Slashdot Mirror


Hungarian Electric Car Splits Into Two Smaller Cars

Lanxon writes to mention that Antro, a Hungarian car manufacturer, is developing a new electric car that can split into two smaller cars. Antro plans to have it on the market by 2012. "The environmentally-conscious company started research back in 2002 and, with backing from various local sponsors, has invested 1.5 million euros in market research and development of a working prototype. The Antro Solo concept is a three-passenger car, with a hybrid drive and solar cells on its roof that the company says could generate enough electricity for up to 20km a day at city speeds. Futuristic looking in itself, the grander plan for the car is much more audacious: Antro intends to allow users to be able to connect two Antro Solos to form a six-passenger Antro Duo. Or perhaps more interesting still, owners of a Duo could split the car into two smaller Solos should Mum have different weekend plans to Dad. Or if they divorce."

147 comments

  1. Quasi futuristic styling by sakdoctor · · Score: 5, Funny

    People don't like futuristic looking stuff. If they did, we'd all be wearing white or silver jumpsuits.

    1. Re:Quasi futuristic styling by SEWilco · · Score: 3, Funny

      Someone isn't wearing their silver jumpsuit?

    2. Re:Quasi futuristic styling by Anonymous+Monkey · · Score: 3, Funny

      What, you don't like my jumpsuit...I'll switch to spandex then.

      --
      We are the Borg...
    3. Re:Quasi futuristic styling by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wow, somebody with mod points went a little crazy with the offtopic option. I think +1 funny would be more appropriate, but no one asked me...

    4. Re:Quasi futuristic styling by Tablizer · · Score: 3, Funny

      People don't like futuristic looking stuff. If they did, we'd all be wearing white or silver jumpsuits.

      Lady Gaga is certainly putting the world on that track.
           

    5. Re:Quasi futuristic styling by mcgrew · · Score: 2, Insightful

      It's obvious you're young, since you have no idea what it's like to live in the future. People DO like futuristic looking stuff. If they didn't, your TV and radio would be plastic boxes made to look like wood and your car would be a station wagon with wood panels on the side.

      Jump suits are not futuristic; "futuristic" does not equal "dorky".

    6. Re:Quasi futuristic styling by lordshipmayhem · · Score: 1

      People don't like futuristic looking stuff. If they did, we'd all be wearing white or silver jumpsuits.

      you wear clothes?

      How quaint.

      :P

    7. Re:Quasi futuristic styling by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But if we were all wearing white or silver jumpsuits, it wouldn't be futuristic any more, now would it...

      The futuristic stuff is awesome, the only problem is that it keeps becoming the present... and then it's not so cool.

      Lowsy no-good present, always ruining my cool futuristic outfits...

    8. Re:Quasi futuristic styling by Rei · · Score: 1

      Sounds like someone's just grumpy because Lastday is coming up.

      --
      Did you really name your son "Robert');DROP TABLE Students;--"?
    9. Re:Quasi futuristic styling by Mikkeles · · Score: 1

      For an alternate view of a splittable car, see Malcolm .

      --
      Great minds think alike; fools seldom differ.
    10. Re:Quasi futuristic styling by Fritz+T.+Coyote · · Score: 1

      If they didn't, your TV and radio would be plastic boxes made to look like wood and your car would be a station wagon with wood panels on the side.

      On the other hand, my TV is not an enormous picture tube in a 'space-age' frame ... instead it is a bunch of LCDs (LC What?) with more computing power than NASA had back in 1964 mounted in a plain black plastic frame.

      My car has no tail fins or torpedo-like bumpers or gas turbine engine....but it is sort of a station wagon (OK, it's a hatchback) with some swoopy bits of bodywork (Spoiler, diffuser, slippery shape based on aerodynamic engineering instead of fantasy, with a front end designed to protect struck pedetrians, and not impale them) a really exotic powerplant (DOHC fuel injected Turbocharged engine made of alloys and plastics)...
      but it still runs on gasoline and it does not fly.

      The Future has a tendency to not look like what the dreamers dream.

      'They promised us flying cars'

    11. Re:Quasi futuristic styling by Hurricane78 · · Score: 1

      Futuristic? The first thing it reminded me of, was the main car model they had in Idiocracy.
      I wish I had a Dilldozer (or Assblaster) to drive over that wheelchair with a car body. ;)

      (Btw: Idiocracy pictures seem to be exceptionally rare. :/)

      --
      Any sufficiently advanced intelligence is indistinguishable from stupidity.
    12. Re:Quasi futuristic styling by Beardo+the+Bearded · · Score: 1

      That reminds me, it's time for yoga.

      --

      ---
      ECHELON is a government program to find words like bomb, jihad, plutonium, assassinate, and anarchy.
    13. Re:Quasi futuristic styling by hey! · · Score: 1

      The hair. Don't forget the purple metallic hair color. Moon babes in skintight white catsuits and purple hair. Mmmm.

      I'm all for Gerry Anderson's vision of future fashion.

      --
      Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
    14. Re:Quasi futuristic styling by robot256 · · Score: 1

      If we were all wearing silver jumpsuits, they wouldn't be futuristic anymore! They'd be "modern". The reason people don't wear silver jumpsuits is they don't like silver jumpsuits. It's just a coincidence that for some reason we associate silver jumpsuits with "futuristic" stuff. But that association alone doesn't have anything to do with mainstream adoption.

      Not that that will stop me from wearing my silver jumpsuit at every opportunity...

