And you thought the original segway was lame…
April 7th, 2009
|
| Share |
The Segway is one of those things that never really lived up to what it was supposed to be. It was sold as a revolutionary means of urban transportation that would change the way we live and commute. As it turns out, it’s really only a standup electric scooter that is neither faster nor more useful than the alternative: walking. Thus the Segway has really only been used as a gimmick, a toy for rich people and occasionally a rental for tourists to get around on. The only place it’s found much utility has been occasional use for police or guards who are provided some greater endurance by using it versus walking, assuming they can get to the battery stations frequently. Since you have to stand on the Segway, it’s not exactly cut out for those with mobility problems, but for those who can walk but just don’t want to, the Segway might be the way to go.
That’s not to say the Segway is not pretty good for what it is. It’s an electric scooter and as far as electric scooters go, it’s a good one. It’s just not going to change transportation or society. Supposedly the Segway is a revolutionary way of moving people because it uses an advanced system of gyroscopes to keep it stable on two wheels. It is pretty cool that it can do that, however there are also similar products which acomplish the same thing by using three wheels instead of two.
On the other hand, the new product that has been the combined efforts of GM and Segway is… To put it bluntly: Plenty of people have pointed out that General Motors needs to change in order to continue on as a viable company with viable products. That may be true, but if this is their idea of “Change” then they’re already doomed
Yes, it’s the P.U.M.A. or “Personal Urban Mobility and Accessibility.” It uses the innovative gyroscopic system of the Segway to allow it to run on only two wheels (well, mostly, it still needs casters for when it stops or rolls forward a bit.) Like the Segway, it has a fairly limited range (it’s stated as being 35 miles, but if the Segway is any indicator, that’s only when driven very gently and the range at higher speeds is much less). It seats two and has a small airbag, assuring that should it get in an accident, it’ll look even more goofey than before hand.
By 2030, 60 percent of the world’s population will live in densely populated urban centers. They will not be driving and parking cars as we know them today, but GM and Segway have teamed up to imagine something they might be able to drive and park. It’s called the P.U.M.A., for Personal Urban Mobility and Accessibility, and it basically takes the concept of the gyro-stabilized two-wheel stand-up Segway PT, widens and reconfigures it to accommodate two seated passengers, and adds rudimentary protection from the elements. Like the PT, it features all-electric, lithium-ion powered by-wire drive and braking, controlled by an airplane-like steering yoke that you push forward or pull back for go or whoa. Braking is entirely regenerative, with no friction elements, and suspension compliance is shared by the tires, the wheel-to-chassis connection, and the chassis-to-passenger cell mounting. We’re skeptical of P.U.M.A.’s ability to cope with the worst potholes offered up by the mean streets of NYC or Kolkata, India.
he P.U.M.A.’s footprint is about 1/6th the size of a normal car’s allowing 380 to parallel park around a typical New York City block, as opposed to about 81 normal cars. It weighs a fraction as much as a conventional car and is expected to incur 1/4 to 1/3 the operating costs of a conventional commuter car. With lights, license, seatbelts, a range of 35 miles and a top speed of 35 mph, the only thing needed to conform to FMVSS500 Neighborhood Electric Vehicle standards is a 25-mph speed governor and a waiver to allow two-wheeled NEVs (might the two front parking casters or the rear wheelie-bar emergency wheels help satisfy the wheel-count?).
A few thoughts that come to mind:
I’m not the type that cares very much about being hip and stylish. I’m more than willing to be uncool and goofey, but even I would not be caught dead in that thing?
So it’s a high speed version of a wheel chair?
It’s a sad sad sad day when this thing is covered by “Motor Trend” and considered part of the automobile market.
I’ve seen something similar, old people ride them in the mall…
And I’m not even kidding. The image above is of the Ospre Electric Scooter, which is available for about three thousand US dollars. It’s the kind of product that is targeted at senior citizens, those with circulatory or other problems that prevent them from walking great distances and the handicapped in general. It can travel about 35 miles and has a top speed of about 10 mph. It’s a bit slower but otherwise pretty much on par with the Segway P.U.M.A. It also doesn’t have two seats, although there are electric scooters that do. There are also electric scooters that cost much much less than the one cited above, but might not have as great a range of speed.
