Slashdot Mirror


Lit Motors, Danny Kim, and Changing How Americans Drive

Nerval's Lobster writes "In early March, Lit Motors founder Danny Kim hit the road to meet investors. The Portland native needed to keep the momentum growing for his small firm, which builds the two-wheeled C-1. His modest lab, located in San Francisco's SoMa neighborhood, could accommodate another 12 employees—but he needed the money to fund them, and to build a manufacturing facility that could turn his prototype ideas into a reality. Like Elon Musk and other manufacturing savants, Kim is someone who enjoys the challenge of building things—whether it's eyeglasses, chairs, or motor vehicles from scratch. He's spent the past five years re-thinking modern transportation, and using those insights to design prototypes of two-wheeled, motor-driven vehicles that can self-balance with a dancer's grace, thanks to an integrated software platform and a patented gyroscopic system. In a wide-ranging conversation with Slashdot, Kim discussed his plans for manufacturing the C-1, as well as the challenges in convincing consumers to try out a new kind of vehicle. "Seventy-two percent of commuters drive alone, so it just made sense to cut the car in half," he said, explaining the decision to go with two wheels instead of four. 'You have to think about this two-wheeled car as a robot because of its stability. It purely uses our AI/stability algorithm so it can balance and you don't have to. We had to develop our own firmware for our own dynamic system. It is code heavy.'"

144 comments

  1. These work some of the time, cars all the time by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Just because people usually ride alone doesn't mean that they always ride alone. These one person vehicles become useless if you ever have passengers. And they're not cheap enough to justify having a second one just lying around if you ever need a passenger.

    1. Re:These work some of the time, cars all the time by FatdogHaiku · · Score: 1

      You can carry a passenger if you chose...
      view the third slide (center button)
      http://litmotors.com/c1/The video of it getting t-boned is pretty net looking
      http://litmotors.com/wp-content/themes/starkers-lm0/video/c1.mp4

      --
      You have the right to remain sentient. If you give up the right to remain sentient, you will be elected to public office
    2. Re:These work some of the time, cars all the time by pnutjam · · Score: 1

      wow, can you imagine trying to get out of that passenger seat in a crash or if it went into water...

    3. Re:These work some of the time, cars all the time by digitrev · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I actually like this comment, because it brings up one of the major idiosyncrasies of how we buy cars. Specifically, we buy cars that meet all of our needs, as opposed to buying cars that meet our most frequent needs, and we can only really afford one vehicle per driver.

      Consider my household growing up (I know, I know, plural of anecdote is not data, but this is just an example). Growing up we always had two vehicles - one minivan, and one smaller sedan. This was mostly fine - my dad took the car to work, and my mom had the van for driving the kids around, doing groceries, etc... The sedan got much more use, and the van mostly stayed in the driveway, except when it needed to be used for something a sedan can't handle. But when my mom went back to work, the van had to be used for the daily commute. And this eats gas like crazy. You shouldn't be driving a minivan with only one person in it, but because we couldn't afford a third car (a sedan to get my mom to and from work) and because we still needed the minivan for groceries & family trips, a huge amount of gas gets wasted hauling one person around.

      --
      Cynical Idealist
    4. Re: These work some of the time, cars all the time by orrd · · Score: 1

      It's a two seater. There is a second seat behind the driver for a passenger.

    5. Re:These work some of the time, cars all the time by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      Oddly, the only minivan which gets decent fucking mileage is the one that should get the worst; the 2000+ Chevy Astro with the 4.3 liter Vortec V6, which just means the same V6 they've been producing since time immemorial but with better-flowing heads and maybe reverse-flow cooling. The one with highway gears (3.23:1) gets no shit 26+ MPG on the freeway at 70 or 75 while carrying a bunch of people and/or stuff. And you can pass people with it, too. I have no idea why this is true, but it is. It doesn't make any sense since the Astro is heavier and less aerodynamic than literally all of the competition, and the engine design is positively baroque.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    6. Re:These work some of the time, cars all the time by mjwx · · Score: 1

      I actually like this comment, because it brings up one of the major idiosyncrasies of how we buy cars. Specifically, we buy cars that meet all of our needs, as opposed to buying cars that meet our most frequent needs, and we can only really afford one vehicle per driver.

      Consider my household growing up (I know, I know, plural of anecdote is not data, but this is just an example). Growing up we always had two vehicles - one minivan, and one smaller sedan. This was mostly fine - my dad took the car to work, and my mom had the van for driving the kids around, doing groceries, etc... The sedan got much more use, and the van mostly stayed in the driveway, except when it needed to be used for something a sedan can't handle. But when my mom went back to work, the van had to be used for the daily commute. And this eats gas like crazy. You shouldn't be driving a minivan with only one person in it, but because we couldn't afford a third car (a sedan to get my mom to and from work) and because we still needed the minivan for groceries & family trips, a huge amount of gas gets wasted hauling one person around.

      This,

      A lot of people have two cars, even if they don't have a family. They have a daily car that is used for going to work, doing the shopping and so forth. Then they have a weekend car that's used for driving you enjoy. I.E. you have Hatch or Sedan for it's practicality, then you have a sports car for the enjoyment, a Ferrari F430 isn't something you really want to be clocking up 20,000 KM a year on.

      --
      Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
    7. Re:These work some of the time, cars all the time by Gavagai80 · · Score: 1

      For families who want two cars -- one commute car one family car -- it could make a lot of sense. Plus it's good for antisocial people like me.

      --
      This space intentionally left blank
  2. "Changing how americans drive" by i+kan+reed · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I wish that phrase didn't set off my "marketing bullshit" alarms(as is clearly appropriate in this case) because a culture of long-distance driving commutes is leading to serious long-term problems with respect to suburban sprawl and blight. Retreating residential neighborhoods a little further down the interstate every time an area falls into disrepair(and no, it's not just white flight) is causing huge swaths of places where no one will ever want to live.

    1. Re:"Changing how Americans drive" by i+kan+reed · · Score: 1

      It's the rallying cry of every vehicular product that tries to maintain the status quo by being small and cheap. Our problems are not one that can be solved by a marketing campaign.

    2. Re:"Changing how americans drive" by NotDrWho · · Score: 2, Funny

      I'm still trying to wrap my head around the idea of two-wheeled, motor driven vehicles. What would one of these strange motor-cycles even LOOK like??? Truly, that's a "new kind of vehicle" indeed!

      --
      SJW's don't eliminate discrimination. They just expropriate it for themselves.
    3. Re:"Changing how americans drive" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, but it's changing; I live in one of the formerly passed over areas, and in the last few years there have been 5000+ new rental units added around me. Traffic here sucks, and my has transit, so people are moving here rather than out further. Now parking is harder, but I also have a lot of new restaurants so I'm happy.

    4. Re:"Changing how americans drive" by Bigbutt · · Score: 2

      I think he's stolen my idea. I have three of these motor-driven cycles. One working model (with 120,000 miles on the clock), one with some minor electrical problems that I'm ironing out (22,000 miles before the problems started), and one that has minimal electronics that I'm in the process of building.

      The bastard!

      [John]

      --
      Shit better not happen!
    5. Re:"Changing how americans drive" by DaveV1.0 · · Score: 2

      Reminds me of the Segway hype.