    15. Re:Quasi futuristic styling by mcgrew · · Score: 1

      The Future has a tendency to not look like what the dreamers dream.

      Truer words are seldom said. The bridge of the original Starship Enterprise sure looks quaint, doesn't it?

    16. Re:Quasi futuristic styling by idontgno · · Score: 1

      See also Raygun Gothic. Gibson called it "the future that never was."

      --
      Welcome to the Panopticon. Used to be a prison, now it's your home.
    17. Re:Quasi futuristic styling by DFJA · · Score: 1

      No, they're wearing their tin-foil jumpsuit instead.

      --
      43 - For those who require slightly more than the answer to life, the universe and everything.
  2. To the battle bridge! by Hatta · · Score: 4, Funny

    Great, so now you can separate the saucer section and let the civilians escape while the crew remains on the battle bridge to distract the Romulans.

    --
    Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
    1. Re:To the battle bridge! by zappepcs · · Score: 4, Funny

      This needs to be reported to the EU, it's the DUTCH electric car that is supposed to go halfsies

    2. Re:To the battle bridge! by Tablizer · · Score: 1

      Great, so now you can separate the saucer section and let the civilians escape while the crew remains on the battle bridge to distract the Romulans.

      "Hey, why are all us red-shirts to go to the back seat?...Pinto what?"
         

  3. Or if they divorce by Monkeedude1212 · · Score: 1

    I wonder how long it took them to come up with that one.

    1. Re:Or if they divorce by Tablizer · · Score: 5, Funny

      I wonder how long it took them to come up with that one.

      One day while driving, an engineer's wife was nagging the shit out of him...
             

    2. Re:Or if they divorce by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      No, that was what caused the first ejector seat to be invented.

    3. Re:Or if they divorce by AmberBlackCat · · Score: 1

      Regardless of whether you're the male or female in the relationship, what you really need is an eject button or a lever that instantly separates the two vehicles. It has to be instant so you don't have time to get over your temporary rage and think about what you're doing. And for what it's worth, maybe with two whole cars, one can act as a backup system for the other. If one car malfunctions, the other half can detect unusual activity and act accordingly.

    4. Re:Or if they divorce by MobileTatsu-NJG · · Score: 1

      One day while driving, an engineer's wife was nagging the shit out of him...

      Ah, I was wondering if that was originally supposed to be an escape pod.

      --

      "I like to lick butts!" by MobileTatsu-NJG (#32700246) (Score:5, Informative)

  4. KISS by TheKidWho · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Keep It Simple Stupid.

    1. Re:KISS by Hurricane78 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      But what if you are NOT stupid?

      That rule fell for its own error in logic a looong time ago.
      The error was, that the ideal is efficiency! Simplifying it to “simplicity” is on oversimplification, causing loss of purpose. Because too simple means harder again. Because in that case, you actually lose efficiency.

      Clippy is a perfect example. If one is really dumb (no offense), one will find Clippy useful. But every normal human being will loathe that thing.

      The same happens to everything, if you apply KISS long enough. It’s only a matter of time.
      Which is why I went back to efficiency a long time ago.

      Please stop parroting that old wives tale. It’s deprecated. Thank you. :)

      --
      Any sufficiently advanced intelligence is indistinguishable from stupidity.
    2. Re:KISS by Attila+Dimedici · · Score: 2, Insightful

      But what if you are NOT stupid?

      Then you already kept it simple, so you don't need the reminder.

      --
      The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
    3. Re:KISS by Graff · · Score: 2, Informative

      That rule fell for its own error in logic a looong time ago.
      The error was, that the ideal is efficiency! Simplifying it to "simplicity" is on oversimplification, causing loss of purpose. Because too simple means harder again. Because in that case, you actually lose efficiency.

      You might not know this but the Keep It Simple, Stupid (KISS) principle is that if you are given two ways of doing something equally well you are usually best off choosing the more simple way. It's not "lose all functionality because simple is always better". In other words, unnecessary complexity is bad - necessary complexity is, well, NECESSARY!

      The other part of the philosophy is that, in general, you are better off with several simple components instead of one monolithic device. This is related to the idea of object-oriented programming.

      Yes, over-simplifiing is a bad thing but there is nothing in KISS that says you should over-simplify, just that you should only do just enough to accomplish your goal. Embellishing and making your product over-complex is to be avoided.

    4. Re:KISS by westlake · · Score: 1

      Clippy is a perfect example. If one is really dumb (no offense), one will find Clippy useful. But every normal human being will loathe that thing.

      Did they really? I sometimes wonder.

      Because I can't recall ever hearing a Clippy joke in the real world.

      The right person to ask whether Clippy was useful was the office worker or the office manager. Not the geek.

    5. Re:KISS by StayFrosty · · Score: 1

      I wish automotive engineers would keep this acronym in mind when designing cars. The amount of crap you have to go through on any newer car to do simple maintenance and tune-ups is ridiculous. It doesn't seem like any of this has done much for reliability (which is worse than it was in 1990 IMHO) or fuel economy either. The only tangible benefit I can see is emissions. I know it's hip to be green these days, but I prefer my cars to be simple, cheap and easy to maintain.

      --
      "Frequently wrong, never in doubt."
    6. Re:KISS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Every KISS needs an AMIE (always make it efficient).

    7. Re:KISS by MobileTatsu-NJG · · Score: 1

      But what if you are NOT stupid?

