can find me a motorcycle that can keep pace with an Atlas or Titan, fire me an email; That would be hilarious amounts of fun to play with :)

Re:Ride a motorcycle?

[El_Oscuro]

How about something like This?

Re:Ride a motorcycle?

[sjs132]

"Better yet, just get a hourse."

Now... Now... Thats not very green... Horse Farts contribute to greenhouse gasses, plus all the tractors to cut/bail the hay, and then to ship the hay to your place wastes carbon...

If you haven't figured it out, the only way not to waste the carbon is to just put a gun to your head and pull the trigger.

There ya go, no you don't look stupid in a PUMA either... Now all your environmental friends will be green with envy.

Not only this solution result in a smaller carbon footprint, but at the same time, the bodies of the enlighened could be bundled up into piles and used to fire a steam turbine and generate some electricity. Thus eliminating our need for Coal or Gas as a carbon source.

You may need extra special scrubbers to get rid of the burnt hair smell, but a small price to pay for the future of true "GREEN" energy.

Please feel free to encourage all environmentally enlighened individuals to pursue this Grand Sacrafice so that all may see and learn of the true enlightenment that comes with being in harmony with Nature.

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?

Re:Seems rather silly

[kkrajewski]

It's slightly harder to steal than a bicycle! Feature!

Re:Seems rather silly

[YrWrstNtmr]

Last year, on vacation at a beach resort, I happened upon the local Segway salesman/rental guy in a bar. He was going on and on about the benefits of his vehicles. I leaned in, and challenged him to a race. Him on the Seg, me on my bike. Beach to downtown and back...15 miles each way. And I am probably twice his age.

He quickly changed the subject.

Re:Seems rather silly

[internerdj]

Double the range and I can make it back and forth to work in it. I've ridden bikes on the roads here while I was in college; that is taking your life in your hands. On top of that you end up arriving to work smelly and sweaty on any day that isn't too cold or the weather isn't too bad to ride. There are plenty of people who are worried about their ability to get to work is dependent on the whims of the oil market. The price of oil that is currently keeping gas prices from bankrupting our ability to get to work are also currently discouraging exploration and thereby tempting higher prices in the future.

Re:Seems rather silly

[Thelasko]

So which niche is this targetting?

Let's look at the two companies behind this thing. We have GM, which is on the verge of bankruptcy. We also have Segway, which is also rumored to be on the verge of bankruptcy. Both companies are known for creating devices that are tremendous flops. I think it's safe to say, they have no idea.

Re:Seems rather silly

[Extremus]

Presidents.

Re:Seems rather silly

[st0rmshad0w]

Is it? A bicycle won't balance itself.

Re:Seems rather silly

[Tilzs]

Can I get snow tires for it?

Re:Seems rather silly

[Captain Hook]

Unmanned Rickshaws?

A fleet of them sit at pickup/dropoff points in city centers, you get in one, select a destination and it drives itself there.GPS and some forward looking radar to avoid obstacles would all that would really be needed.

The fact it's on two wheel should mean it can rotate on the spot making it ideal for tight operating spaces.

Add a bit of network communication with a central server and the things could drive themselves to pickup points which are running low on vehicles or have them congregate at busy pickup points at the busy times, (city edge parking spots in the morning, city center in the evening).

The advantage these things would have over other pod vehicle ideas I've seen is that it could operate without special infrastructure. Hell, if the obstacle avoidance is good enough, they could operate in pedestrian areas and reduced speed and then speed up as they get onto the city road network. All without the users needing to know how to control them.

Taxi drivers might not be too impressed though.

Re:Seems rather silly

[dr2chase]

You're taking your life in your hands when you drive everywhere, too, it just isn't so obvious. The risks from heart disease and other afflictions of the unfit are much larger that those from cycling, though perhaps your roads are unusually unsafe.

The weather problems of cycling are also overrated. The cars are much more dangerous in bad weather, so you have to be extra-careful of them, but clothing is a big help at dealing with the cold, and lack of clothing helps with the hot. Rain is, indeed, the worst.

Segways, on the other hand, what happens to them when you ride them through foot-deep water? How do their batteries cope if they're left out in 20-degree weather? Can I put snow tires on them? They look at little wide for threading through stopped traffic. And won't all that sitting around make me fat(ter)?

Re:Seems rather silly

[hrvatska]

Bike's are a great transportation solution for a lot of people, but they're not for everyone. There are many people that just can't ride a bike because of various physical limitations. Maintaining what you consider a reasonable 15 mph is beyond a lot of people.

Depending on a person's needs and preferences, this vehicle could offer a number of advantages over a bike.

It's wider than a bike and the back could be painted a bright fluorescent color, making it quite visible to motorists.

It's got a full windshield and roof offering some protection from the sun, wind and weather.

And your bike can take how many passengers? The passenger and the driver are side by side, which should make conversation easy.

Its seat has a full length back, which can offer a bit of comfort if you have to spend time in traffic.

Re:Seems rather silly

[nine-times]

Well this is just a prototype, so it might be improved further before it's turned into an actual product.