      --
      There is no "-1 offended" or "-1 you don't agree with me" mod options for a reason.
    6. Re:"Changing how americans drive" by Immerman · · Score: 1

      I do agree that this has the potential to change driving - most of the benefits of a motorcycle with few of the drawbacks. However I don't see it affecting sprawl or blight in least. If anything it may exacerbate the problem by making the drive slightly more enjoyable and less expensive. What it could change, is reducing the fuel consumption and amount of road necessary for a given traffic density.

      --
      --- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
    7. Re:"Changing how Americans drive" by xplosiv · · Score: 1

      Do your research before thinking it's another self-balancing vehicle. That said, I'm not aware of any other vehicle which balances itself, even when not moving, or can handle a side impact crash, without tipping over. Please don't use E-Tracer as an example, because they are 2 different vehicles.

      Check out the videos floating around the internet, this vehicle really does have a chance to make a difference, or check out LitMotorsForums.com if you want to have a real discussion.

    8. Re:"Changing how Americans drive" by EvilSS · · Score: 1

      Do your research before thinking it's another self-balancing vehicle.

      So it's not a self-balancing two wheel vehicle? because...

      two-wheeled, motor-driven vehicles that can self-balance with a dancer's grace

      Either way I take it I talk to you if I'm interested in buying one?

      --
      I browse on +1 so AC's need not respond, I won't see it.
    9. Re:"Changing how Americans drive" by xplosiv · · Score: 1

      Do your research before thinking it's another self-balancing vehicle.

      So it's not a self-balancing two wheel vehicle? because...

      two-wheeled, motor-driven vehicles that can self-balance with a dancer's grace

      Either way I take it I talk to you if I'm interested in buying one?

      Wow, way to put words in my mouth ;) I'm using using your own words, but I did explain how it is self balancing, so I guess you are just nitpicking at this point (miss the old /. days where people actually tried to understand/learn about new tech)

      If you are interested, go to litmotors.com ;) I'm just someone who actually did the research, believes in EVs, and put down a deposit on a C-1.

      Now, if you have any real/serious questions, I can try to help answer them.

    10. Re:"Changing how americans drive" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They aren't trying to change *how* Americans drive; they are trying to change *what* Americans drive.

      Even if you drive a tiny two-wheeled car, you can still clog up the passing lane and drive like a moron.

    11. Re:"Changing how americans drive" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      yeah, this conversation is grating on me a bit.
      How about this solution: Make thoughtful, planned decisions based on the reality of your life and place in the world around you.
      1) Buy a house (or rent a place) in an area that provides good public transit options that will take at least one person to and from work at a minimum cost
      2) Buy a single car, like the Chevy Volt, that provides both short distance non-polluting power and long distance energy dense power at a reasonable price.
      3) do not buy anything else. Plan your life carefully around what is available, rather than paying insane amounts of money to save a few minutes of "your precious time" (hint, you ain't so effin' important for all that)
      4) replace your car every couple of years so that you have a new car all the time and feel like you are living good instead of driving a crap car into the grave.
      5) find fun things to do while you travel on public transit: tattoo watching is fun, podcasts are fun, internet radio is fun, grouchy old bastards are fun, staring down at stupid drivers texting while they try to pass the bus are fun (you aren't driving, who cares!!!!)

      It works for my family

  3. mean while by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    his home state would be cheaper to work in, cheaper to build in, and has money.

    But hay, go to San Fran, becasue there sin't any competition for money there...

    1. Re:mean while by PrimaryConsult · · Score: 1

      This is a very good point, replying to hopefully make it more visible.

      If he wanted a hip, trendy city Seattle would have worked nicely, while not as cheap as Portland it's still a better bang for the real estate $ than SF... hell, any city would be better, even NYC (outside Manhattan)...

  4. This may be a rather localized consideration but by kruach+aum · · Score: 1

    These will be way too easy to tip into canals. It's like a Smart only even less heavy and more weird-looking.

  5. Hipster Scooter by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    24K for an enclosed motorscooter with a gryoscope?
    Better have a cupholder for your PBR..

  6. "Changing how Americans drive" by EvilSS · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Haven't we heard that before? About another self-balancing 2-wheel vehicle?

    --
    I browse on +1 so AC's need not respond, I won't see it.
  7. Politeness and patience potion? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Because that's what American drivers need - politeness and patience. Basically, drop the ME ME ME! and add in some consideration of others.

    And for some damn reason, Prius drivers need it the most. And I'm not kidding - I ride my bicycles about 10,000 miles a year, and damn if Prius drivers aren't the most cluelessly aggressive on a per-Prius basis. Yeah, I run into more BMW and Passat jackasses, but that's because there are more BMWs and Passats out there.

    Why Passats? I think it's because they're basically sold as a poor-boy's BMW. Take a marketing model aimed at pricks, only they're now pissed off because they can't afford the real thing.

    1. Re:Politeness and patience potion? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      Aggressive, angry post calling other drivers aggressive and angry.

  8. Re:This may be a rather localized consideration bu by timeOday · · Score: 5, Insightful
    I disagree, I think it looks nice. Certainly nicer than a Smart Car.

    As a motorcyclist (including daily commuting), an enclosed motorcycle doesn't seem at all absurd to me. It addresses the main disadvantages that prevent most people from riding motorcycles - higher safety (if it is adequately constructed, obviously) and protection from the elements.

  9. Re:This may be a rather localized consideration bu by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Safety? Some drunk with a pickup truck or some soccer mom texting with a SUV would put the driver of this vehicle into the hospital, if not in the morgue.

    This is something that would be useful for places like Paris, London, or other cities where vehicles are small and nothing goes over 60km/hr on the streets. However, in the US, this is as dangerous as a motorcycle, but without the agility of a bike.

  10. If it was cheap by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If it was cheap & kept up its supposed features (200 miles, crash rated, etc) it could definitely become a popular commuter vehicle. Unfortunately it looks like this thing will cost the same as a good full sized car/SUV ($24,000 per the website). You're not going to be able to get people to give up 4 door vehicles with cargo space for an enclosed electric motorcycle that you can maybe sandwich two people or one person and a few grocery bags when they cost basically the same.

  11. "We had to develop our own firmware... by PSUSkier · · Score: 3, Insightful

    ...for our own dynamic system. It is code heavy." Maybe I've been working around software too long, but the more code needed to run a single function generally equates to more software defects. In a balancing and stability control system, I'd hate to be the one to find it.

    1. Re:"We had to develop our own firmware... by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 1

      Nah, it will work just fine, unless you try to cross the date line.

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
    2. Re:"We had to develop our own firmware... by schlachter · · Score: 1

      you have to find balance in your approach

      --
      My God can beat up your God. Just kidding...don't take offense. I know there's no God.
  12. Why two wheels? by Wdomburg · · Score: 4, Insightful

    What specific value is there in using two wheels and a "code heavy" stability algorithm instead of using more vehicles. For example, Elio motors is aiming for 84mpg with a three wheel car that uses "no special technology" and is expected to cost $6800.

    1. Re:Why two wheels? by Ly4 · · Score: 1

      Well, it's narrower - that'll help in many urban areas, and will make finding parking a bit easier. A two-wheel car is also a little less likely to take out pedestrians with one of those protruding front wheels.
      But those advantages might be outweighed by other disadvantages - as you've noted, cost and complexity are concerns, and the actual performance of the balancing algorithms and such is still an unknown.

    2. Re:Why two wheels? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The biggest problem with Elio is they are classified as a motorcycle, and many states have helmet laws.