While there’s been no price announced for the GM/Segway PUMA, it’s worth noting that even the basic model Segway units are a cool five grand or more. Some of the more featureful models of the Segway, which come with enhanced battery packs and more powerful motors sell for upwards of ten thousand dollars. If the new PUMA is based on the same technology, you’re looking at an investment of at least several thousand dollars.
But lets not forget something else: While this thing looks more like a competitor for a wheelchair than a transport scooter, there are plenty of products which offer one to two person transport at speeds, ranges and footprints comparable to this thing. Have they taken over the urban transport market? Not exactly. Sure, electric powered carts have found nitch markets on golf courses, in large warehouses, airports. There are also electric mopeds, small scooters, electrically-assisted bicycles and even (GASP) human-powered bikes.
This site, for example, has all manner of urban electric scooters, many with speeds and ranges greater than the PUMA thing. They generally only seat one person, but at less than $500 a pop you could buy two (or ten) and they’re even small enough to carry up to your office or apartment. What do you do with the PUMA when not driving it? Chain it to something and hope nobody pees on it?
What makes this GM/Segway thing better than all the existing electric carts and scooters? Beats the hell out of me!
Another question:
How exactly could you even get around the city in one of these things? It certainly does not seem like it would be fit for the sidewalk, especially a crowded one. (Assuming its even allowed on the Sidewalk. Segways are not in many places) So what do you do? Drive it with traffic? Sorry, but there’s NO WAY I’d take that thing on FDR Drive in New York City or try to drive it over the Manhattan Bridge at rush hour. Getting stuck between two cabs over the East River in that thing would be a nightmare.
It could probably be driven on wide walkways that are not too crowded and in areas where the streets have a large shoulder or a dedicated bicycle lane it would certainly be possible. It may be possible to use it in downtown city traffic, on the slower, more stop-and-go kind of streets. Those kind of streets can be navigated with a scooter or a bike relatively easily. This thing I’m not so sure about. Perhaps it could get by if it had a safety flag on it, so trucks and buses could see it. (As if it doesn’t look ridiculous enough to begin with.)
At least New York might be survivable in this thing. Boston on the other hand, would almost certainly be fatal.
It *might* work in cities with lanes for rickshaws, but I’m not sure I’d want to drive it in the traffic of most Asian cities either.
GM envisions a real PUMA would be stuffed with electronics for constant communications among other vehicles that would handle much of the driving. GM showed off a video imagining how fully formed PUMAs would work – zipping around streets in perfect single file, using telemetry to avoid crashes, and bodywork that folds open like a mechanical egg, like a mashup of “Transformers” and “Paul Blart: Mall Cop.”
“Think Facebook on wheels,” says Burns, the first of several obligatory and stretched Internet references set for this year’s New York International Auto Show.
Facebook? What, was “iPod on Wheels” just too 2006? I have to ask why exactly this scooter thing even needs to be filled with electronic communications systems and video capabilities. On journeys of a few miles or less, most people I know don’t need the aid of a GPS navigation system and when it comes to potholes or or obstructions, the standard way of avoiding them usually involves looking at the road and steering around them.
It seems ironic that they even have to invoke popular web services like Facebook to try to justify how new and current their product is. It reminds me a bit of the Microsoft Zune and AOL’s video service, both of which tried too hard to jump on the bandwagon with popular services and failed quite badly. When legitimate trend setting products like the iPod, Youtube, Facebook or Google come along, they don’t need to try to legitimize their place by comparing their product to other popular products and services.
Needless to say there’s a huge “Green” and “environmental” side to this assault on good taste and better judgment.
This looks like nothing more but the same peak-energy, low-consumption, miserable future crap we’ve seen so much about recently. One newspaper called it ” GM’s Segway to a fuel-miserly future.” It’s also been pointed out that GM is considering the possibility of ditching the Hummer brand. The “much despised” Hummer is not selling very well at the moment, but at least the Hummer is a vehicle which has some utility. Whether or not GM decides to keep the Hummer not withstanding, this is sure as hell not the replacement. The Hummer appeals to a very natural human desire: To be comfortable while traveling and having safety, space and utility in a vehicle. The current “Green” fad and guilt trip is the only reason anyone would want to consider riding in one of these things.
