Slashdot Mirror
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.
Built by a company called Yamaha.
It's hard to believe that's how Micronians are made. Why don't we see it right now by having you both kiss one another?
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.
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.
Oh, well, it's a good thing they got rid of that third wheel for this one, then. For safety.
You forgot to allow for the relativistic effects.
I'm bad at math...
So is the management at GM.
One of our competitors trademarked the term "hypothesis". From now on, we will call them "boneheaded ideas".
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: Stealing the last particle of human dignity from rent-a-cops worldwide.
http://www.beanleafpress.com
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.
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).
If I had one of those, I'd want to yell "EXTERMINATE! EXTERMINATE!" at people while I was driving it...
-1 Uncomfortable Truth