But anyway, it's obviously targeting people who want to get around within a city, faster and more comfortably than walking or riding a bike. What's weird about that?

Now seriously, I live in a big city, and the roads are clogged with cars. It's not that uncommon for people to be transporting themselves a few miles. Using smaller vehicles like this would save energy, be more environmentally safe, and make the roads safer for pedestrians and bike riders.

Why it needs to balance on two wheels is a different question that I don't know the answer to.

Re:Seems rather silly

[internerdj]

Apart from usual things like drivers being too close, our local drivers tend to honk horns and throw items at bicyclists. There is no desire from far too many of our local drivers to share the road with anything slower than their desired speed. I'm sure I could deal with cold with the proper clothing, but the big issue here is rain (because motorized vehicle drivers don't respect that either) and severe weather which is quite common in my area of the country. I'd love to ride to work if I could do it safely and had some way to not smell rank when I got here, but the infrastructure is just not here for bicyclists and the motorists don't respect riders. I need an electric vehicle if I'm going to not rely on oil, but they seem to be getting further and further away for us everyday people. Not surprising but none-the-less disappointing.

Re:Seems rather silly

[Shagg]

So which niche is this targetting?

The same niche that buys Segways... Doh!

Re:Seems rather silly

[dr2chase]

You could move to someplace civilized :-). And yes, I know, some places are just screwed up. Riding in Florida as a kid was a mixed bag; the heat makes you sweaty, but warm rain is no big deal. Timing helps; if there's an oil shortage (as there was then) the jerk fraction goes down nicely.

Re:Seems rather silly

[internerdj]

Fortunately the road isn't something I have to deal with too much other than commuting. I love where I live; people just lose their minds when they sit behind the wheel.

Re:Seems rather silly

[amccaf1]

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?

The suicide niche, of course.

I wage I could get myself killed in *half* the time using one of those things than I could with a bike or scooter. It's all about efficiency, you know.

Re:Seems rather silly

[blind biker]

I wish he took the challenge - that would have been fabolous! On a related note: I did 35 Km on by bicycle yesterday, in one go. Saved some (gas) money, enjoyed some of the views AND improved my heart, my lungs and my blood's erythrocite count.

Ah, another summer of riding my bikes - I'm so lucky :)

Re:Seems rather silly

[Cormacus]

You're taking your life in your hands when you drive everywhere, too, it just isn't so obvious.

You're comparing apples and oranges. Have you ever tried to bike somewhere in a metropolitan area? I'm using Rockville, MD as my reference. Biking anywhere on the same roads as commuters is just insane.

The risks from heart disease and other afflictions of the unfit are much larger that those from cycling

Thats a silly statement. Your chances of being maimed/crushed/ground into a messy pulp while the driver of the car sits safely inside their 3' of crumple distance are WAY higher than your chances of similar disfigurement (or death) "from heart disease and other afflictions of the unfit."

Re:Seems rather silly

[McGruber]

So which niche is this targetting?

It is a SuperSized Segway designed to carry SuperSized Americans.

Seriously.

Ever tried to take a regular Segway to the drive-thruh window?

Re:Seems rather silly

[pwfffff]

Protip: most workplaces don't have showers, and you're really not supposed to put deodorants/antiperspirants on your back. Read the package, man.

Re:Seems rather silly

[2short]

For a bike? Of course. Hell of a lot cheaper than for a car, and with them you can handle much deeper snow.

Re:Seems rather silly

[westlake]

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

The bike has a range restriction: the cyclist.

Performance affected by age, fitness, roads and weather.

Re:Seems rather silly

[2short]

"Bike's are a great transportation solution for a lot of people, but they're not for everyone. There are many people that just can't ride a bike because of various physical limitations. Maintaining what you consider a reasonable 15 mph is beyond a lot of people."

Maintaining 15 mph is not very hard. Sure, there's people who can't, but I can sustain 20, and I'm... let's go with "portly".

"It's wider than a bike and the back could be painted a bright fluorescent color, making it quite visible to motorists."

So, the width is a disadvantage, obviously. I can wear bright flourescent colors, and if they don't see me, they're not looking that way; bigger won't help.

"And your bike can take how many passengers?"
Mine? Two. But OK, most peoples passengers will have to get there own bikes.

"Its seat has a full length back, which can offer a bit of comfort if you have to spend time in traffic."

Which on a bike, you don't.

Re:Seems rather silly

[dr2chase]

Which metro area do you prefer, Tampa/St.Pete, Houston, Silicon Valley, or Boston? I ride about 50 miles per week, about 40 of that is on roads shared with cars. But it is true, Boston is well-known for its careful, considerate drivers, so perhaps things are different elsewhere.

The risk estimate is not a silly statement. The estimates are that driving to the exclusion of biking, is 10 to 20 times more dangerous (in terms of expected years of life lost) than biking. This was measured in England (the cycling risks vary from country to country, but so does obesity) by a guy named Mayer Hillman at the Policy Studies Institute at the University of Westminster. Biking in England is less safe than northern Europe, but safer than the United States.