    3. Re:Why two wheels? by roman_mir · · Score: 0

      At least they have learned from the past mistakes and put two wheels in the front and one in the back this time.

    4. Re:Why two wheels? by xplosiv · · Score: 1

      The C-1 is an electric vehicle, so it's much quieter and nicer to drive if it's anything like other electric vehicles, not to mention, it looks really nice. The C-1 balances itself, making it more difficult to flip the thing. As for being code heavy, try to find out how much software goes into a 'regular' vehicle, I doubt the C-1 will be more complex.

      The Elio looks like a GM EV1 chopped in half, and the interior looks like standard dated interior as well. Elio's price is definitely very attractive, but as an EV driver, I just don't want to go back to vehicles using gasoline, no matter how great the mileage is.

      C-1's pricing is an issue for sure, but it will come down as always.

    5. Re:Why two wheels? by Wdomburg · · Score: 1

      Er, using more WHEELS.

    6. Re:Why two wheels? by Smivs · · Score: 1

      The C-1 is an electric vehicle

      Nope, it runs on petrol (er, gas :P )

    7. Re:Why two wheels? by xplosiv · · Score: 1

      That's a C1, not a C-1 ;) I do agree the name can be confusing, as far as I know, this is just a 'project' name, and Lit Motors plans on giving it a real name when they get closer to releasing the vehicle.

    8. Re:Why two wheels? by Smivs · · Score: 2

      Ha, let's hope so, as I suspect Citroen have a bigger legal fund. :) (They're both horrid little things anyway - where's the V8?)

    9. Re:Why two wheels? by Wdomburg · · Score: 1

      The point was not to contrast specific vehicles, but the basic design. There have been a number of other EV microvehicles produced or designed, including a number of three-wheeled variants like the ZAP Alias, Toyota i-Ride, Aptera 2, and Green Vehicles Tirac.

    10. Re:Why two wheels? by Wdomburg · · Score: 1

      Yes, narrower at ~ 67" vs 40". But roadways and most parking is built to accommodate cars, which are wider than both. I suppose you could potentially double up along side traditional motorcycles, though.

      I'm not sure I see any particular risk to pedestrians. They shouldn't be in traffic in the first place, for starters.

    11. Re:Why two wheels? by schlachter · · Score: 1

      because we want special technology!

      --
      My God can beat up your God. Just kidding...don't take offense. I know there's no God.
    12. Re:Why two wheels? by Wdomburg · · Score: 1

      Only five states would require helmets for drivers over 18, and Elio is actively lobbying for exemptions for enclosed vehicles.

      And at a weight of only eight hundred pounds and only two wheels, the C-1 is likely subject to the same laws.

    13. Re:Why two wheels? by Ly4 · · Score: 1

      They shouldn't be in traffic in the first place, for starters.

      True, but then again, automobiles shouldn't be driving into crosswalks when I've got the light, but that happened to me today - in fact, during the time since I wrote that last comment.

      Today's incident wasn't a big deal, because I was watching the driver, and I could see she was looking only at oncoming traffic from her left, while I was on her right, trying to cross in front of her turn. So I waited, and resisted the temptation to slap the side of her car.

      But that's also a scenario where the Elio would have been a bit more of a danger. If I'm watching the driver, that protruding wheel is only in my peripheral vision. That's different from a regular car, where the edge of the car is between us and easier to identify.

      So it's a risk - the hard part is quantifying how big of a risk it presents.

    14. Re:Why two wheels? by slfnflctd · · Score: 1

      Furthermore, what specific value is there in paying $24k for a two-wheeled vehicle which only fits one person and is by all appearances far more dangerous than the four-wheeled, fuel efficient vehicle I can buy for half that price, which fits five people plus drinks, snacks, luggage and more? This thing is absolutely ridiculous and completely impractical for the vast majority of people.

  13. Failure modes by tompaulco · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I prefer a vehicle that doesn't fall over when there is a code failure or the battery dies.

    --
    If you are not allowed to question your government then the government has answered your question.
    1. Re:Failure modes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I prefer a vehicle that doesn't have large, high-speed gyros directly underneath my ass. Get into a bad accident and besides all the other problems you might have gyro shrapnel in your junk.

    2. Re:Failure modes by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      I prefer a vehicle that doesn't fall over when there is a code failure or the battery dies.

      Vehicles with three wheels are bad enough when there is a tire/wheel failure. Vehicles with two wheels have long been proven to be much worse even when the vehicles are basically dynamically stable when moving down the road under their own power. Now we're going to add dynamic instability to the mix as well? What can possibly go wrong besides everything?

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  14. Will succeed post driverless by EmperorOfCanada · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The key problem with such an elegant vehicle is that it fails the "Gives better than it got" crash test. SUVs and pickup trucks are popular because people perceive that they are driving a tank and will fare better against the various pop-cans out there. Quite simply if you are in a BMW X5 and have a head on with a prius then you may very well limp away with the prius crew ending up in body bags. With this perception then a vehicle like this will not get much of an audience beyond a few hipsters.

    But at some point when driverless cars dominate (and ideally own) the roads then you could potentially safely drive a car made from non-tempered glass. Once this has sunk into car culture then people will wisely conclude that you want to commute (and park) in the least amount of vehicle required to keep you comfortable and get you to your destination in haste.

    But while the roads are still filled with morons behind the wheels of multi-tonne homicide factories then any vehicle of this nature will be regarded by the vast majority as DIY coffins.

    1. Re: Will succeed post driverless by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Tonne" indicates that you almost certainly do not have adequate experience driving in the place you're trying to solve driving problems. Enjoy your tiny little island, though; I'm sure your solutions work great there.

    2. Re:Will succeed post driverless by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In a couple of years fully automatic software-controlled brakes (getting threat information from car2car broardcasts similar to TCAS) could eliminate the need for heavy, drag-inducing crash energy absorbtion volume.

      Actually, we coul rid ourselves of traffic jams with a combo of trains, buses and taxis scheduled by smartphone+cloud service around the clock. But hey, that would work against all the sick dreams of Freedom By Car. Plus it would threaten the biz models of Merces, Toyota, Ford and most importantly Exxon, Shell, BP. So, that will never, ever happen.

      Also cars are Status Symbols. Meaning that the more wealthy you are, the bigger and fancier carriage you want to show off. THAT is the most important reason for SUVs.

    3. Re:Will succeed post driverless by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In a couple of years fully automatic software-controlled brakes (getting threat information from car2car broardcasts similar to TCAS) could eliminate the need for heavy, drag-inducing crash energy absorbtion volume.

      In a couple of years, there are still going to be plenty of old cars on the road that don't broadcast such information. Even with automatic braking based on radar or such that can detect non-broadcasting obstacles, you still have to deal with situations like someone pulling out in front of you or road condition issues that mean hitting something regardless of how fast you can start to brake. And I'm not sure how much extra drag is involved in having crash absorbing zones, considering you would need some taper and volume in front of a driver anyway as humans are not that aerodynamically shaped.

    4. Re: Will succeed post driverless by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No. SUVs are popular because you can transport your entire family in one. I.e. so you can all go to church or the park in it. Slashdot metrosexuals wouldn't understand.