There has been a guilt-based trend toward praising those who take one for the team and do things the “green” way by giving up a nice smooth air conditioned ride. In this spirit, vehicles which are especially noticeable for their lameness get bonus points. Nobody ever seems to notice when you ride the subway or bike around the city, but when you ride in one of these, it screams “Look at me. I’m ridding in this to be responsible and ecologically friendly.” Still, even this mentality has to have its limits. Driving to work in this thing with full upper body restraints takes things to a new level of ridiculous.
Many reports cite that this vehicle is “Green” and that it could potentially be powered by “renewable energy” making it an orgy of buzzwords and feel good terms. It is true that the vehicle does run on a very small amount of energy compared to a car and because it’s electric, the energy is pretty damn cheap. Of course, that also means that it’s really a coal powered vehicle, at least in the US, Australia, Germany, the UK, Russia, China and many other places. But coal is cheap as dirt and dirty as dirt too.
I’m actually floored by how out of touch GM could be with what makes a good, useful vehicle. It may be a case of the pendulum swinging too far. GM has suffered much criticism for not providing the economical small cars that a recession creates demand for, but this is ridiculous!
Apparently some disagree with this sentimant, such as this commenter at market blog:
For the first time, well ever, I am optimistic and enthusiastic about GM. Surely everyone can agree that the vehicle described above is the future of personal transportation! While it would have been nice if General Motors had been this innovative and possessed such foresight earlier, perhaps it is better late then never and GM will survive after all.
Now, what is GM trading at today? I might just take a flyer and buy.
That comment seems to be somewhat representative of at least a few who are sold on the low-energy, small-vehicle, small-home, non-consumer, “modest” future. Perhaps I’m just crazy or maybe the emperor does indeed have no clothes.
And just to reiterate, I still can’t figure out what the hell makes this thing any better, more useful or desirable than a traditional electric scooter, moped (electric or otherwise) or for that matter, a bicycle. If anyone can come up with a reason, I’d love to hear it.
This entry was posted on Tuesday, April 7th, 2009 at 9:37 pm and is filed under Bad Science, Culture, Enviornment, Just LAME, Politics, media. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
View blog reactions
April 9th, 2009 at 12:31 pm
Oh one other thing: I maintain that it’s approperate to assume the worst reasonable case for range with a battery electric vehicle, because it must always work under varried conditions, including bad ones.
If I drive 40 miles to work every day, then some days it will be worse than others. On occasion I’m going to have an especially bad commute. Imagine, for example, that it’s very very hot so I have the A/C up all the way just to stay reasonably comfortable. I am on my way but I get stuck in traffic that has me sitting there for a long time with the air conditoning because there’s a jackknifed tractor trailer. Finally, after waiting for a long time in dead slow stop and go traffic, I get off the highway and zig-zag along backroads to get to an alternate route, but when I get there I find that the traffic is only slightly better because of the traffic that spilled over from the highway. Finally when I do get going I end up having to take a longer route.
This kind of thing happens. It has happened to me. I’ve gotten stuck in horrible traffic after a major accident and had to take an alternate route. I once found myself stuck on the highway for almost an hour because of (I kid you not) a biker gang shooting on the highway that had it completely closed for police investigating.
I expect my car to get me to my destination even in such a bad situation. This kind of circumstance might only happen once or twice a year, but if my car leaves me stranded then that’s still once or twice too often.
Besides, I’d rather run out of gasoline than out of battery power. If I run out of gas, the state police can provide a gallon of gasoline and I’m on my way.
Quote Comment
April 9th, 2009 at 1:52 pm
Q said:
To digress a bit, Apple actually does have some understanding that none of the other consumer electronics or computer manufacturers seem to have – that not all “features” are actually necessary.
(Examples include the Shuffle and the iPhone, but I won’t go into details – the curious can search the web. I believe DaringFireball has written a lot on that point. Do less, better – not more, mediocre.)
Those that don’t have a fit in the Apple product line shouldn’t buy one, and I imagine Jobs would be the first to say so. (“Want a cheap 17″ laptop? Buy a Dell, have fun. Apple’s not interested in that market, sorry.”)
It would probably be better for Tesla if they took such a view… but that might not suffice to save them. Segway is simply going to be a niche company if it survives at all.