I think you need to do a more rational assessment of risks. There are safe roads and unsafe roads, but overall, not getting enough exercise, is very, very unsafe, long term.

Re:Seems rather silly

[xaxa]

I did 38km on Saturday (19km each way). I saved £3.35 on public transport, saw some bits of the city I haven't seen before, got slightly lost and enjoyed it, and probably got a little bit healthier.

But that's the last time I cycle to a nightclub. I've been cycling everywhere since I bought a bike, but it was a bit crazy to leave the house at 11pm -- already a bit tired -- and cycle for an hour. And then cycle back at 3.30.

(And then do another 36km on Sunday, followed by 15km on Monday for work. My legs ache, I hope they get stronger.)

Re:Seems rather silly

[xaxa]

There are many people that just can't ride a bike because of various physical limitations.

I see this a lot on /. (every time alternative transportation comes up).

It's not true. Most people can ride a bike, or could learn to ride. Missing limbs makes it more difficult, but that's not many people. The most common "physical limitation" seems to be laziness.

Re:Seems rather silly

[hrvatska]

"Bike's are a great transportation solution for a lot of people, but they're not for everyone. There are many people that just can't ride a bike because of various physical limitations. Maintaining what you consider a reasonable 15 mph is beyond a lot of people."

Maintaining 15 mph is not very hard. Sure, there's people who can't, but I can sustain 20, and I'm... let's go with "portly".

Your performance on a bike is not necessarily reflective of the population at large.

I'm familiar with riding on bikes. It's one of my favorite activities. I ride thousands of miles per year on a bike. I do at least one self supported long distance bike tour per year. I'm fitter than most people my age (53), and I average about 16-18 mph on open rural roads. My average drops considerably in urban areas where there're a lot of stop lights/signs. Throw in a big hill or two or a strong headwind and average speed drops considerably. I find maintaining 20 mph for any sustained period doable but not something I particularly enjoy doing. When I ride on large group rides, say something like the annual Seattle to Portland group ride with 9000+ riders, I find I go faster than a considerable portion of the other riders, and I'm not knocking myself out.

Most people, even if they enjoyed riding a bike when younger find it progressively more difficult to do as they move into the 50's. These days I ride a recumbent because I can no longer ride an upright due to problems in my shoulders and arms. This is a problem that hits a significant portion of people who give up riding bikes. I know nearly as many people who have given up riding because of physical problems as those still riding. Aching hips, knees, and backs become progressively more common. You might be surprised at the percentage of the population afflicted with these sorts of things. If it weren't for recumbents I probably wouldn't be riding a bike.

"It's wider than a bike and the back could be painted a bright fluorescent color, making it quite visible to motorists."

So, the width is a disadvantage, obviously. I can wear bright flourescent colors, and if they don't see me, they're not looking that way; bigger won't help.

I think bigger does help for visibility. A larger area of bright color is more likely to catch people's eyes. Hell, larger all by itself is more visible. Plus, with a bike you have to carry a special bright jacket or shirt just for use on the bike. Unless you like wearing that sort of thing when you're out and about. I've got a nice bright lime colored jacket, but I really don't feel like wearing it except while riding a bike.

"Its seat has a full length back, which can offer a bit of comfort if you have to spend time in traffic."

Which on a bike, you don't.

You're experience commuting in urban areas is different than mine if you don't have to spend any time in traffic.

Re:Seems rather silly

[R3d M3rcury]

Most workplaces don't have showers, agreed, but there are other possibilities:

1. Fitness clubs: If there's one nearby, go check with them and see how much it costs to become a member. If you explain your situation (you just want the shower) they may cut you some slack. Wear your bike clothes--it helps get the point across.
2. Locker rooms: Some buildings have showers for maintenance people who get dirty on the job. Check with the local buildings. Also check the area for YMCAs, homeless shelters, golf courses, and middle/high schools. Again, wear your bike clothes when you ask.
3. Buy a hose: The place I used to work didn't have a shower but had a connection outside for a hose. So I bought a hose and came to work with a change of clothes and a towel. I got in, parked my bike, went outside and hosed myself down (wearing my bike clothes--didn't want to frighten the horses, after all) and toweled off. Then I came back inside, went into the restroom, and changed into presentable clothes. I hung my wet bike clothes in a spare room and they were mostly dry by the time I was ready to go home.
4. Sponges: Use the restroom and give yourself a sponge bath. Before I came up with the hose idea, I did this a few times and it worked okay--at least well enough to get through the day without driving my co-workers out of the room.

Re:Seems rather silly

[Ritchie70]

Maybe the niche of people who work comparatively close to home (I have a 10-mile commute) and don't want to show up at work sweaty?

I really don't get this "ride your bike to work" theory. Do you all work jobs where you're going to smell bad and be sweaty anyhow? Or do your workplaces all have showers?

Re:Seems rather silly

[ShoulderOfOrion]

This is slashdot. The 'physical limitation' is getting it up the basement stairs...

Re:Seems rather silly

[xaxa]

Is it? A bicycle won't balance itself.