    5. Re:Will succeed post driverless by serialband · · Score: 1

      The radar and automatic braking would mean the collisions would be less serious because it would have occurred at least a full second before your distracted brain could even perceive a threat. The survivability rate in accidents would also improve, saving lives overall and reducing our medical costs as well. You've got to look at the big picture.

    6. Re: Will succeed post driverless by serialband · · Score: 2

      No. SUVs are popular because you can transport your entire family in one. I.e. so you can all go to church or the park in it. Slashdot metrosexuals wouldn't understand.

      Not quite. Minivans do that with much better gas mileage and frequently carry more people. SUVs are more status symbols in the suburbs, where there are much more people than in the rural areas. Both were developed because the law requires seatbelts for ALL your passengers. Most SUVs, especially the more popular models do not have quite as much passenger space as a minivan. If you're in rural America, SUVs do make sense, but suburbanites like the larger gas guzzler status of the SUV.

      The days where you could cram 6 into the back seat on each other's laps, or fill 15 kids into the back of the pickup truck, are long gone.

    7. Re:Will succeed post driverless by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Quite simply if you are in a BMW X5 and have a head on with a prius...

      Why stop there? On Saturday I saw an X5 get hit damn-near-head-on by a freaking Tahoe, and the driver was OK. A little shaken up, and the car was probably totaled. But she was sitting there behind the wheel, getting her phone out of her purse to call the police. Granted, the Tahoe fared better, and they weren't at highway speeds, but still pretty impressive from a safety standpoint.

      The problem with this "give/get" crash test logic is that the only fair solution would be for everybody to be driving the same weight/size of vehicle. Of course a family of 6 isn't going to fit into an Aveo, and it's terribly wasteful for a single college student to be tootling along in a full-sized van. So we make compromises. The crash tests don't demand that you give better than you get, just that the occupants survive relatively unscathed, and that in a minimal case there be no permanent damage. In fact, some companies have even looked into reducing damage to both vehicles (or even pedestrians).

      Back on topic. If this little 2-wheeled glorified scooter can keep it's occupant alive, it doesn't really matter if the car itself survives the collision. Sure it will affect your insurance rate, but that's true of any dinky little car. Personally, for $24k I'd expect my car to fare reasonably well in a fender bender, but some people have different priorities.

    8. Re:Will succeed post driverless by LoRdTAW · · Score: 1

      "SUVs and pickup trucks are popular because people perceive that they are driving a tank and will fare better against the various pop-cans out there"

      Only two kinds of people drive pickups:
      - Legit users who use them for actual hauling or towing (minority)
      - Manly men* who smoke cigars and wear sunglasses while crossing their arms with a scowl for every photo (like those cool dudes on american chopper). Bonus for adding: lift kits, truck nuts, bigger lift kits, rims, even bigger lift kits, monster truck tires, and chrome. An extra bonus if the pickup is diesel and the engine is modded to blow billowing clouds of black smoke for "coal rolls".

      Same goes for SUV's but substitute "manly men" for self important asshole and add a third category: people who want the room if they need it in a pinch but rarely use it. Though they can somewhat fit into the legit users group.

      *limited only to their reality bubble. For people outside the reality bubble, "douchebag pussy" is an applicable replacement term. Seriously, fuck those people.

    9. Re: Will succeed post driverless by pnutjam · · Score: 1

      Minivan or wagon are always a more efficient way to transport people and things then an SUV.

    10. Re: Will succeed post driverless by EmperorOfCanada · · Score: 1

      The island of Canada? Nova Scotia is a few tonnes of earth moving from being an island?

    11. Re: Will succeed post driverless by EmperorOfCanada · · Score: 1

      Yes and no, quite a few people commute in them.

    12. Re:Will succeed post driverless by EmperorOfCanada · · Score: 1

      I would love to hear your opinion on those people who have no technical reason for driving the double wheeled pickup trucks. Ideally the noisy diesel ones.

    13. Re:Will succeed post driverless by EmperorOfCanada · · Score: 1

      Exactly; but perception is pretty much everything. The harbour near where I live has been massively cleaned up. It is at the same pollution levels that you would find at any of the popular beaches nearby. Yet the only people swimming at the local harbour beach are immigrants. I don't thing you will see born and bred locals using the awesomely downtown beach for at least a generation.

      The river where I once lived was exactly the same. Nobody local would swim in it. Yet everyone went a tiny bit upstream to a provincial park beach to swim. Yet the perceived pollution had come from a pulp mill that hadn't been a pollution source in 30+ years. Plus that pulp mill was also upstream of the park. So these people thought that swimming near the city was gross yet the exact same water 20 miles upstream was perceived to be way better. I was not a local and enjoyed much time in the river in the summer.

    14. Re:Will succeed post driverless by mjwx · · Score: 1

      The key problem with such an elegant vehicle is that it fails the "Gives better than it got" crash test. SUVs and pickup trucks are popular because people perceive that they are driving a tank and will fare better against the various pop-cans out there. Quite simply if you are in a BMW X5 and have a head on with a prius then you may very well limp away with the prius crew ending up in body bags. With this perception then a vehicle like this will not get much of an audience beyond a few hipsters.

      Which is sad because it's incorrect. If you're in a BMW X5 and you have a head on with a Prius you're more likely to roll than the Prius as rolling causes more head and neck injuries and it's the head and neck injuries that are the big killer. So in a low speed crash, the Prius' low centre of gravity means lateral movement does not turn into a roll, where as the high centre of gravity in the X5 means it will. Sure the Prius will look worse for wear and the X5 will look less damaged, but the occupants in the Prius will have less chance of injury... one of the man reasons is because the Prius looks worse for wear, a lot warped and ablated off the car in the impact, taking kinetic energy with it (crumple zones are the second biggest life saver after the automatic seat belt tensioner).

      --
      Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
    15. Re: Will succeed post driverless by mjwx · · Score: 1

      If you're in rural America, SUVs do make sense, but suburbanites like the larger gas guzzler status of the SUV.

      SUV's don't even make sense there as most SUV's are not 4 Wheel Drive, a lot are FWD (Front Wheel Drive) which really makes them an overweight hatchback. In rural areas you need actual 4WD capable cars with a proper low range gearbox. Something like a Nissan Patrol, Toyota Landcruiser or even a Land Rover Disco. Even Ford's F series Utes are likely to get bogged being RWD (all that torque is good for is digging a hole when you're stuck), a suburbanite SUV like a Chevy Captiva or BMW X series will have no chance on anything that is not sealed and slightly damp.

      The S in SUV should really stand for Suburban, because they aren't sporty by any stretch of the imagination and that's the only place they're used.

      --
      Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
    16. Re:Will succeed post driverless by Reziac · · Score: 1

      So is there any real reason it can't have a real roll cage, that would survive being mashed by a truck and improve the occupant's chances??

      I do find it a bit amusing that we're essentially reinventing the go-cart in the name of fuel economy.

      --
      ~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
    17. Re:Will succeed post driverless by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is the wrong GD test! It is used only in the US and is BS, serious BS. Other people in the world don't think about things like this and they have fewer car accident deaths because they use lighter and smaller cars that are more nimble in turns, stops and avoidance. Americans (yeah, I'm one too) are morons for driving these idiot machines.

  15. How about some video of it turning? by sideslash · · Score: 1

    I've watched a bunch of videos online of this vehicle. I've seen it go in a straight line. Is there any video of it driving around a curve while traveling at a decent speed?