Quote Comment
April 9th, 2009 at 2:03 pm
I disagree with your assessment of the Segway. While it received more hype than it deserved initially, it has found a sort of niche to sustain some sales and hopefully stay alive as a business. Yes, it’s too expensive. No, it does not revolutionize urban transportation, and it never “sold” itself that way from Segway either. Rather, it has the potential to fill a gap in transportation needs – motorized, small footprint, no emissions, easy to control at safe speeds. Those qualities do indeed give the benefits of being able to travel faster than walking. At a top speed of 12 mph, this is easily 4x faster than the average walking person. Even at a moderate 8 mph, that’s still over 2.5x faster than average walking. As for being able to accomplish the same thing with 3 wheels instead of two, yes, it can move from point a to b, but it will not have the same ride quality as the Segway.
I’ve not rode on a Segway as of yet, but everyone who I talk to who has says they love it, that it feels like a flying sensation, the machine is very intuitive and feels like an extension of the body. While you might not be one for style, good industrial design does sell products. Personally, the other examples of electric scooters and vehicles you pictured are very ugly. Granted GM and Segway have some styling work to do with this latest incarnation, but don’t knock it just yet.
People make fun of the Segway as being dorky looking or that the person is too lazy to walk, but how about the people who are cruising the aisles of Costco in those sitdown scooters? But I digress, the problem isn’t that the Segway is too expensive or over designed, the problem is the transportation problem it seeks to make a contribution in solving. Dense urban environments are stressful to drive in and suburban sprawl is an outgrowth of the only viable transportation readily available – the car – and thus there’s no happy medium between these extremes transportation wise.
Bikes are bulky and not crowd friendly, or even welcome on sidewalks. For many people, riding a bike off the sidewalk feels very risky. Like the Segway, don’t look at this experimental vehicle as what it is not, look at it for what it is. Remember, Dean Kamen first came out with this technology with the iBot wheelchair, a very useful invention for people who are bound to wheelchairs. Remember, a lot of useful inventions came about not from instant appeal, but slowly over time, they gained traction (no pun intended) despite ample criticism.
Quote Comment
April 9th, 2009 at 2:36 pm
Jason Ribeiro said:
Them I guess you have forgotten all the “IT” hype that proceeded its introduction. In fact it was advertised as a revolution in urban transport that was going to have as big an impact as the PC had on our culture and the way we live.
It was so over the top, that half the reason people still dump on the Segway is because of the letdown when it was finally shown. It’s a cool bit of tech, no question, but it isn’t the Second Coming in transportation, and the niche it fills is very small.
Quote Comment
April 9th, 2009 at 3:03 pm
From here, bottom of the page,
Quote Comment
April 9th, 2009 at 4:37 pm
DV82XL said:
No, I didn’t forget about “IT”. But I’m not going to hold Segway to account for a marketing campaign that flopped. Lots of companies make bad marketing decisions that become the butt of jokes, but I still use many of their products. I don’t think there will be a “second coming of transportation” but maybe this new device might make some headway toward that direction with a special radio controlled in special lanes autopilot feature–something that’s been talked about for years for cars. While the Segway niche is small now, I still think it’s biggest drawback is the price. If they could sell them for something like $600-700 a lot more people would buy them. Even the “3rd wheel” segway doesn’t sell that low. When it comes to basic everyday transportation most of us have only a few choices – car, bike, or walk. The segway attempts to add to that choice set. Hopefully there will be more choices in the future and more affordable.
Quote Comment
April 9th, 2009 at 5:21 pm
Jason Ribeiro said:
I don’t think so, first its been pointed out that this device is not suitable for any existing urban center, and certainly not during inclement weather. This is the transportation mode of domed cities, something else we have been waiting for since the 1939 World’s Fair, along with autopilot cars. And even if this were posible, other, simpler, more robust platforms are available rather than these complex rickshaws.
Keep in mind that if you are looking for some sort of public network, these units are going to get the stuffing driven out of them (even a private car that is use to commute gets no more than 60 to 120 min a day use) and these are just to flimsy and complex for the task. In the end it would be more cost effective to put in a light tramway network than anything like this.