A tricycle will. That can make them easier to ride -- for instance, you can select a very low gear and go really slowly up a steep hill, but with a bicycle you need a certain amount of speed to keep it balanced.

Re:Seems rather silly

[xaxa]

I really don't get this "ride your bike to work" theory. Do you all work jobs where you're going to smell bad and be sweaty anyhow? Or do your workplaces all have showers?

Maybe we're not so unfit that after 10 seconds on a bike we're sweating like a pig.

(Or maybe we ride slower, or wear special cycling clothes, or bring a change of clothes, or use wet-wipes. It's not an insurmountable problem.)

Re:Seems rather silly

[blind biker]

If you've not cycled before, it will take a couple of months, but then (if you're not over 70) you should be able to do most any length of tour. For me, the bottleneck is my butt, which gets sore after 40-50 Km, (I'm a skinny guy and lack "paddings" down there) but as far as legs and general stamina, I know I could go for at least that much, and I'm no Lance.

Re:Seems rather silly

[Rogerborg]

Hillman's study compared "all cyclists" vs "all non cyclists", which is equally useless at predicting the benefits of cycling 2 miles a week in a rural idyll, and the risks of kerb hopping and light jumping 30 miles a day through urban and suburban rage-cagers.

But if we're talking "all risks", would you be surprised to learn that the Killed/Serious Injury rate for cyclists in the UK per mile is only half that for motorcyclists? i.e. it's still 10 times the risk that a cager goes through. Hillman's study is biased by the problem that the UK is simply not cyclist friendly (either in roads or weather), and cycling is not a common method of commuting in most areas.

Re:Seems rather silly

[xaxa]

I'm 23, I started cycling to work in January. I've missed one day so far (I felt ill, and took the train) but apart from that I've really enjoyed it.

I've seen a definite improvement from my journey to work (7.5km, 25 minutes), but I think I need to do some longer rides. Next time I have a free day I'm planning on cycling as far from home as I can. Just to see.

I will need to work out how to pace myself for a longer ride. At the moment, I usually ride as fast as I can, which I don't think I can sustain for more than about an hour (through the city, so that includes lots of stopping for junctions and starting again).

Re:Seems rather silly

[dr2chase]

I don't quite understand your analysis -- the reasoning behind Hillman's conclusion is, as I understand it, that non-cyclists (as a group) tend to not get enough exercise, and the risks of THAT (insufficient exercise, as a group) are 10 times higher than the risks of getting killed on a bicycle. To point out that in fact, the crash-death risk of cycling is higher than the crash-death risk of caging does not refute this, unless we are somehow less dead when we die from the heart attack or stroke that is (apparently) much more likely to kill the cager. (And note that Hillman is counting expected years of life lost, not deaths.)

All that said, there are safer and less safe roads, and of course the prudent cyclist will take care to avoid obvious dangers. There's hills I won't descend down (I coast at 35+mph, I measured, and the road is skinny with poor sight lines), and there's roads I avoid in the dark (again, poor sight lines, poor visibility). But note, in all cases, that it is not he bicycle itself that is dangerous -- I avoid the hill because a car might not see me, I avoid the skinny curvy dark road because a car might not see me. The danger comes from the cars, and it would be lovely if more people recognized this.

I'm not sure where this Segway gadget fits in. It still seems to use plenty of energy (35mph, with that big fat profile, is going to use a heap of power, by bicycling standards), and it hardly has a monopoly on being powered by electricity (there's some practical, not-too-expensive, e-assist systems used in cargo biking). It looks heavy, and being wide like that, it will be prone to getting stuck in jams. If the batteries fail, your options are not so good. And it will encourage people to not get the exercise that they need, so that risk (which is apparently enormous) is not reduced.

Re:Seems rather silly

[blind biker]

I was in an accident last year, so I had many months of inactivity, and as I am going back to cycling, I'm picking up a few things to keep in mind: definitely give yourself a day to recover from a long, hard ride. I don't mean your usual 7.5 Km commute (which would make 15 Km/day, if I understand you correctly?), but rather 1 hour full-throttle ride. Though, if you have been doing that commute every day since January, you should be ready for pretty much any lenght of ride, provided that you have a few uphills in your commute.

If you are interested in a balanced development of your muscles, I humbly submit to you the use of a singlespeed bicycle: that forces the rider to use both slow-twitch and fast-twitch muscles, developing both, whereas a geared bicycle will keep you in your comfort zone most/all of the time. It worked for me: My ex-GF had particular words of compliment for "my lean, muscular ass), which I appreciate. I'm still waiting for my new GF's assesment :)

Re:Seems rather silly

[Rogerborg]

The post up yonder makes the point that the risks for some cyclists on some routes may outweigh the health benefits. Hillman provides no evidence to refute that. I do accept that those cyclists that don't get killed live longer.

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.

Re:GM... Seriously

[clam666]

Nonsense. They wanted billions, now they have to waste billions. GM has been releasing crap vehicles for years, and they've always made sure the GM and AFL/CIO executives got paid. You want them to stop now?

Campus life...