    Motorcycles lean into a turn, lowering their center of gravity and maximizing traction/grip with the road. My guess (in the absence of seeing evidence otherwise) is that they've programmed this vehicle to stay bolt upright and just slide around a lot. Maybe it would be popular with drifters in Tokyo.

    1. Re:How about some video of it turning? by Immerman · · Score: 1

      Can't offer a link, but I did spot almost such a video, and it seemed to be leaning (pulling out of a parking lot, not highway speeds, so not super obvious). If you've got computer control of the balance it would seem pretty silly *not* to lean when turning - performance is much improved, and the driving experience made more exciting.

      The exciting part is when the balancing system goes out of alignment and leans you over at 45* while driving in a straight line.

      --
      --- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
    2. Re:How about some video of it turning? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v... is the video you're thinking of.

      what I'm more struck by is that they seem to have built a double-swingarm motorcycle, and then put the bodywork right up close to the tires, so if it hits a big bump those tires are going to be driven up into the body. There needs to be some space for the wheels to bounce up & down on their rotation axes when going over bumps, and it doesn't look like they've left more than an inch or two.

    3. Re:How about some video of it turning? by squiggleslash · · Score: 1

      The FAQ on their website says that the vehicle leans into turns.

      --
      You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
    4. Re:How about some video of it turning? by Immerman · · Score: 1

      No, that wasn't it, it involved one of the newer finished-looking prototypes, though still had the mass of electronics in the "back seat". And it actually showed the turns at parking-lot speeds, rather than cutting away every time he got ready to turn at over 2mph.

      --
      --- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
  16. I feel bad for the guy, his plan is terrible. by bistromath007 · · Score: 3, Interesting

    It is an absolute, unmitigated mistake to attempt to market this thing in the US. To get it to work, you'd need to convince each state's DMV to not classify it as a motorcycle, the license for which is more difficult and expensive to get, and testing for which would be unnecessarily dangerous for the C-1's target market. Unfortunately, this is an absolute impossibility; even if you can break through a bureaucracy's natural tendency towards collecting more fees by having more rules to enforce, the venture will be lobbied to death by dealerships that don't want to try to sell the thing. It's going to look like what's happening to Tesla, only much, much easier for the douchebags.

    1. Re:I feel bad for the guy, his plan is terrible. by Immerman · · Score: 2

      Why not classify it as a motorcycle? That actually eliminates most of the stringent safety requirements for cars (and I'm sure they could volunteer for testing anyway for safety ratings, especially if they greased the right palms) It does require a special license, but frankly I suspect the primary target market, at least initially, is people who already have a motorcycle, but want something safer and more weatherproof. And for car drivers there's plenty of classes that will get you trained on the basics of operating two-wheel vehicles and prepare you to take the motorcycle licensing test - if you're terrified to drive a scooter this thing probably won't appeal much.

      --
      --- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
    2. Re:I feel bad for the guy, his plan is terrible. by wiredlogic · · Score: 1

      While MC written exams in the US are more stringent, most states have relaxed driving test rules for three-wheeled motorcycles. It is conceivable that these gyro bikes could be grouped in the same category since they have the same self-stabilization as three wheels and require less skill in low speed maneuvering.

      --
      I am becoming gerund, destroyer of verbs.
    3. Re:I feel bad for the guy, his plan is terrible. by Reziac · · Score: 1

      Why not an intermediate license, or class it as a motorcycle but allow it to be driven with an ordinary car license? I know some places have scooter licenses, so it's not like it hasn't been done.

      --
      ~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
    4. Re:I feel bad for the guy, his plan is terrible. by Immerman · · Score: 1

      You think building an efficient vehicle is difficult and expensive? Try getting a law changed in time to enable your business plan.

      I agree though that going forward such a thing is probably a good idea, for the three-wheelers at least. If this thing handles a lot like a motorcycle though, then it's probably a good idea to have the appropriate license. A more pressing concern to my mind would be changing helmet laws, so that helmets are not required when in a vehicle with a roll cage and seat belts, regardless of how the vehicle may otherwise be classified.

      --
      --- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
  17. Brazil by wcrowe · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I am reminded of the scene from the movie Brazil, where the protagonist is drving this tiny little one-person vehicle on the freeway, surrounded by huge trucks on all sides.

    --
    Proverbs 21:19
    1. Re:Brazil by HornWumpus · · Score: 2

      That was a modified old messerschmitt. https://www.google.com/#q=mess...

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    2. Re:Brazil by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Messerschmitt_KR200

  18. heh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    And here I thought the ghetto was the only place you'd get cinder block kickstands for your car.

  19. Meanwhile by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...car manufacturers go from success to success with bigger and bigger SUVs.

    1. Re:Meanwhile by serialband · · Score: 1

      ...car manufacturers go from success to success with bigger and bigger SUVs.

      Only when the gas prices go down. When it goes up, the SUV market dries up, as we've already seen happen.

  20. Easiest way to change how they drive... by beelsebob · · Score: 3, Insightful

    The easiest way to change how they drive is to change the structure of the roads. The amount of fuel and tarmac America wastes by having stop junctions, and light controlled intersections everywhere is enormous.

    1. Re:Easiest way to change how they drive... by ifiwereasculptor · · Score: 1

      The easiest way to solve traffic problems is to reduce traffic. The US (and plenty of other large countries) should focus on giving people opportunity to live close to where they work, to where their kids go to school. Building more roads, making them more efficient and/or offering public transportation only postpone the problem when you consider population growth, if those measures are all you take.

    2. Re:Easiest way to change how they drive... by Crimey+McBiggles · · Score: 1

      Define "easy". Last I checked, it requires a lot of public funding for road restructuring projects, whereas vehicles are sold on the open market to individuals.

      Not exactly disagreeing with your point, though... there are many MANY examples of terrible traffic patterns in my town alone.

      --
      Crimey
    3. Re:Easiest way to change how they drive... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      While I agree that signals can waste gas compared to alternatives, what alternatives to signals can handle the traffic at such locations and use less "tarmac"? About every streamlined alternative I've seen takes up considerable more space than an intersection with a traffic light, unless you are starting with a very large divided road. Construction of things like pedestrian crossings without signals can take quite a bit more material too, and increase the walking time depending on how many stairs are needed to get above/below the road.

    4. Re:Easiest way to change how they drive... by beelsebob · · Score: 1

      While I agree that signals can waste gas compared to alternatives, what alternatives to signals can handle the traffic at such locations and use less "tarmac"?

      Roundabouts.

      With light controlled intersections, the roads exiting from the intersection are only used about 50% of the time. You can observe this by standing next to the road, a bit down from the junction, and observing the flow of traffic. You'll see huge blobs of traffic flow through, and then nothing for the same amount of time.

      If you replace the intersections with roundabouts then you smooth out these waves, and you can half the width of the roads.

    5. Re:Easiest way to change how they drive... by FridayBob · · Score: 1

      The easiest way to change how they drive is to change the structure of the roads. The amount of fuel and tarmac America wastes by having stop junctions, and light controlled intersections everywhere is enormous.

      That may be true, but it's also a much more expensive approach that requires more space (not always available). Plus, all those extra viaducts and tarmac would also need to be maintained, while the State and Federal governments already do a pretty poor job at maintaining the existing infrastructure. Of course, they could always decide to raise taxes in order to pay for it all, but that would be unpatriotic...