      You know, he's right. Not being stupid means the car a ton of moving parts will be just as reliable as one with only half.

      --

      "I like to lick butts!" by MobileTatsu-NJG (#32700246) (Score:5, Informative)

    8. Re:KISS by TheKidWho · · Score: 1

      No, you're wrong. KISS is about avoiding unnecessary features or complex mechanisms when there is a simpler choice. It's about improving reliability and cost, not efficiency.

  5. Malcom? by shogun · · Score: 2, Informative

    Sounds like they watched this old Australian film: Malcolm

    1. Re:Malcom? by kevingolding2001 · · Score: 1

      Exactly my first thought. Here is the relevant clip.

    2. Re:Malcom? by mcgrew · · Score: 0

      There was an episode of Candid Camera (sometime in the lat '50s or early '60s) that had a volkswagon cut in half down the middle, that could detach with each half going around an obsticle and then reattach. The looks on people's faces when they saw this thing on the street was hilarious.

      Even though I was a kid, I marvelled at the nerdy engineering it must of taken to rig that thing up. It was awesome.

    3. Re:Malcom? by Razalhague · · Score: 1

      I like the MythBusters method more.

    4. Re:Malcom? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sounds like they watched this old Australian film: Malcolm

      Even better, here's the Australian National Library reference;
          http://catalogue.nla.gov.au/Record/3807325

      Typical that it hasn't been invented until someone in the *Northern* Hemisphere pulls a thumb out ...

  6. Splitting into two? That's nothing. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Call me when they make a car capable of reproduction by binary fission.

  7. Bifurcation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What I always wanted in a car!

  8. What Happens If Only Half Gets Stolen? by WrongSizeGlass · · Score: 1, Funny

    Grand Theft Half Auto?

    1. Re:What Happens If Only Half Gets Stolen? by Tablizer · · Score: 5, Funny

      Grand Theft Half Auto?

      I worked on crime statistics reporting software before. Changing all those reports to use Float instead of Integer is gonna be a pain.
         

    2. Re:What Happens If Only Half Gets Stolen? by tepples · · Score: 1

      Just represent a half a car as a motorcycle and you should be fine.

    3. Re:What Happens If Only Half Gets Stolen? by Yvan256 · · Score: 1

      motorcycle * 2 == 1 car

    4. Re:What Happens If Only Half Gets Stolen? by Tablizer · · Score: 1

      You sir, are qualified to work for the government ;-)

  9. Anonymous Coward by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Just like over the border in Yugoslavia with the Yugo and its wagon model the Wego. Great minds think alike !

  10. Family Time by SEWilco · · Score: 4, Funny

    "You doing OK back there, kids?"
    "Kids?"
    "Oh, where have they gone off to now?"

    1. Re:Family Time by 517714 · · Score: 1

      The family that pushes together ...

      http://www.solo-duo.hu/main.php?page=2

      I guess the rear window defoggers are there to keep your hands warm when pushing.

      --
      The US government have made it clear that we have no inalienable rights; any we do not defend vigorously will be taken.
  11. What, you don't? by Moraelin · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    What, you mean, you don't? Hmm... maybe that's why they were looking at me like that in the last meeting ;)

    --
    A polar bear is a cartesian bear after a coordinate transform.
  12. Safety? by tsa · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Not only is a car that splits in two a ridiculous idea, both cars will most probably never comply with the required safety standards in Europe and the US.

    --

    -- Cheers!

    1. Re:Safety? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That was my first concern. Without the duo (two full cars connected), this means that three versions need to be safety tested.

      The two singles, separately, and the whole unit altogether. Something tells me that the splitting mechanism will not be as safe as they might hope in collisions.

      Color me unimpressed.

    2. Re:Safety? by Tablizer · · Score: 1

      Not only is a car that splits in two a ridiculous idea, both cars will most probably never comply with the required safety standards in Europe and the US.

      Getting a double car to pass is a matter of simply bribing with double the usual amount.
         

    3. Re:Safety? by Dare+nMc · · Score: 1

      in US a 3 wheeled vehicle is usually considered a motorcycle legally. As far as I can tell a motorcycle has no crash standard (other than it is bad to be the motorcyclist in a crash.)
      So I would say the opposite, this is a way to avoid crash safety standards in US (sell the trikes only of course.)

    4. Re:Safety? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't know how things are in Europe, but a car must be built like a tank and get low mileage to clear the regulatory environment in the US. Seriously, I had a Toyota Camry (4 cyl, manual transmission) that could get over 40 mpg on the highway in 1988. That same car today gets around 26 mpg. And it's all because of the US focus on weight for safety and NOx emissions.

    5. Re:Safety? by M8e · · Score: 0

      Yeah, but vehicles don't need to be "cars", some can be registred as other things (mopeds, motorcycle(quad-bikes), tractors...) depending on weight, topspeed, engine volume/power etc.

      There is a chance that thing could be registred as an motorcycle and the second part would be an mc-trailer or an "side"car.

    6. Re:Safety? by tsa · · Score: 2, Funny

      In the US, yes, but in Europe things are a bit different. Corruption isn't legal here.

      --

      -- Cheers!

    7. Re:Safety? by Qzukk · · Score: 1

      a car must be built like a tank and get low mileage to clear the regulatory environment in the US.

      Ford was probably right when they said Americans wouldn't pay a dollar more for safety. Ford just pissed everyone off by throwing it in their face.