[Quantos]

It would be a cool way to get from one end of campus to another.
Just imagine the convenience of having a two wheeled, compact and light weight form of transportation that you could lock up on your way into class.

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.

Re:Campus life...

[ElizabethGreene]

I'd really like to see an electric mass produced recumbent trike (Tadpole, not delta) with optional fairings. Anyone else?

Re:Campus life...

[0100010001010011]

I'd like to see a cheap recumbent that doesn't cost a grand. I'd love to just try one out to see if I like it.

Where is the Huffy of Recumbents?

Just dont make any...

[Frosty Piss]

...sudden moves.

I'm sorry...

[Thelasko]

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

Re:I'm sorry...

[electrosoccertux]

GM is not going into bankruptcy. There are far too many democrat-voting UAW workers for Obama to ignore. Much better to keep the company afloat and the guys employed to get their votes in 2012.

I'm happy to see...

[religious freak]

The dreams of the Homer car will finally come true...

/me thinks this idea won't save GM.

[peterdaly]

Too big for a standard sidewalk.

Too small to be safe on the road.

Has a roll-cage...because it needs one. /me thinks this idea won't save GM.

Naming

[fiannaFailMan]

I think the GM name is a bit tainted these days, and as for Segway, that's synonymous with venture capital funded half-baked ideas that failed to learn the lessons of previous marketing failures.

How about something with a classical ring to it, like 'Sinclair.' And for the model name, well how about C for 'cool' and 5 for the number of people who will need to buy it? There. Sinclair C5. Perfect.

A Fancy Auto Rickshaw?

[ibookdb]

http://images.google.com/images?client=opera&rls=en&q=auto+rickshaw&sourceid=opera&oe=utf-8&um=1&ie=UTF-8&ei=5rLbSYi2OprrlQfx_YH6Bw&sa=X&oi=image_result_group&resnum=1&ct=title

Segway's Motto should be:

[happy_place]

Segway: Stealing the last particle of human dignity from rent-a-cops worldwide.

Re:Segway's Motto should be:

[Anita Coney]

Oh god that was fucking, yeah, I'm saying it, fucking funny!

Re:Segway's Motto should be:

[kermit1221]

Segway: Stealing the last particle of human dignity from rent-a-cops worldwide.

Rent-a-cops? Hell, the real cops have em around here. Like we needed more reasons to laugh at the police in SoCal.

GM and two wheels

[kpainter]

Hmmm. I guess since this thing has two less wheels than a normal GM vehicle, reliability is automatically doubled.

2012?!

[stokessd]

Coming out in 2012? GM won't be around by then...

Now you can get beat up in pairs: http://www.yesbutnobutyes.com/archives/2009/04/get_beaten_up_i.html

Sheldon

Re:The niche that wants to stay dry when it rains.

[Rabbitbunny]

it's called a velomobile.

you can send my consulting fee via PayPal.

No range limit?

[DigitalReverend]

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

Re:No range limit?

[Al Dimond]

I wouldn't bother responding, but you're modded insightful, so...

I'm assuming you're saying this because the roads near you aren't safe to bike on. If you live on a road where you're not safe on a bike you're not going to be safe on one of these either. Probably less safe. It can go faster than a bike, but it's wider and less nimble.

If you don't have the cardiovascular endurance to make it any farther than the end of your driveway you have problems beyond transportation.

Re:No range limit?

[DigitalReverend]

No, I am saying that because I spend 12 to 18 hours a day at a desk doing system administration, writing scripts to make my job easier and countless hours on the phone helping an endless stream of helpless lusers, that my once buff 185lb body is now a rotund 285lb body, and I've become so out of shape, that I'd probably collapse from a heart attack if I tried to pedal past the end of my driveway.

Re:No range limit?

[Rogerborg]

From personal experience, the solution to being a fat lazy bastard is not to whine that you can't exercise due to being a fat lazy bastard. Waddle another few feet every day, lardo.

Re:No range limit?

[xaxa]

If you want to get fit, there's nothing stopping you. If you're in such bad shape that you can't cycle further than the end of your driveway, I suggest you buy a folding bike. Park your car at the end of your driveway. Cycle from you house to the car, and put the bike in the car. At work, cycle from the car to the office. As your fitness improves, increase the length of the cycling.

I'm not really joking there. I joined a couple of cycling forums when I started cycling, and there were several overweight men getting themselves back in shape with the encouragement of ex-overweight men. Some of them lived too far from work to cycle the whole distance from the start, so they were using bike+(car/train/bus) combinations to shorten the distance until they got fitter.

Alternatively, park your car further from your office every day to give yourself a bit of a walk.

Segway has jumped the shark

[93 Escort Wagon]

Okay, "jumped the shark" isn't a perfect fit, but I just can't think of a better phrase - but with the Segway and now this vehicle, it's like they have no idea how to really be original in a way that addresses an actual issue. It simply comes down to all this silly stuff about being able to balance on fewer wheels than normal. But what, exactly, do you actually gain from a practical standpoint by doing that? It seems like we've got these impractical, uselessly overengineered products that don't fit into any good niche. They're expensive and way too slow for what they actually do. Our entire infrastructure would have to be completely overhauled before they could be remotely useful to the average person.