  21. Changing how Americans drive? by kig8472 · · Score: 0

    Like the Segway right? Which was also supposed to be a major revolution of transportation. And what happened? Exactly.

    1. Re:Changing how Americans drive? by Immerman · · Score: 1

      In fairness, for all the hype the Segway was a vehicle with extremely limited use cases: far slower and more expensive than a bicycle. Almost completely unable to handle even minor surface obstructions. The thing was a substitute for walking on smooth surfaces, nothing else. Meanwhile it saddles you with a vehicle that's too heavy to comfortably carry, and too small and expensive to safely chain to a tree. As a popular form of supplemental transportation the briefcase-sized Solowheel is far more flexible, though it does owe it's inspiration to the Segway. It's still a replacement for walking though (or jogging I suppose, speed wise), so it's competing with a "vehicle" that comes installed standard on virtually all new humans.

      The C1 on the other hand is a vehicle that manages to eliminate virtually all the shortcomings of a motorcycle - a vehicle for which there is already a fairly large market. I could definitely see a market for it, especially if they can eventually bring the price down substantially.

      --
      --- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
    2. Re:Changing how Americans drive? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The product is done already. 'Done' as in never being able to do what it was claimed to do. The price won't come down substantially. That's not how anyone treats the American market. Our market is for dumping either expensive stuff, or cheap stuff. This suits our leading classes, who are rich and poor. The middle class is of course forgotten; it has no power and it hates itself anyway.

      The Segway already had a useful progenitor: Roller skates. Rollerblades were a useful innovation to those, but people still haven't taken to them for commuting. So the Segway idea was dead at the design phase, because paying 100 times the money for a slightly different rollerblade experience, which Americans didn't like anyway, was an obvious loser.

      By the same token, an expensive motorcycle replacement will be an equal non-starter. Those who ride 2-wheels already choose motorcycles.

    3. Re:Changing how Americans drive? by Immerman · · Score: 1

      > Those who ride 2-wheels already choose motorcycles.
      Yes they do, and I know a lot of riders who would like a motorcycle with a roll cage and weather protection, which is basically what the C1 seems to be - they even discuss specifically targeting that demographic.

      As for the Segway, it did actually find a market among security guards, warehouse workers, and the like where it's numerous shortcoming are far less relevant, and the advantage of controlled speed and maneuverability allows certain employees to be far more productive. A security guard for example can travel around twice as fast as walking, dramatically reducing the number needed for a given coverage level, while being able to rapidly dismount to investigate issues on foot.

      --
      --- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
  22. Elio by Immerman · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Indeed. I recently spotted the Elio, which seems to have real potential if they can pull it off. A spacious three-wheeler with automotive safety features, a large back seat, 84mpg, a top speed over 100mph, and a price tag well under the cheapest mainstream cars. Doesn't look nearly as fun to drive as a C1 or Carver, but better than a normal car, and at a price point that could give it a place as something other than an expensive toy. Definitely gonna take a test drive at least, should it make it to market.
    http://www.eliomotors.com/
    http://fox40.com/2013/09/17/be...

    --
    --- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
    1. Re:Elio by wiredlogic · · Score: 1

      There is also the Chinese made Wildfire WF650-C 3-wheeler. An older couple near me has one of these. Takes a bit to get up to speed but 56MPG beats most four wheeled vehicles.

      --
      I am becoming gerund, destroyer of verbs.
    2. Re:Elio by Immerman · · Score: 2

      There's a lot of vehicles like that, but having a single wheel up front is a serious stability issue in turns, and you can find no shortage of videos of them rolling when drivers get overly aggressive. Also, and this is just me personally - if I'm driving some sort of lightweight wierdo vehicle interesting looks and decent acceleration and handling are a major plus - after all I'm going to have to merge with highway traffic, and inevitably dodge some idiot in an SUV that thinks they own the road - I've had to do that often enough in a sedan.

      --
      --- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
    3. Re:Elio by triffid_98 · · Score: 1

      A spacious three-wheeler with automotive safety features, a large back seat, 84mpg, a top speed over 100mph,

      Either that mpg rating is grossly optimistic or I predict 0-60 in ...around...6 minutes or so.

      I can't think of a single large bike that get over 35mpg, and while I'm sure the aerodynamics help, the extra weight most certainly doesn't.

    4. Re:Elio by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The Wildfire 125 scooters are crap....breaks down if you push it to 55 mph.....

    5. Re:Elio by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This distributor has ten cases under review with the Ohio Attorney General and 30 with the Better Business Bureau
      The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) announced 0n April 3, 2013, that it is withdrawing approval of the import and sale of up to 74,000 gas-powered on- and off-road motorcycles and all-terrain vehicles from China. The agency believes that it received either incomplete or falsified certification information. [1]

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wildfire_(motor_company)#WF650-T_and_WF650-C

    6. Re:Elio by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      My 1989 Kawasaki Vulcan 1500 normally gets 45 mpg.

    7. Re:Elio by houstonbofh · · Score: 1

      I can't think of a single large bike that get over 35mpg, and while I'm sure the aerodynamics help, the extra weight most certainly doesn't.

      I have two that do, and both are cruisers with no aerodynamics.

    8. Re:Elio by mrchaotica · · Score: 1

      That's because motorcycles have almost universally shit MPG for no goddamned reason. (Or more precisely, because the vast majority of them are built for power and revving to OVER 9000!!! instead of fuel economy.)

      If a first-generation Honda Insight from 14 years ago can get 70 MPG average (and it can, and then some), then I have no trouble believing this thing that's newer and smaller can do worse (the page cites 84 MPG highway, but only 49 MPG city)

      --

      "[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz

    9. Re:Elio by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      It's all on their website. A couple of quotes from their specs page.

      An inline, 3 cylinder, .9 liter, 55 HP, fuel-injected, SOHC gas-powered, liquid-cooled, automotive engine.

      Top speed is in excess of 100 MPH, and the 0-60 speed is under 9.6 seconds

      Fear not, with its city rate of 49 MPG

      So it's 84mpg highway/49mpg city, and certainly not a fast 0-60 time but not unreasonable for a vehicle focused on fuel economy.

    10. Re:Elio by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      A classic Golf TDI got the same kind of mileage with no compromises but a louder engine. I'm sure that three wheeler is a lot cheaper, but no thanks.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    11. Re:Elio by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Honda Civic, 78.5mpg

      http://www.honda.co.uk/cars/campaigns/2013/mpg/

      Where have you been?

    12. Re:Elio by stoatwblr · · Score: 1

      Are they called Rodney and Dellboy?

  23. Portland? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I hear they have tasty Maine lobsters. Or are you talking about the Portland near Mount Hood and the Columbia river?

  24. New Disease: "Myopia Nerdis" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "Seventy-two percent of commuters drive alone, so it just made sense to cut the car in half," he said, explaining the decision to go with two wheels instead of four.

    Spoken like a true nerd. I'm sure it makes sense to cut the car in half, until you realize that Americans are sociopathic morons who refuse to let that happen, until the price of gasoline rises so much that they'll be forced to seek out smaller vehicles.

    Americans would be driving SUVs twice the size by now if the price of gasoline didn't rise to over $3/gal to put a stop to that nonsense.