      --
      If I have been able to see further than others, it is because I bought a pair of binoculars.
    8. Re:Safety? by Tablizer · · Score: 1

      Since when did laws stop it?

    9. Re:Safety? by 91degrees · · Score: 1

      The main problem is that corruption is tricky. Direct bribes are likely to be undercover journalists. Campaign spending is limited so offering that is not going to get you far. Even if you do find a way to bribe them, MEPs are paid extremely well, and you need to get to a lot of them to get the law changed. The bureaucrats will need a huge bribe because they have an extremely cushy job and good pension plan that they don't want to risk throwing away.

  13. The car looks wormy by longhairedgnome · · Score: 1

    It's hard to take Antro when the car looks like a worm.

    --
    GENERATION O98346: The first time you see this, copy it into your sig and remove a random number from the generation. T
  14. If you loved the car by longhairedgnome · · Score: 1

    You'll shit bricks over their concept scooter.

    --
    GENERATION O98346: The first time you see this, copy it into your sig and remove a random number from the generation. T
    1. Re:If you loved the car by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Thats nothing, check out their hovercraft:
      It is full of eels!

    2. Re:If you loved the car by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes. That does indeed look like a brick under the seat.

  15. Oh that's useful... by jbb999 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    So it can do "up to 20km" per day. Well we all know that means that any you actually get will only manage 15km as the 20 will be without stopping, with no lights or radio on etc... And on a dark rainy winters days lets say that will drop to 10 km. And you've got to get there and back so that's 5km away you can get if you want to come home. Plus who will risk running out of power half way home? So you'll never risk more than about 3km away from home. SO great, a car that if you charge it up all day, you can get to places almost 2 miles away. Handy :)

    1. Re:Oh that's useful... by CrimsonAvenger · · Score: 4, Informative

      No.

      It can do up to 20km per day with just the charge it can get from the solar panels. Its internal power source is a "conventional" hybrid.

      No gas tank size is specified, so it's not clear just how far it can go without refueling.

      --

      "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
    2. Re:Oh that's useful... by Mashdar · · Score: 1

      Well at least now I have an excuse to fill the garage with things other than my car. Before I just felt like a fool.

    3. Re:Oh that's useful... by Migraineman · · Score: 2, Informative

      I'm dubious. Let's be generous and say that the roof is 2 sq.m. Insolation at the earth's surface is about 1 kW/sq.m, meaning you've got a whopping 2kW you can collect. With really good and really expensive solar cells, you're looking at 30% efficiency (yeah, space-grade go to 40%, but are brutally expensive.) So your 2kW becomes about 650W usable. That's less than 1hp continuous.

      So if you have a super-efficient drivetrain, and you never exceed 20kph, and you only drive on flat terrain, and you always have the solar cells pointed directly at the sun ... you can drive 20km per day using just solar. Maybe.

      I've done the "solar cells on the roof" calculations more times than I care to recall. The power contribution from the small available area is insignificant compared to a 10-30kW power requirement for a vehicle. Any time I hear "solar cells on the roof," I know it's done to make people feel good. If they're using less-efficient but much-cheaper single junction polycrystalline silicon cells, your conversion efficiency is only around 5%. Your 2kW incident power becomes 100W usable. To put that in perspective, a healthy person can go to the gym, put the exercise bike in "power" mode, and crank out 70W for several hours.

    4. Re:Oh that's useful... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      To put that in perspective, a healthy person can go to the gym, put the exercise bike in "power" mode, and crank out 70W for several hours.

      I've got an idea for a new car...

  16. Here it comes... by Last_Available_Usern · · Score: 1

    Constructicons joke in 4...3...2..

  17. Imagine a Beowulf Cluster of these cars by amliebsch · · Score: 2, Funny

    It would be a bus!

    --
    If you don't know where you are going, you will wind up somewhere else.
  18. Clown car? by SnarfQuest · · Score: 1

    On reading this, does anyone else think of a circus car that splits in half, with clowns falling out both sections?

    Or those cars in the movies that break in half, with the front half going one way and the guys in the back frantically trying to keep the back part going in the same direction.

    --
    Who would win this election: Andrew Weiner vs Andrew Weiner's weiner.
  19. Allen Funt, is that you?? by Reziac · · Score: 3, Funny

    Candid Camera did a prototype of such a vehicle a long, long time ago...

    Follow that car!
    [car splits in half and goes separate ways]
    Which one??

    --
    ~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
    1. Re:Allen Funt, is that you?? by Rick17JJ · · Score: 1

      I remember watching that episode of the Candid Camera TV show decades ago. The car would be driving along and then suddenly split in two, with one half of the car turning left and one half turning right. I have forgotten the details of the episode, but presumably the hidden camera recorded peoples reactions or attempts to explain what they had seen to other people.

    2. Re:Allen Funt, is that you?? by Reziac · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I've seen it too. What I remember was that some hapless taxi driver would be told "follow that car" then when it split and the driver had to decide which to follow, the hidden camera would record his reaction, as seen from the back seat. As I recall the range of reactions went from lame excuses to outright panic.

      Now get that damned car off my lawn! ;)

      --
      ~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
  20. Great for parallel parking by Fast+Thick+Pants · · Score: 1

    There are always half a dozen spots about a foot too small on my block... so break up the car and park each half separately! Brilliant!