If you add a third wheel to either vehicle - as others have mentioned - you could accomplish the exact same thing for much less money and with much simpler engineering. But since Segway doesn't have an actual practical contribution to make, doing that would eliminate Segway's participation entirely (which might be a good thing).

This is such a dumb idea

[Colin Smith]

That I can only assume the ultimate plan is to use it as a base for a robot.

 

Re:The niche that wants to stay dry when it rains.

[Marcika]

A motorbike on which you don't get wet? It was called the BMW C1 - a nice idea that flopped for obvious reasons: More expensive, more gay and more sluggish than a scooter (just like the PUMA), and unlike a car it doesn't protect you against really bad weather (just like the PUMA).

Messerschmitts are coming back . . .

[PolygamousRanchKid]

The Germans mucked around with motorized scooter cars in post-WWII: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Messerschmitt_KR200 and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Messerschmitt_KR175

Maybe they will be resurrected?

Good grief...

[frank_adrian314159]

Does Segway make anything that doesn't make you look like a dork when riding in/on it?

This is NOT a car

[barberousse]

At least in Québec. The rule (in Québec) to be a car is to have 4 wheels or more. The T-Rex for example is considered a motorcycle even though you can drive it with a car driver license (class 5).

Re:For pete's sake, what's wrong with the bicycle?

[rossdee]

Walking is a lot safer, especially in the winter. (And for that matter in the other season (road construction))

But there are some things you need a motor vehicle for, like shopping (to carry stuff home), or travel in bad weather. (eg rain, or -40 degree wind chill)

Sorry, not terribly impressed

[kheldan]

What I'm seeing here is all the disadvantages and dangers of riding a motorcycle, but without any of the speed and maneuverability. I'll pass, thank you. Someone out there was making electric motorcycles, I'd sooner go for that than something like this.

Gm takes Federal bailout money...

[memorycardfull]

shovels some at an existing crappy concept at Segway and astroturfs up some cheap green tech to qualify for the terms attached to the bailout money.

Shades of the Sinclair C5

[Kenja]

I'm sure this can be at LEAST as popular as the Sinclair C5 was.

Re:Shades of the Sinclair C5

[pwfffff]

The what?

Re:Shades of the Sinclair C5

[Kenja]

Dang kids today, too lazy to even use Google. Made by the same hairless ape that made the Sinclair computer, the C5 was a little electric trike that was supposed to revolutionize transportation. or not.

Just more PR. Where's the HyWire?

[dpbsmith]

...when I see the local Chevy dealer advertising a HyWire for sale.

The HyWire? What, you don't remember the HyWire? It's the car they were showing all over in 2001. It's the reason they weren't developing a hybrid car... because hybrids were lame. They were going to leave them to stodgy old companies like Toyota, while they leapfrogged Toyota with hydrogen fuel-cell cars, which were the future of the company. In 2002 GM's head of R&D said "We are driving to have compelling and affordable fuel cell vehicles on the road by the end of the decade."

Then, of course, it was the Chevy Volt, which Bob Lutz said was the most important car GM had ever produced, yet decided was not important enough to stick around to see through completion.

I'm beginning to doubt we'll ever see a Volt--the shipping date keeps slipping and the estimated list price keeps going up, from $48,000 last I heard. The price of two Honda Insights. But nobody will notice because by then GM will have the auto journalism world agog with some other exciting new concept car which will be ready in just a few years.

the highest profit margin...

[Joce640k]

...yet they still managed to get into bankruptcy and bailouts.

Re:the highest profit margin...

[Fujisawa Sensei]

They are bankrupt because they are run with MBA's who have been taught that if you have the opportunity to make a lot of money short term, at the cost of nearly bankrupting (or actually bankrupting) the company later, you always take that opportunity. By the time the negative consequences come around, you will have already retired, and somebody else will take the blame for the company going under.

Corporate management of many industries in the United States is generally borderline criminal. (With a fair amount indisputably criminal).

Its is criminal fraud.

The HMFICs claim that they deserve those obscene salaries, because they're visionaries, leaders, and that kind of talent is so rare that is deserves the high salary. While in reality, their only real talent is selling the BS their own personal worth.

Re:For pete's sake, what's wrong with the bicycle?

[dr2chase]

Walking's relatively dangerous, at least according to statistical studies. Makes no sense to me, but that's what the numbers say.

Bicycles can carry quite a lot of "stuff" -- mine (xtracycle cargo bike) is comfortable up to about 100 lbs, and it's rated for about 200. I do almost all shopping by bike nowadays. Others -- Long Johns, and Burrows 8 -- are more suited for serious lumpy loads, and put them nice and low.

Re:15 mph... Easily?

[Q-Hack!]

Yep, Slashdot... home of the fat lazy nerds.

Changed my mind...

[John.P.Jones]

Okay that convinces me, I've changed my mind, just let GM die okay?

In Related News...

[FrankDrebin]

GM's new president is Gob Bluth. Except his title is RESIDENT because he lost his P. And GM has a new business model: Starla.