Quote Comment
April 9th, 2009 at 5:48 pm
After reading your comment DrBuzz0 I looked around to see whats available in electric motorcycles. Been about a year since I last did that.
http://www.zeromotorcycles.com/zero-s.php
http://www.enertiabike.com/index.php?setFirstVisitAgain=1
Both of these companies seem to be selling electric motorcycles. Running between $10-12K. I’m not big on the styling thou, to dirt bike or crotch rocket for me. I would really like to see one styled more like this.
http://www.enfieldmotorcycles.com/models/deluxe.html
I would like the option for a back seat rider with saddle bags for storage. Royal Enfields are best for commuting and old style touring, not highway riding. Also weight plays a big part on the slabs, for highways I don’t like to ride anything less than 600lbs, less than that is to uncomfortable and tiring to me on highway.
I do think motorcycles are going to be the 1st major victory(if they stop making them look stupid and try to be more normal) for electric thou. The Torque advantage for electric over IC is perfect for motorcycles. Power to weight ratio is more important where acceleration is concerned rather than pure HP, so the advantage will be more obvious in a cycle than an actual car. Another advantage is that you don’t need a clutch (transmission) the electric motors are stable at high RPMs and with full torque development at all levels. This cuts weight in the form of parts and saves energy by reducing mechanical loss. And last a motorcycle is not usually as big a financial investment as a car, i think more people would be willing to take a chance on a cycle being a lemon than a car.
Anyway that’s my prediction, developers just need to concentrate on perfecting modes of transport that already exist with the tools on hand, rather than trying to come up with the next “IT”
Quote Comment
April 9th, 2009 at 7:06 pm
DV82XL said:
Where did you see it pointed out that the device is not suitable for any existing urban center? From the opinion of this blog or elsewhere? If it is similar size and weight to a rickshaw, then its adequate enough for some transport just as the suggested alternatives are.
I’ve read one other article on this device, but I’ve yet to see anything explicitly stated that was such a reservation of the design thus and giving it a strictly experimental status. In which case, it’s nothing more than a concept vehicle anyways. That article I read mentioned GM’s idea of these vehicles being radio controlled. As to how that would be deployed – public owned vehicles, rental, private, etc. – I have no idea, but I don’t think light weight and small necessarily mean flimsy or complex. I have seen electric Zenn cars being driven around town and they only do 35 mph. I’ve seen people ride their segways on the commuter train too.
I’m not trying to praise this vehicle as any type of award winner, I’m just glad that something is being attempted to shift the thinking of transportation. As you point out, typical commutes might be 60-120 mins per day and I know this painfully. When it took me 90 minutes to travel 12 miles on the “freeway” to get home, there are days where I would have loved to travel at a steady 35 mph rather than go through mind numbing stop and go traffic. Slow but steady with less would have been a nice option.
Quote Comment
April 9th, 2009 at 7:10 pm
Jason Ribeiro said:
The Segway is a good vehicle for what it is and I tried to make that clear – that I don’t think it is a crappy piece of technology. It’s good for what it is. The Segway is basically a standup electric scooter that moves at relatively slow speeds of up to 12mph (although running it at the top speed eats the battery). As far as electric scooters go, the Segway is a pretty good one. It’s also an extremely expensive one, but a good one.
In the extremely narrow circumstances where one desires a low to medium speed electric scooter and where it is somehow desirable to stand up (and also where it won’t need to deal with stairs) the Segway is a good product. Someone mentioned using Segways as a means of getting from one terminal to another for a connecting flight. That, to me, is one of the few circumstances, where a Segway may have a legitimate place where it has usefulness that few other things could provide. Airports can be long walks and personally I find it a bit annoying to have to take long walks when I’ve been crammed into a coach-class seat for several hours and have a caryon slung over my shoulder. If it gets passengers more comfortably from one gate to another and makes the whole thing faster then that’s great.
I’d be hard pressed to think of many other situations where the cost would really be justified or a nitch would exist for this thing.
I’ve been on a Segway and yes, it is very stable and foes drive very easily. It’s not amazing or anything – just a good electric scooter. Also, having two wheels does have some minor advantages. You get a smooth easily controled ride and the ability to spin or move forward and back and you also can keep the vehicle vertical relative to earth’s gravity when moving up or down a hill. This is a very minor thing though, because the Segway can’t really take on a very steep grade and you’d really be hard pressed to notice the small tilt on a three or four wheeled vehicle.
Are these features nice? Yeah. Does it make the Segway that unique and amazing? Not really. It’s a pretty minor feature you’d hardly miss if it weren’t there.
