Slashdot Mirror
MIT Media Lab Rolls Out Folding Car
kkleiner writes "You think European cars are small now, wait till the Hiriko takes to the roads in Spain's northern Basque country. The two-seater is about the size of a SmartCar, but when parked, the car can actually fold. After folding, the car takes up about a third of a normal parking space. The Hiriko, Basque for 'urban car,' folds as the rear of the car slides underneath its chassis. Every square foot counts."
Unless it lacks a safety to prevent it from folding while you're in it! :D
Look back up at my post, now look back down, you're on the Internet. Now look back up. I'm a signature.
A car for ants?!? It needs to be at least.....twice as big as this!!
Optimus Prime would not be pleased with this sham of a car . . . .
Since when does being a Socialist mean 'someone who has a different opinion than me'?
with enough evolution it could fly and fold even more into a (not heavy) briefcase.
Not evolution. Intelligent design should work, though.
still pretty cool and smart (no pun intended)
Never antropomorphize computers, they do not like that
How about cars as big as SUVs shouldn't be considered for city use?
cause the occupants of an SUV wont be killed if they hit a brick in the road
MIT is showcasing this vehicle, because some of their forecasts are showing that larger vehicles in urban environments are going to be on the decline. This vehicle is intended for use inside urban environments as a shared vehicle (like ZipCars), as most urban vehicles are only used ~10% of the time. It also is electric powered, and will have a variety of electronic safety features. It is NOT intended for highway use amongst homicidal SUV drivers, so those people can continue to "drive" with a clear conscience, yakking on their phones and running over cyclists, etc. without having to worry about something larger leaving a serious dent in their day.
The showcase vehicle is a sized-down prototype. It is not intended to be driven by ants or other arthropods. Actually, it would be the first publicly viewed prototype, but I've seen concept photos of vehicles in Japan with designs like this. This prototype is going into production with models coming out in 2013, so obviously there are businesses and municipalities already putting in orders to fund this.
Which means that folks should be paying attention to the sub-text of the discussion going on in the video- there is an expectation that there will be more people in cities, and fewer resources to go around.
So what happens when you park and fold the car, then someone comes and uses the extra space to park? You're stuck.
It's bad enough with cars that don't fold when idiots park so close you can't get back out.
Now maybe if it shortens the car enough that you can "parallel park" head in... Of course then you'd have to expand the car into traffic and sit there while you load up/get in.
1. This is a half-scale prototype.
/avoid/ potentially fatal accidents that they would have been in had there been a larger car on either side? Yes.
2. If it meets FMVSS then it's the SUV driver's fault for not being able to see it and the SUV manufacturer's fault for making such a huge vehicle to begin with. The SUVs are the unsafe cars here, but they're acceptable to the population because the risk is to others, not the SUV driver.
This is a prisoner's dilemma problem -- You want a safer car for your personal safety so you buy bigger, but in doing so threaten everyone else. This makes all cars large, fat, heavy, costly and full of energy in the inevitable impact. If, however, everyone accepted that it's in the best interest of the population to optimize for average safety, cars should be much smaller since they would then have lower energy in an impact (helping in accidents where property or pedestrians are hit in addition to other cars) and be more maneuverable in order to avoid impacts.
Also, due to the relative rarity of tractor trailers and the fact that professional drivers have faaaaaaaaar better safety records than non-professionals those tractor trailers don't impose much of a risk even in a small car.
Now, will people die in accidents that they would have survived had they been in a larger car? Yes. However, will people
And I haven't even touched on the environmental and financial benefits of smaller cars.
Also, yes, I acknowledge that some families require larger vehicles to haul around hockey gear and three kids and whatnot. The vast majority do not. The vast majority could make do with better packing strategies including such things as roof racks/roof bins.
So basically, the car comes pre-crumpled, so you don't even have to bother driving it into someone's blind spot and getting creamed. How convenient!
cause the occupants of an SUV wont be killed if they hit a brick in the road
But they are more likely to suffer injury/fatality in rollover accidents. Funny that. Guess it has something to do with all that mass.
A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
with enough evolution it could fly and fold even more into a (not heavy) briefcase.
I'm more interested in a Kit. Something which is a basic frame (meeting the usual saftety requirements) where I can ad-on features, change the way it rides, etc, from a box of parts I keep in storage.
Probably has something to me growing up with Heath-Kits...
A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
I prefer folding cars the old fashioned way.
size / weight is absolutely an issue. I have spoken to many parents who want to buy their 16 year old as big of a car as possible, because they know that 16 year olds are idiots and will wreck the car. Visibility doesnt matter, and responsibility isnt programmed into the kids yet. The parents are concerned for only one thing, the safety of THEIR kid. The mass of the vehicle gives safety, and their are studies to show that reducing weight simply to improve mileage actually increases death rates.
I am not defending this, and it actually makes me sick, but it is impossible to dismiss the advantage of size in a collision.
"How about cars as big as SUVs shouldn't be considered for city use?"
Should be interesting to get goods into a city when trucks can't get downtown.
Here's an interesting factoid, a car as big as an SUV is not the same as a delivery truck, and ordinances could be written to allow one while prohibiting the other.
If you RTFA, you'll learn that the intended use case is for centrally-stored, per-use rental applications in urban areas where many people occasionally need cars but don't own them (similar to ZipCars) and where space is at a premium.