    Nerds: Not Even Once

    1. Re:New Disease: "Myopia Nerdis" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I agree that his reasoning is flawed, but I don't think that the majority of "Americans are sociopathic morons". Americans buy cars that don't just suit their daily commuting habits, but their weekend ones too. I don't see this vehicle holding a week's worth of groceries for even a small family. On that subject, where would you even put the children? What about the people who like to go camping, and need to pull a trailer? Or the guy who builds and finished furniture in his garage? Our cars are general purpose tool that is a compromise between all the things that we need and want to do. I would expect a vehicle like this to find a market, but I don't see it being purchased by the masses, especially with a $24k price tag.

  25. Sprawl does not by itself render areas unused by SuperKendall · · Score: 1

    a culture of long-distance driving commutes is leading to serious long-term problems with respect to suburban sprawl and blight. Retreating residential neighborhoods a little further down the interstate every time an area falls into disrepair

    People don't move "a little further down the interstate" because of disrepair - they usually do so because of crowding and cost.

    There are lots of cities that have healthy city cores AND healthy suburbs that extend very far out.

    Yes most cities also have a "bad" area but that area is usually not core to the city, it's off to the side of the core and is avoided both by moving to the center, and the suburbs. And to me it seems only reasonable that people would want to use the ability a car gives them to live more remotely, to chose where on the scale of urban->suburban makes them most comfortable. Eliminating the car just means a lot of people suddenly don't have suburban as an option that would otherwise be much happier there, no matter how nice the city core was.

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
  26. Re:This may be a rather localized consideration bu by Bigbutt · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Perhaps. But the more folks who start out on 2 wheels, the more observant they are of the surrounding area and of motorcyclists. So bring it on. The more, the better.

    [John]

    --
    Shit better not happen!
  27. Re:This may be a rather localized consideration bu by ifiwereasculptor · · Score: 1

    It definitely looks nice, but I think they went too far. Protection from the elements and increased efficiency due to reduced air drag are wonderful things we should have equipped street bikes with long time ago. However, it's too heavy (360kg) and too expensive ($24,000), meaning it's more akin to a thin smart car than to a bubble bike. I'd bet a gas-powered 100kg moped can beat the C-1's city commute energy efficiency at a $1,500 price point, especially if we bring manufacturing into the equation. When we do that, the moped can end up being better for the environment, too.

  28. The C1 needs to be in a movie by RandCraw · · Score: 2

    Lit has to convince drivers (not bikers) that the C1 is worth the premium over a bike. But you could pour million$ into ads to promote that difference, or get a dozen road test reviews in the major car/bike mags, and *still* not get the word out.

    OR... You could feature the C1 in a movie, maybe sci fi or better yet, a movie about Makers. Those visuals would go a long way, especially footage of the C1 swooping through some esses -- "Where no bike has gone before".

    Maybe the C1 could be one of Tony Stark's ubertech toys in the next Iron Man flick?

    The company *is* located in LA, not 10 miles from Tinseltown...

  29. "It is code heavy.'" by DoctorBonzo · · Score: 1

    As someone who's developed a lot of code containing bugs not found 'til long after it's been used, this scares the shit out of me.

  30. Meanwhile in New Jersey and elsewhere by RogueWarrior65 · · Score: 1

    Forces who don't give a rat's ass about cool tech or changing how Americans drive are giving a collective middle finger to Tesla. This guy had better study how things with Tesla are unfolding very carefully because he's next.

  31. Beta sucks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "a culture of long-distance driving commutes is leading to serious long-term problems with respect to suburban sprawl and blight"

    Yeah, fsck all those sick bastards who don't want to live in crowded cities. They probably vote Republican, too.

    1. Re:Beta sucks by i+kan+reed · · Score: 1

      Well, that would instantly make them shitty human beings, but, pretending your suburbs aren't "crowded cities" is, at best, deluding yourself.

    2. Re:Beta sucks by khellendros1984 · · Score: 1

      When I think "suburbs", I think single-family homes and a lower population density than the city core. In comparison to cities, suburbs aren't crowded.

      --
      It is pitch black. You are likely to be eaten by a grue.
    3. Re:Beta sucks by i+kan+reed · · Score: 1

      They're crowded with all the things that make cities unpleasant: idiots, buildings, roads.

  32. Unhandled exception by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    clunk/crash/boom

  33. Awkward, by westlake · · Score: 1

    The driver in this picture looks as tense and cramped as if he were sandwiched on a high-speed expressway between two triple length truck trailers. I'm six foot tall and getting in and out of this low-rider doesn't promise to be any great joy either.

    I need an all-weather commuter car for upstate New York, not a $24K scooter designed for the photo-op in San Francisco,

  34. Failure modes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Supposedly the gyroscope has a failure mode that sounds about as elegant as that of a helicopter losing its engines. Plus even the wheels will have their own gyroscopic effect at speed.

  35. Go Danny, go! by FridayBob · · Score: 4, Interesting

    As opposed to the seemingly numerous SUV fans here, I'm apparently one of the exceptions who actually believes in this product. I heard about the C-1 in December 2012 and made my initial deposit for one only about a month later.

    I love everything about this idea. If successful, it will be the cheapest plug-in electric road vehicle on the market, it will have a range second only to a Tesla and it will have the fastest charging time of all due to its small battery. The latter, along with its speed and acceleration, is made possible by its low weight, and that's largely thanks to the fact that it has only two wheels. Mileage? The C-1 will get 200 miles on a 10 KWh battery, so think about that the next time you fill'er up. In the US that's about $1.25 for a full change, or 0.625 cents a mile. And yes, it'll always be more dangerous to drive than a car, but certainly safer than any motorcycle.

    Okay, you can tell from my homepage link that I'm based in the Netherlands, where cars are smaller on average than in the US, where lane splitting is legal (below a certain speed) and where gasoline prices are higher than anywhere else in the world. I also happen to have a motorcycle driver's license. But as much as I hate the fossil fuel industry (global warming, the Iraq war) and wish I could stop buying gasoline, until late 2012 there wasn't an electric vehicle available that I considered worth buying; cars like the Nissan Leaf aren't exactly cheap and don't have enough range, while the Tesla Model S is just too expensive. The Lit C-1 has both of those bases covered. And like a sports car the C-1 may not be very practical (although more so than a motorcycle), but considering what it offers in return I'm willing to put up with that.

    1. Re:Go Danny, go! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'd wait and see on the 200 mi range from a 10 kWh battery. The Zero S motorcycle gets 105 mi range (mixed city & hwy) from a 11.4 kWh pack. The C-1 would have better aerodynamics for freeway speed, but it's heavier than the 400 lbs Zero. The Zero's a good product for $15K (or $13K w/ smaller battery). Still a bit pricey and limited in freeway range, but I'd look at it if I needed a city commute bike.

  36. Re:This may be a rather localized consideration bu by timeOday · · Score: 1
    I think that depends on the market they are targeting. In the US, a 100KG moped will never sell, because it cannot have enough protection to make it reasonably safe. The per-mile death rate on motorcycles is about 35 times that of cars. That is out of the question to the vast majority of people who can afford something safer.

    Really it would be interesting to see how light you could make a reasonably safe vehicle, e.g. using a titanium frame with a carbon-fiber shell, then working backwards to make it cheaper from there. And by "reasonably safe," I mean putting it through the standard battery of NHTSA and insurance institute for highway safety tests.