I'm amped

[jackspenn]

I heard this is the latest addition to the product like and will be called the Watt.

I can see it now in NYC 2013, this two wheeled death trap passes you on the corner and you call out ...

Watt the hell is that?

What the fuck is a PUMA?

[bluefoxlucid]

Seriously. We could have called it a Leprechaun. Or a Walrus? Unicorn? Chupicabra?

Tango

[pcgabe]

I still prefer the Tango.

Yes, the V2V stuff is very interesting, and I see a lot of future potential there. But Tangos are being built right now today.

The prototype runs for 35 miles, at a top speed of 35 mph, on lithium-ion batteries.

The Tango runs for 150 miles and has a top speed of 135mph. That's around 4x the range/speed of the PUMA. Of course, the PUMA is projected to cost a lot less, assuming they come to production.

Let's look over the pros and cons again.

• Tango
• faster
• safer
• greater range
• fully enclosed
• actually exists right now

• PUMA
• cheaper

Just because the PUMA is cheap doesn't mean I'd want to buy one. YMMV

Re:Tango

[Whorhay]

I perused the linked site and it does look very interesting. I only have a few complaints.

1. At 3100+ pounds it seems rather heavy for it's size, I realize that a lot of that is battery weight but I'd think it could be made lighter.

2. The price, like you said is very high for a strictly two seater commuter vehicle. The price of course could come down if they can produce and assemble them in large numbers though.

Would need some serious zoning to make it work

[stoicfaux]

You can't mix the PUMA with pedestrians and you sure as heck can't put it in real traffic. You need to create 'small back roads' to link homes to supermarkets/mini-malls/shopping plazas. Which would require some serious rezoning and city planning to make work. The PUMA is a nice idea, but like hydrogen-fuel cars, it suffers from requiring a serious and expensive infrastructure overhaul.

GM would need to work with a 'build the city of the future' type project (aka government assistance) to have any chance of making the PUMA successful in the US. OTOH, maybe they plan on selling it in Europe?

Re:Would need some serious zoning to make it work

[Bob-taro]

You can't mix the PUMA with pedestrians and you sure as heck can't put it in real traffic. You need to create 'small back roads' to link homes to supermarkets/mini-malls/shopping plazas.

Maybe that will be part of Obama's "infrastructure" he keeps going on about.

GM's Endless Summer

[westlake]

I would love to see GM's glorified golf cart try to navigate upstate New York in winter.

The commuter car - by definition - has to deliver basic transportation year round. It can't be sidelined by ice and wind and storm.

bitchin'

[nblender]

bitchin' electric wheelchair dudes.. I gotta friend who'll love this thing...

Add cargo capacity or else.

[JeffHunt]

Put a truck bed on the back and I'll buy one.

I'm serious. Why would I bother with this product if I get around on my bicycle, for example? I need to be able to haul stuff, and I would love to have something like this for that purpose.

Re:Add cargo capacity or else.

[El_Oscuro]

I'm serious. Why would I bother with this product if I get around on my bicycle, for example? I need to be able to haul stuff, and I would love to have something like this for that purpose.

You can. Just use your bicycle. It might not carry as much as your Silverado or Tundra, but it definitely gets better gas mileage.

Your Tax Dollars At Work

[s!lat]

I guess it makes more sense to use their bailouts funded by taxpayers who didn't want to support them anyways INSTEAD of building the EV-1. Way to go GM, yet another reason I can't wait to see you go bankrupt and get the f*ck out of my state. We don't need you, just go away.

Re:The niche that wants to stay dry when it rains.

[xaxa]

So which niche is this targetting?

I work approx. four miles from home, and bicycle when the weather is nice. The speed limit is 25mph, so I don't need much horsepower, but I would love something to keep me out of the rain. The article says that "the idea is to eventually develop a closed-cockpit vehicle that can be driven through adverse weather conditions". This would work perfectly for me.

What kind of rain? I cycle that distance through light rain in England sometimes, just wearing a light waterproof coat. It's nice and cooling. (It actually doesn't rain that often here.) Once, when there was heavy rain, I used some waterproof over-trousers.

Wind annoys me much more than rain.

Re:15 mph... Easily?

[xaxa]

Speak for yourself, Lance Armstrong... The last time I went 15 mph on my bike was downhill.

15mph is ~25km/h.

If I'm going slower than that on my bike, I'm tired.
I'm not particularly fit, lots of cyclists overtake me (but I do overtake some).

30km/h (on the flat) is when I start to feel I'm doing some work.

Downhill, in a busy city, I've made it to 50km/h. It could be faster, but I'd like to be able to stop at the junction at the bottom of the hill.

Cost of ownership

[Michael Woodhams]

And I have a pair of shoes with less than 1% of the TCO of a car. I used them to get to work today.

Comparing the cost of this to a car is pretty much pointless, as, like my shoes, this doesn't achieve the same thing as a car.

If I'm in the market for such a vehicle, I'll be comparing it to the cost of some other low capacity, low speed, low range vehicle such as an electric tricycle. (Example from the past: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sinclair_C5)

Looks cool. I want one.