For this use, folding gets you a big advantage at the central storage location, since you can store them folded in a line and only need access space for an unfolded vehicle at the head and tail of the line (you could actually do arrive/depart at the same end of the line, but its probably simpler to do those at opposite ends.) This works, because when ready vehicles are stored for rental, they are interchangeable, so as long as you can get one out when you need it, it doesn't matter which one you get out.
You don't need to use the folding capability in traditional parking environments where you need random access to vehicles for the capability to have utility.
Most systems to regulate speed will allow a burst of speed, for situations just like what you described.
If I were God, wouldn't I protect my churches from acts of me?
They are also poorly informed. SUVs -- and larger cars in general -- are only "better" in terms of safety when you consider injuries/deaths to occupants per accident.
Once you consider the increased frequency of accidents of larger vehicles, the safety advantage for occupants of the large car disappears.
It is likewise impossible to dismiss the advantage of size if your goal is to maximize the frequency of collisions a vehicle will experience.
My brother in law was taking his State Trooper exam and one of the areas of the test was accident reconstruction. He told me one of the accidents he received was one where an 18 wheeler hit a SmartCar from behind at 45 mph, which pushed it forward to stationary UPS-style truck. When all was said and done, there were only 11 inches left of the SmartCar. All 3 occupants in the SmartCar died. While I am all for smaller cars and better city parking, I will never purchase one of these types of cars as long as huge SUVs, Delivery Trucks, and 18 Wheelers are still on the roads I travel on. So .. never :P
Is there any reason to believe that any car would have let the occupants survive being smashed between a 20 ton 18 wheeler and a 5 ton stationary UPS truck (both of which have hard frames that don't crumple upon impact)? That's a lot of force for a car to absorb. Maybe we should all be driving military tanks to protect us from the rare small-car smooshed-between-two-trucks accidents.
Actually, rollovers are some of the most survivable of crashes...providing the occupants are wearing seat belts.
My understanding was that the human heart (more accurately the aorta feeding into it) does not take too well to forces/accelerations in the vertical direction - the body is strapped in, but the heart can be pulled away from the aorta, which of course is not how it is designed to operate. I think that this is more common in rollover accidents, since one gets more up/down forces, but I can't find anything specifically about that in a quick search:
Traumatic Aortic Rupture : http://www.thedoctorwillseeyounow.com/content/heart/art2030.html?getPage=2
Here's an interesting factoid, a car as big as an SUV is not the same as a delivery truck, and ordinances could be written to allow one while prohibiting the other.
So what size SUV are you talking about? Midsize or full size? What about a pick-up truck or van (commercial, personal, minivan)? It's a slippery slope with that type of legislation.
Ordinance: All private automobiles over 3 meters in length or 2 meters in width or weighing more than 750kg (excluding passengers) are excluded from the downtown business district. When parked, vehicle must be capable of being compacted to no more than 2 meters in length. Commercial delivery vehicles may purchase a permit for a time-restricted exception to the ordnance for active deliveries only - permit fees are based on hours/days of access and size of vehicle. Emergency vehicles are excepted. Disabled driver's vehicles are subject to the same restrictions, or they may use our on-call paratransit system for transportation from park-and-ride lots to the business district. All drivers are encouraged to park outside of the business district and use free public transportation or free citybikes (subsidized through parking fees for all cars). Fossil Fuel powered vehicles must pay a downtown pollution surcharge. Families/groups are not excepted from the ordinance and are encouraged to use public transit facilities.
Have a nice day, CITIZEN!
Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
No, but they are more likely to kill somebody else when they hit another vehicle. They also have worse maneuverability, and thus are more likely to get in accidents. When you drive an SUV, you get a little more safety for yourself at the cost of a little safety for everybody on the road near you. Everybody would be more safe if everybody drove small cars than if they all drove SUVs.
If you can create the mythical brick in the road capable of killing someone when hit then I see nothing wrong with him bringing up rollover accidents. It's not exactly cherry picking data when you both are just bringing up possible scenarios out of no data in particular. Besides if this brick is lethal because it's thrown by the vehicle in front of you then it's more of a matter of the safety of the windshield than the size of the car. With this in mind, If we consider that an SUV can reach a much higher speed than one of these urban vehicles then the SUV could actually be less safer for its passengers in the flying brick scenario.
I don't think this car is actually "folding" instead it's the equivalent of a full-size smart car than can stand on it front wheels by articulating the rear ones forward. With the rear wheels in the normal driving position, I don't think this vehicle is any more dangerous than the current smart cars.
These comments are my own and do not necessarily reflect the views or opinions of my employer or colleagues...
I believe the you actually get a little more safety for yourself at the detriment of others on the road near you. The false sense of security that the SUV provides make people drive a little more aggressively than they should. Not to mention the substantially lower amount of visibility these SUVs have. You could back over a pedestrian in a parking lot and not realize what has happened until the harm is done. Basically it's up to the pedestrian to get out of the way of the unobservant driver.
These comments are my own and do not necessarily reflect the views or opinions of my employer or colleagues...
It's been done and about 9 years ago at that. http://www.netcarshow.com/rinspeed/2002-presto_concept/
I am Bennett Haselton! I am Bennett Haselton!
Each year, from 2006 through 2009, drivers of newer SUVs suffered an average of 28 deaths per million vehicles, according to the Institute. That's about half the average driver death rate for cars, which was 56.