  21. Consult the Dirty Hungarian Phrasebook by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I tried to find this vehicle in my Dirty Hungarian Phrasebook, to no avail.
    I guess it is full of eels like the hovercraft, though probably electric eels.

    That makes my nipples explode with delight.

  22. Bizarre, *not* futuristic. Futuristic cars look... by Colin+Smith · · Score: 1

    Something like this:

    http://vne-resource.iol.co.za/30/picdb/1/7/105701

    With some minor detail changes, like the badge. Cos it's practical, affordable, easy to maintain, people can actually use it every day, put the shopping in the boot, the kids in the back seat, sit in a reasonably comfortable position, see what's going on in front and behind. etc.

    It will not look anything like this:

    http://www.geekologie.com/2007/12/07/future-car-1.jpg

    I mean... WTF?
     

    --
    Deleted
  23. Anyone else think of Top Gear? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I hope that doesn't mean the Duo has two steering wheels, else it's gonna be James May's entry in the Top Gear Limousine competition all over again.

  24. 3 / 2 =? by Mashdar · · Score: 1

    So you get two 1.5 passenger cars? Cool! I wonder what plane you use to divide your #3.

    1. Re:3 / 2 =? by Monkeedude1212 · · Score: 1

      No, 1 car is 3 passengers, the duo is 6 passengers. Derrrrr

    2. Re:3 / 2 =? by ubercam · · Score: 1

      No.

      It's a 3 passenger car. You can hook two 3 passenger cars together to make a 6 passenger car...

      I know this is Slashdot and RTFA is usually verboten, but has RTFS become that difficult?

    3. Re:3 / 2 =? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      lol, reading fail.

  25. So pointless by Eggbloke · · Score: 1

    Yet so cool

    --
    I care not for your karma and your mod points.
  26. Or for paying half on tolls... by MiniMike · · Score: 1

    Heading toward a toll booth in a Solo? Find another, hook up, split the toll, and go on your way! Might work at parking meters too.

    1. Re:Or for paying half on tolls... by Fast+Thick+Pants · · Score: 1

      Brilliant! These are *extremely practical* ideas. Unfortunately, upon examining the design of these things (http://www.solo-duo.hu/main.php?category=126) I believe that when attaching two Solos, you'd end up with two leftover Solo rear ends -- basically just the back window and a free axle. I doubt there's any way to stow those inside the combined vehicle; I guess they expect you to keep them at home in your car-hole.

  27. I have solar power in my car by CdBee · · Score: 1

    the idea is hardly new - I permanently mounted a pair of 18-volt, 5-watt amorphous solar cells on the rear parcel-shelf to top up the battery when its parked and subsidise the electricity used when running.

    the car is a diesel Ford Mondeo (Mercury Mystique in USA) so I don't get any traction power from my solar cells, but it makes starting up a lot easier and does cause a measurable improvement in fuel economy.

    However: given that 10 watts of solar power cost me £80 (UK GBP) I have some reservations about whether really useful amounts of power can be generated without dramaticallly increasing the cost of the car.. and with an electric car unlike my old diesel lump, isn't there a risk that the extra weight of solar cells would cancel out the gains ?

    --
    I have been a user for about 10 years. This ends Feb 2014. The site's been ruined. I'm off. Dice, FU
  28. Good idea, poor execution. by gurps_npc · · Score: 3, Interesting
    Forgot the "people that own two can combine them into one car" side by side.

    Instead go with length wise connections and "People on the highway for long trips that want to save money on gasoline can connect multiple vehicles into a train."

    This would reduce gas/energy consumption by at least 28% (as per Mythbusters 2007 , episode 80, drafting 2 ft behind a big rig reduced gas consumption by 28% Connecting ).

    No it won't work in the cities where people get off the the highway often, but out west where people ride for miles, a little bit of comm networking and boom you can easily have people joining up into road trains, saving gas.

    --
    excitingthingstodo.blogspot.com
    1. Re:Good idea, poor execution. by mpe · · Score: 1

      Instead go with length wise connections and "People on the highway for long trips that want to save money on gasoline can connect multiple vehicles into a train."

      Indeed trains are the only kind of vehicle where such splitting and combining is common, even routine.


      No it won't work in the cities where people get off the the highway often, but out west where people ride for miles, a little bit of comm networking and boom you can easily have people joining up into road trains, saving gas.

      You'd probably want physical couplings otherwise engine and/or brake failure is likely to cause a lot of problems. Similarly you'd want to very careful how you communicated data. e.g. to be able to have one "train" safely overtake another.

    2. Re:Good idea, poor execution. by Fritz+T.+Coyote · · Score: 1

      a little bit of comm networking and boom you can easily have people joining up into road trains,

      10-4 Good Buddy, Looks like we got us a Convoy.

    3. Re:Good idea, poor execution. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Didn't they try that on the Red Green Show with Duct Tape?

  29. General comments by CrimsonAvenger · · Score: 3, Informative

    1. >129 mpg by design. I'll be interested in seeing whether it can actually reach that.

    2. Seats three. Center seat is slightly forward, and it looks like the steering wheel is in the center. Which will make getting in and out a royal pain for the driver.

    3. Nominally, it's 3.2 m long. When two of them are mated up, the combination is 4.8 m long. Where's the other 1.6 m going? Is the front of the second car going to fill up the rear of the lead car? Or does the combination look like the two cars are humping?

    I'm not seeing any room in that design for crumple zones, roll bars, that sort of thing. Which makes me suspect it could never pass safety standards in the USA.