[__aailob1448]

Great vehicle concept, looks fun and runs on electricity. I hope it takes off and prices come down so I can afford one.

I'll raise you one and remove one

[crispytwo]

We don't need no stinking 2 wheels when we can have 1!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KclM9TviGoI

(I do not advise to try this at home, or maybe I do)

Seems GM is no longer allowed to do R & R?

[DJRumpy]

Seems that since they've been bailed out they are no longer allowed to do any research (even if it turns out badly?).

You can't have it both ways. They are either a stagnant company with nothing innovative, or they will be spending capitol on R&R.

I don't think this is a horrible idea, although I am curious why they didn't just go with a three or 4 wheeled vehicle. I can only guess that most of the development and tech was Segway's while GM will be providing the manufacturing capacity and automation, and their distribution network if things go well.

It would tumble into the by-stander people

[pizzach]

I would assume that the vehicle would tumble instead of crush. Maybe even tumble over the bus is designed right. Tumbling can actually be safer for the occupants. I wouldn't say so much for the by-stander people on the sidewalk who get hit by the pinball.

What a waste

[sheddd]

So this plebianless rickshaw is consuming R&D cash; GM is broke; where would you drive the thing? It would be a danger on roads or sidewalks. I doubt it could make it up a 20% incline. Or a curb.

How about you reduce the number of models offered, realize we're going to be in a depression for a long time and make a cheap (real cheap, $8,000), reliable, easy to work on, efficient small deplacement (subliter) motored, light car.

Git off my sidewalk!

[d'baba]

Dodging bikes and skateboards and those few segways is already a pain. 35 mph wheelchairs? You can have mine.
---
Hypertext isn't what it's marked up to be.

So what's wrong w/ thinking outside the box?

[GodfatherofSoul]

I see this as GM doing a little cool research on the side. I'd rather see them trying out ideas like this than churning out another 4 ton behemoth. And, there might actually be a market for vehicles like this; campuses, plants, the handicapped needing faster mobility, etc.

35miles? OK.. 35MPH? NO WAY..(get out of the way!)

[neurocutie]

I'm okay with the 35mile range... its only 4 miles to work, or to most shopping areas (unlike another poster's claim that most people need more than that on a daily basis... most people drive less than 12000miles/year, which is 33miles/day...

But the max speed of 35mph is definitely a deal-killer... it totally eliminates ANY highway driving. Plus I would *definitely* not want these things to catch on, clogging up the streets with vehicles that can't go above 35mph... its frustrating enough with these slowpoke drivers that putt around at 25mph... if there was a whole new wave of such drivers... well... I think they would end up being mowed down by folks driving Hummers and Escalades...

A better design has been around for over 100 years

[trigggl]

Why doesn't GM just go ahead and build a motorcycle. It's cheaper to produce gets better range and probably takes about the same amount of energy to push. Oh, and it goes a lot faster. They can make it electric if they want. If I needed to evade some dangerous situation, I'd much rather be on a bike than that death trap. It looks like GM is grasping at straws. I wonder what the insurance of the PUMA would be like.

You will need a HUGE Bike Lock

[gelfling]

What planet do these people live on? Seriously.

Share the road

[berpi]

Can it share the road with taxis and delivery trucks? No? Sorry, it's no use then.

The marketing is all wrong.

[hhaarrvv]

To sell this thing they just need to put a bumper on it and show a video of 200 of them in the worlds largest bumper car ride. I'd never buy that thing to get around in, but I might buy a wireless bumper car.

Of all the stupid partnerships....

[kehren77]

Why the hell is GM partnering with Segway? They should be partnering with Tesla to mass produce the Model S at an affordable price.

Maybe I'm in the minority here, but I commute about 100 miles each day to work. I need something that is going to have a range that allows for that and I think there are a lot of people with the same problem.

If GM can't figure out a way to make as much progress as Tesla, then they deserve to fail.

Segway, GM Partner On Two-Wheeled Electric Chair

[aaandre]

Fixed that for you.

Falling between niches

[horza]

I can't see who is going to buy this. A moped is a fraction of the price and easy to ride. There are 3-wheeled scooters also available. This looks like an under-powered over-engineered expensive toy. The Segway has it's niche, especially patrolling pedestrian zones (for instance handing out flyers). As another poster says, it's a cross between a car and a bike with the disadvantages of both.

A number of people have pointed out the pollution free bike as a more sensible transport. Last week I was in Lyon and every single road has a bike rack with bikes in it. You can walk up to any one, wave a smart card to unlock one of them, and cycle off. When you get to the other end you just park it in the nearest rack and you're done. I saw plenty of people using the service, and as an additional plus it probably slightly cuts down on drink driving. Sometimes simplicity is best.

Phillip.

Where do I put the groceries?

[GWBasic]

Where do I put the groceries?

Germany still is "Exportweltmeister"

[egghat]

(export world champion), there is an entry in the German Wikipedia about this (Wikipedia: Exportweltmeister).

But China is getting close and 2009 will probably the first year China is the country that exports most goods.