  37. Re:This may be a rather localized consideration bu by ifiwereasculptor · · Score: 1

    Well, a Harley also doesn't offer enough protection to make it reasonably safe, and I think they sell pretty well in the US. Bikes sell about 500.000 units a year in there, that's a pretty ok number, roughly one in every 600 people seem to buy one each year (is my math correct? It seems too many people). There are lots of drivers, like me, ready to sacrifice safety for efficiency. I'm not saying it's a smart choice, but I think it's a choice made enough times as to create a hefty market.

  38. out of touch with reality by Goldsmith · · Score: 1

    People may "commute" alone, but the primary reason for a car purchase is not the commute. We'd all be in smart cars and fiats if all that mattered was getting to work efficiently and staying out of the rain. I think they need to think a bit more about why people (ok, specifically americans) buy cars.

    Maybe it's only 20% of the time I need cargo space, passenger space or the ability to mount a child's car seat. The reality is, it's that 20% of the time (moving kids around, weekend trips, runs to the hardware store) that determines what kind of car I drive.

    Maybe there is an economic argument to be made for maintaining a second, extremely cheap to operate vehicle. That cost based argument fails here when you consider competing low cost options like a bicycle, electric scooter, bus or a carpool.

  39. Cut out half the roads by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    LET the roads get crowded. You only put off the problem by feeding the beast. To get the demand for mass transit you need to create a problem; putting it off is not a permanent solution and wastes money.

    Suburban roads could be eliminated every other block. There is no reason blocks have to be as small as they are and waste so much space and upkeep fees. In a city of high traffic flow the roads there now are not enough but in the sprawl there is no reason to continue sizing things like that.

    We are having troubles migrating to turnabouts because people would rather spend $600 per year per intersection (that number came from a state rep) because voters are not comfortable with turnabouts.

    Then we have highway... it costs billions to add lanes to it and upkeep is not cheap since we don't properly charge commercial truckers for the massive harm they cause to the highway. We have real numbers showing that adding 1 lane to the highway does not reduce traffic because by the time the construction is completed (metro area) because the demand outstrips the rate of expansion! What is the solution? They simply talk about adding 2 or 3 lanes at a time and selectively doing a slow long term expansion. Bridges... way way too many.

    City zoning is all screwed up as well. In makes all these problems worse and it takes forever to fix mistakes. Housing developments make the most idiotic layouts, almost like they get a bonus for how much pavement they can put down!

    I remember AZ... backyards like prison yards (minimum security floor, medium security walls) with house to house spacing that seemed more like a hallway and while it wasn't covered, a 2-3 story house above the wall on each side made it feel pretty closed in. Tons of homeowner shit like a condo or apartment complex... I couldn't see the great benefit. Sound carried between those plastered chickenwire foamboard houses... I bet a hammer and wire cutter was easier than knocking down a door...

    1. Re:Cut out half the roads by beelsebob · · Score: 1

      LET the roads get crowded. You only put off the problem by feeding the beast. To get the demand for mass transit you need to create a problem; putting it off is not a permanent solution and wastes money.

      Actually, Britain has already demonstrated that this is a terrible idea. Many councils had this exact thought, and built large estates with only paths into them. The result was lots of small dark alleys that are ideal for crime, rather than nice wide well lit roads. This then cost more in police work than the upkeep on the roads would cost.

      That and the other incidental problems like older people being unable to carry their shopping back home etc.

  40. The Elio is for highway cruising by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The 3 wheeled Elio is designed for highway cruising. If you get into a crash at 75 mph, you're dead, SUV or Elio.

  41. Will succeed post driverless by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    http://www.ridemonkey.com/forums/f2/crash-testing-mini-cooper-vs-ford-f150-123180/

    In another analogy, there is the Ford F150 and the Mini Cooper. Again, it's all in the "perception" and not actual reality of a big truck/suv = safety.

  42. Meh... by cayenne8 · · Score: 1
    I'm more in the market these days for something with a more retro look...

    Something mid 70s with a 455 4-speed. 10mpg (on a good day) is what I'm looking for as my new "fun" car.

    --
    Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
    1. Re:Meh... by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      You've been saying that for ages but you still haven't bought anything in spite of the fact that there's lots of those cars around for not that much money. I'm starting to suspect you're just trolling.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    2. Re:Meh... by cayenne8 · · Score: 1

      You've been saying that for ages but you still haven't bought anything in spite of the fact that there's lots of those cars around for not that much money. I'm starting to suspect you're just trolling.

      You're right, I've not bought one yet.

      But in past couple of years, just when ready to get one, something came up.

      I really am hoping later this year, I can pull the trigger and get one.

      I constantly am still researching them, what to look for when buying, what I can get for my money, especially looking for a more or less already fully restored one, in the $18K range.

      I've been wanting one of these since I was a kid, so, it isn't unreasonable to still be wanting one while saving the funds up.

      But I don't know how to work on cars, I'd like to learn on this one since it would be such a simplistic car, no computer, basically and engine with carbs and drive train. But, I need to get one in as good of condition as I can to start with.

      And, there aren't that many of them in my immediate area of New Orleans. I see many more offered in TX, and it does take a bit of time/money/effort to buy an antique car that long of a distance.

      If ya'll know of a good deal on a '73-'76 Trans Am with a 455 4-speed, drop some links for me. Even if I can't get one this minute, it helps my research.

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
    3. Re:Meh... by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      And, there aren't that many of them in my immediate area of New Orleans.

      And if there were there's serious odds of them having been flooded. Checked out a really nice land rover discovery out here... smelled like a swamp. I guess they're exporting a lot of them to places where people don't think about such things.

      Texas is a good place for cars like that because they don't give a fuck about smog.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  43. rent a car! by Chirs · · Score: 1

    If you need to take passengers somewhere, rent a car for the day.

    I used to live with no car, and I could rent a small hatchback for $15/day on the weekends, with unlimited distance allowed.

    Now I've got kids and I'm in a city with worse public transit, so it'd be a lot harder to live without a car. But it's not a large car, and if we need more capacity then I borrow a trailer or rent a truck/minivan.

  44. Will believe Elio it when I see one by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    1. Re:Will believe Elio it when I see one by bsane · · Score: 1

      Those are pretty crazy sales targets they have, but my first thought when seeing a $6800 car that gets 84mpg is: I can buy one with the money I currently spend on gas when commuting. It'd be a no-brainer, a much better investment than a 50k Tesla that I'd be putting 30k miles on a year.

  45. Re:This may be a rather localized consideration bu by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    I ride a motorcycle to work every day too.

    Being a two wheeled vehicle it has several safety disadvantages, the design will always be inherently more dangerous regardless of how it is constructed simply because you have less than 1/2 the amount of contact patch with teh road (this also makes it more fuel efficient). And then the fact that it will have very low production numbers initially (along with increased risk of catastophic failures), would keep me away for a while. Oh that and I'd never get one because it looks super dorky. Part of the reason I ride a motorcycle vs an effiecient car is the badass factor. It shouldn't be underestimated.

  46. Mechanical gyro monorails by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Gyroscopic monorails were done 100 years ago. No code needed, and the momentum in the gyro meant the vehicle could stay upright for a good while without power.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gyro_monorail

  47. Hi Immerman by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yes having a single wheel up front does present a stability issue, which is why the Elio has two front wheels, and front wheel drive and a single rear wheel.

  48. Lit Motors C-1: Unobtainium by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Lit Motors C-1: Unobtainium

    Lit Motors still has yet to actually build a fully functional C-1 meeting the claimed performance specs.