    How in hell do you change the tires on this thing?

    If they can get it past safety standards, and the price is reasonable, and it doesn't turn out to have the general quality of the Yugo, it might be a moderately useful vehicle for a family.

    --

    "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
    1. Re:General comments by pavon · · Score: 2, Informative

      This flash sideshow has pictures of the car when mated. It looks like the backend of both cars are removed, and they are joined together but-to-but.

      It seems very impractical to me. First, it looks like it would take quite a bit of effort to join the cars that way. Second you are loosing much of your luggage space when you join the two cars. So why wouldn't you just drive two cars rather than joining them into one? Is there really that much of an efficiency improvement doing this?

    2. Re:General comments by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      3. Nominally, it's 3.2 m long. When two of them are mated up, the combination is 4.8 m long. Where's the other 1.6 m going? Is the front of the second car going to fill up the rear of the lead car? Or does the combination look like the two cars are humping?

      From the pic I would guess that the trunk area (including rear wheel) is removable. Then you remove the rears of both cars and they mate back to back.

    3. Re:General comments by CrimsonAvenger · · Score: 1

      Is there really that much of an efficiency improvement doing this?

      If their numbers are to be believed, yes. the duo gets better mileage than two solos.

      It looks like the backend of both cars are removed, and they are joined together but-to-but.

      Hmm, that's not so useful. Sounds like a non-trivial job to make the switch. Which means, for the most part, it won't ever get made. Seriously lessens the utility of the thing as a family car(s).

      --

      "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
    4. Re:General comments by Haxzaw · · Score: 1

      There are a lot of cars that can't get past our overly zealous safety standards in the US. If there were, we could have inexpensive cars like the rest of the world.

    5. Re:General comments by CrimsonAvenger · · Score: 1

      There are a lot of cars that can't get past our overly zealous safety standards in the US. If there were, we could have inexpensive cars like the rest of the world.

      And every time someone had a fenderbender, someone would have to go to the hospital.

      I once saw a car going 80+ mph flip laterally and bounce off another car and a concrete barrier. The three occupants (who all looked like they were 60+) got out of the car without a scratch.

      I would not bet that any of them would have survived, much less been unhurt, if they had had the same accident in some of these 3rd world autos.

      Of course, dropping the safety standards of US autos to third world levels would give gainful employment to an army of lawyers, so I guess it could be considered an economic stimulus of sorts.

      --

      "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
    6. Re:General comments by Calinous · · Score: 1

      The duo car is much more aerodynamic than the solo - I suspect the Duo will have lower wind resistance than a single solo.
            However, this only applies at higher speeds.
            I wonder what happens to the wheels on the back - and what happens to the air pressure in the front wheels - one would need to increase pressure sharply if the Duo goes on only four wheels.
            On the other hand, having steering wheels on both front and rear of the Duo will make it so much more manoeuvrable...

  30. Voltron Car by Jason+Levine · · Score: 1

    "Everyone buckled in? Ok. Activate interlock! Dynotherms connected! Infracells up! Mega thrusters are go! Let's go Antro Duo!"

    --
    My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
  31. Stupid questions by Locke2005 · · Score: 1

    If you're going to make little cars that can be linked together to make larger cars, why stop at two? And didn't this concept used to be known as a "train"?

    --
    I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
    1. Re:Stupid questions by Xugumad · · Score: 1

      I saw a prototype computer-controlled "car train" once, where they used front and rear magnets to maintain (very close) distance between a chain of cars. From what I remember, worked perfectly, but people had a nervous breakdown that they were going to crash into the next car...

    2. Re:Stupid questions by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You may have seen what I saw, but the magnets weren't on the cars. They were buried in the road, though quite how that helped I can't remember - presumably to act as sensors for a central command computer.

  32. Licensing and Insurance! by number17 · · Score: 1

    Splitting the car would mean having license plates and insurance for two vehicles. It would be like owning two smart cars and having one tow the other.

  33. Not new by lordshipmayhem · · Score: 1

    I had a car that could split in two. The mechanism by which it did this feat was called "rust".

  34. That was quicker than I thought by undecim · · Score: 1

    I knew scientists were working on bring quantum mechanics to "big" items, but I never thought a car that can travel two paths at once would have happened in my lifetime.

    --
    The Internet has given stupid people the resources of intelligent people.
  35. Didn't I see this before? by www.sorehands.com · · Score: 1

    Wasn't it in the New Adventures of Speed Racer? Of course, it was first in the Fantastic 4, but even though it was called the Fantasticar, it was not really a car.

    1. Re:Didn't I see this before? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There was an Australian movie with such a car.
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malcolm_(film)

  36. Joined Efficiency? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Does a duo take less energy to run than two solos?

  37. Was made in 1986 by Aymon · · Score: 0
  38. Cartoons by CODiNE · · Score: 1

    I don't know if it's still published but when I was a kid I found an old CarToons magazine which was sort of like MAD Magazine but full of cars.

    There was one story with this style vehicle in it, basically the whole world was a mesh of interconnected freeways. There were no more buildings, everyone was constantly mobile. The family home was sort of like an RV with several pod cars that would pop out when the kids wanted to go out. You'd pull up to a McDonald's, pay at the window and get you junk food all without stopping. When couple's would date they'd connect their pods and make out. Off the roads it was a bit like Logan's Run with nature being "contaminated" and deadly. So the plot is that 2 kids are making out, run their pods off the road. After get lost in the forest they run out of gas and have to walk around. They discover fruits and vegetables, live like hippies for a while and love it. Then the feds track them down and forcefully reintroduce them to society (Clockwork Orange style).

