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."

30 of 147 comments (clear)

  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 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.
           

    4. 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".

  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

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

    Sounds like they watched this old Australian film: Malcolm

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

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

  6. 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 tsa · · Score: 2, Funny

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

      --

      -- Cheers!

  7. 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 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.

  8. 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.
  9. 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 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?
  10. 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
  11. 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...
           

  12. 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?

  13. 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.
       

  14. 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.

  15. 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.
  16. 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!
  17. 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