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?

[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?

[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?

[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?

[Duradin]

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

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

Re:Yeah, but what's the point?

[MaWeiTao]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

So spare us your biased, uninformed tirades.

Re:Yeah, but what's the point?

[JBMcB]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Re:Yeah, but what's the point?

[Deanalator]

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

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?

[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?

[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?

[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?

[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?

[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?

[ShieldW0lf]

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

My Dad Had a 2 wheeled car

[stoolpigeon]

Built by a company called Yamaha.

Is it safe?

[MrEricSir]

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

Re:Is it safe?

[Quothz]

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

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

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

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

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

[Thelasko]

I'm bad at math...

So is the management at GM.

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.

PUMA?

[stoolpigeon]

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

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.

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?

I'm sorry...

[Thelasko]

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

Re:PUMA?

[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?

Segway's Motto should be:

[happy_place]

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