    It was a nice magazine... excuse me while I go get a Big Mac.

    --
    Cwm, fjord-bank glyphs vext quiz
  39. We already have a car that splits in half... by Raptor851 · · Score: 1

    I believe they're known as a Ferrari...

  40. An Abomination by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    A car that can split into two cars is clearly banned in Leviticus. Expect the tea-baggers to be up in arms.

  41. Re:Bizarre, *not* futuristic. Futuristic cars look by phoenix321 · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Let's just say I hope we'll all be able to choose our own vehicles.

    I hope there's at least one manufacturer bold enough to actually SELL the cars they are constantly presenting as proof-of-concept, pre-series, prototypes and all that.

    There's a ton of incredibly beautiful, modern, futuristic or even plain future cars at major trade shows, but they never ever sell the damn things.

    I don't want to *put* kids in the back, they can crawl into the backseat themselves. I don't want to put groceries in the *boot*, I can put them in whatever cargo compartment is aerodynamically perfect. I don't need to sit in the upright grandpa position, I love to lounge or slouch comfortably, thank you.

    That said, I would prefer http://www.geekologie.com/2007/12/07/future-car-1.jpg all the time.

    Because the other model frankly looks like all the others on the parking lot at the mall, bland, boring, traditional, practical, economical and above all like it was designed for or even by my grandmother.

    We need Spice in design. And we need Moar.

  42. Here's a photo: by Hurricane78 · · Score: 3, Funny

    The article does not contain a photo. So here it comes.

    --
    Any sufficiently advanced intelligence is indistinguishable from stupidity.
    1. Re:Here's a photo: by Beardo+the+Bearded · · Score: 1

      I'm posting this so I can look at the picture at home.

      --

      ---
      ECHELON is a government program to find words like bomb, jihad, plutonium, assassinate, and anarchy.
  43. Toyota's R&D by PPH · · Score: 1

    Similar concept. The brake pedal goes with one half, the accelerator with the other.

    --
    Have gnu, will travel.
  44. Back to the safety drawing board? by KharmaWidow · · Score: 1

    After 30+ years of improving impact and collision safety by the US and world auto industry, how much of that is lost in these new designs?

  45. I've been looking for that by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I want my mouse back

  46. Team Knight Rider Car by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Two Motor Cycles become http://knightrideronline.com/tkr/motor.jpg

    a Combo vehicle http://knightrideronline.com/tkr/morph.jpg

    And yes, it was a stupid show.

  47. Wonder twin car powers, activate! by podom · · Score: 2, Funny

    Form of...oh, just a bigger car.

    --
    We're wanted men. I have the death sentence in 12 systems!
  48. "Meet George Jetson!" by HTH+NE1 · · Score: 1

    If it split into four, the car could split off smaller cars for, "His boy Elroy," "Daughter Judy," and "Jane, his wife."

    --
    Oh, say does that Star-Spangled Banner entwine / The myrtle of Venus with Bacchus's vine?
  49. Pictures or it didn't happen by fotoguzzi · · Score: 1

    I know I'm new here, but why the hell wouldn't there be a picture of the car splitting in half? It would be like a Ginsu knife commercial where they never slice the tomato. It would be like a documentary on the Harrier Jet where it never hovers.

    --
    Their they're doing there hair.
  50. It looks like a computer mouse by Chicken_Kickers · · Score: 1

    It looks like a computer mouse, or a shoe. Looking at the picture of the car at the Wired website, it seems that the car has a large surface area covered with glass. This means that the car will turn into a hot glasshouse during the day. Opening the windows or switching on the air-con would be inefficient/use up a lot of power. Another concern is the structural integrity of the car. A head on collision will shatter the glass windscreen/roof directly on the passengers. I assume, that should the car ever go into production, it would by necessity, look like a conventional car.

  51. It's the 70ies by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That car is coming straight out of the 70ies. It's reminiscent of a star trek story where they travel back in time to our civilisation in the 70ies (or 80ies) -- to get in contact with extinct whales or so.

  52. I remember a similar concept from the 70s by hey! · · Score: 1

    During the energy crisis. It consisted of a small "Smart Car" style front end that could be docked to a rear end to form a station wagon style car.

    The front, I think may have been electric and the rear had an ICE engine. The idea was that you'd run your errands and commute in the little car, then dock to the ICE rear unit for long trips.

    I actually like that concept in theory, but I can imagine that many people might not like having the unused rear half hanging around taking up space (although carrying the excess space around is kind of silly too). I can also see how such a configuration might deliver less than the "best of both worlds" it promises.

    Now having *two* independently usable halves might be more attractive. The problem is that each half and the combined vehicle is bound to be so unconventional I wouldn't bet on its market or technical success. The 70s concept was pretty conventional both as a small commuter car and a docked long distance travel car.

    --
    Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
  53. How is it licensed? by RNLockwood · · Score: 1

    If you think getting it registered and getting plates for it is going to be hard wait until you try to insure it (them?)

    --
    Nate
  54. Something for nothing by westlake · · Score: 1

    This would reduce gas/energy consumption by at least 28% (as per Mythbusters 2007 , episode 80, drafting 2 ft behind a big rig reduced gas consumption by 28%

    How much fuel was the big rig consuming?

    1. Re:Something for nothing by Calinous · · Score: 1

      The same as without a car tailing him.

    2. Re:Something for nothing by gurps_npc · · Score: 1

      The big rig had to move the air either way. The only question is, will the cars take advantage of the reduction in air friction from the big rig or not.

      --
      excitingthingstodo.blogspot.com
  55. There's a short answer to that by Kupfernigk · · Score: 1
    Yes. Solar cells are currently approx. 8 sq M per peak kilowatt, and I've just ordered 25 sq M for my roof. That should generate approx. 2700 KWH/year, which is enough to send a typical Euro supermini about 7000 miles at 70mph. With 25 sq M of effective sail area, that range and speed will reduce rather a lot. And that's before you factor in the tonne of batteries for when the sun isn't shining.

    A solar powered ship will doubtless eventually be feasible, as will be a low speed (20-30mph) truck. But not cars.

    --
    From scarped cliff or quarried stone she cries "A thousand types are gone, I care for nothing, no not one."
  56. RVs by Kupfernigk · · Score: 1
    The number of our neighbours that have largely unused RVs hanging around taking up space and depreciating shows that there are plenty of people who would go for the idea.

    In fact it has been tried out - on the local canal we have Emily and Bronte, a small tug and a longer liveaboard boat that can go around separately or as a unit. The owner has his engineering workshop in the tug, so he can act as a mobile marine mechanic and move the whole rig around when he wants a change of scene.

    picture included

    --
    From scarped cliff or quarried stone she cries "A thousand types are gone, I care for nothing, no not one."
    1. Re:RVs by hey! · · Score: 1

      Geez. I'm always jealous when I see those pictures of old European canals that are still navigable. Of course we had a few really historically important canals here in the US, but never quite the same kind of network, and a lot of the smaller ones have been filled or are otherwise unnavigable.

      There are still some cool waterways to houseboat on -- the Saint Johns in Florida is amazing.

      --
      Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
  57. Vaporware by wealthychef · · Score: 1

    FTFA: The current prototype looks interesting, but I can't believe its chances of ever making it to past the prototype stage are much above slim.

    --
    Currently hooked on AMP
  58. If It Were Russian by twmcneil · · Score: 1

    Good thing it wasn't the Russians who invented this - there would be 6 of them that fit inside each other.

    --
    "The ferrets, they're every where I tell you!"
  59. Small Theft Auto by MarkoNo5 · · Score: 1

    Stealing half a car sounds more like Small Theft Auto.

  60. infinite by lazyBob · · Score: 1

    If I can split my car everyday, I will have infinite cars.

  61. Been there done that! by bobdown2001 · · Score: 1

    *Yawn* this was already done in Australia in 1986.

    Can't the Hungarians come up with anything original?

    --
    Why do today what you can put off until tomorrow?
  62. or if they hit a pothole ;) by swschrad · · Score: 1

    I suspect a really substantial link to two little baby cars is going to weigh too much, and take too much fiddling around, for your average driver to manage.

    otherwise, every little ripple in the road, you've got two cars.

    who designed this, again, Hal Roach Movie Studios?

    --
    if this is supposed to be a new economy, how come they still want my old fashioned money?
  63. Each of the smaller cars... by gwdoiron · · Score: 1

    splits into a motorcycle and a bicycle, too. Each with quick disconnect wheels!

  64. And let's not forget Malcolm by complete+loony · · Score: 1

    Link.

    --
    09F91102 no, 455FE104 nope, F190A1E8 uh-uh, 7A5F8A09 that's not it, C87294CE no. Ah! 452F6E403CDF10714E41DFAA257D313F.
  65. Why so ugly? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Why must all car design concepts look like those banana-shaped sneakers worn only by East European bouncers?

  66. Taxpayer money by little1973 · · Score: 3, Interesting

    As a hungarian I believe there will be nothing from this. It is just another firm which goes after free taxpayer money from the government rinding on the "green energy" bandwagon.

    --
    Government cannot make man richer, but it can make him poorer. - Ludwig von Mises
  67. Web site by Calinous · · Score: 1

    http://www.solo-duo.hu/main.php?category=104

    Just some pretty pictures there
    This shows how the car splits:
    http://www.solo-duo.hu/data/picture_news/62/0062/pic87.jpg
      A back-to-back "link-up" with the rear end of the cars put separately. Will it have 6 wheels when connected? Or just four wheels, with the other (double) two wheels raised or totally removed?
          And the "back" car has the seats backside-facing (unless the seats can rotate).
          The three seats are side-by-side (the front seat a little advanced). Not a very friendly conversation place, as the passengers will talk behind the head of the driver.

          Interesting idea, it's just that I think it has a bad implementation.

  68. Re:Bizarre, *not* futuristic. Futuristic cars look by Calinous · · Score: 1

    Good luck staying awake in long trips in a "lounge" car seat...
          But I too would like something like the blue future car... maybe this?
    http://digitheory.files.wordpress.com/2009/02/dymaxioncar1.jpg

  69. By Neruos by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What if someone hits the car while it's one piece and it splits into 2 peices? Is that considered 2 accidents? Do you have to have insurance on 2 different cars? Is it considered towing if 2 are connected?

  70. Oh I know, it is redundant already... by Jade_Wayfarer · · Score: 1

    ...but anyway, how it would be in Hungarian for "My cars joining with delight!"?

    --
    Absence of proof != proof of absence.