Lets not forget, this fairly descent electric scooter was supposed to be the “Next revolution in transportation” and it was sold as being how everyone would be traveling, it would change how cities are layed out, it would be to transportation what the cell phone was to communication. Of course, I thought that was ridiculous from the start.
If they had sold it as “This electric scooter type thing is more stable than other electric scooters and has a natural motion and feel. We’ve made the electric scooter better.” Then fine. I mean in some ways, the Segway is the Rolls Royce of low to medium speed, small footprint electric scooters, but it is still, in the end, an electric scooter.
Quote Comment
April 9th, 2009 at 7:34 pm
Jason Ribeiro said:
Here up-thread in comments #18 and #20
J Carlton said:
Ctrl Alt Del said:
Which underlines the point I was making: this device is just not as suitable or as cost-effective urban transport as other systems.
As for the idea that ’someone is trying to do something’, it is painfully obvious that this is just a bit of grandstanding fluff, as have been most other concept vehicles that car companies float from time to time, made particularly irrelevant by the fact that one of the principals is on the edge of bankruptcy.
Quote Comment
April 9th, 2009 at 11:12 pm
Ok, so the “not suitable” claim comes from some well made arguments in the comments here, fair enough, but I still don’t think this is a case closed. As far as “cost effective” goes, you don’t need an urban environment to to measure effectiveness either. The example I gave, traveling 12 miles in 90 minutes on the freeway, comes from my own suburban experience. I live in a place where we have a regional metro(s) yet they don’t cure traffic ills, they only prevent them from being less of an all out horror than they already are (and they’re expensive too). Going through these experiences daily does not convince me the automobile is the superior transportation solution at all. It quickly reaches a point of critical mass to where a brisk pedestrian starts to outpace it. Certainly cars are versatile to a point, but they cost a lot and if you factor in the cost of fighting commuter traffic for 80% of their use, they become an unwelcome burden for so many that have no other choice. The so called “commuter” lanes are a joke, that are rarely used and only make the choke points even worse. I think it’s painfully obvious that the North American mindset is set in its ways and anything that comes out contrary to the expected norm is shunned for not having things like climate controls. I don’t think this vehicle was designed for people like yourself in mind in the fist place. I’m sure the people who worked on this project didn’t regard it as fluff either. As I said before, this might not be much of a solution, but it does represent thinking their attempt to address future challenges and I believe those challenges have current relevance.
Quote Comment
April 9th, 2009 at 11:53 pm
They keep referring to these vehicles as “zero emissions,” but nothing that you have to plug in to an electric outlet to recharge is truly zero emissions. Not when such a significant amount of our electricity is produced by coal burning power plants.
Quote Comment
April 10th, 2009 at 12:39 am
Please don’t assume that I am saying that existing automobiles are the right vehicle for urban transport, nor are they the best commuter mode. But any replacement has to meet certain minimums. Climate control, for example in any city where the temperature can be low enough to cause windshield frosting, is not just an issue of creature comfort. There are other systems out there that can do the job better, and if indeed it is time to rethink transit, they will likely be more practical than this GM/Segway product.
The idea is nothing new. Check out this website Personal Rapid Transit for some other well developed concepts and provides background on current PRT efforts in the US as well as in Asia and Europe. People are working on this, but these systems are not easy to design or implement, and not just because the public is obstreperous. See: Personal Automated Transport for more projects underway around the world.
In my opinion, there isn’t going to be a one type fits all design. Most probably each area will have to develop something that meets its particular loads and traffic pattern. But all of the ones I see out there are far ahead of the GM/Segway system, and more practical.
Quote Comment
April 10th, 2009 at 1:48 am
DV82XL said:
No, automobiles are not the best way to commute, but they work reasonably well (better than this thing ever could) and they have very good utility. Few things in the world are optimal and most of the time, when coming up with a solution to something like this, we don’t have the luxury of a clean sheet of paper to start from – there’s existing infrastructure to integrate it into as well as manufacturing capabilities, reglatory issues – the list goes on (and on and on).
for commuting within the city limits, public transit works very well. This is especially true when it’s something like a subway or lightrail or otherwise has its own right of way independent of traffic. There’s a reason why in New York City the poorest and some of the richest ride the subway: it’s the best way to get around at any price.
For commuting in areas that are not very densely populated like a real urban center things are more complex. Public transit is really only so-so for that kind of situation. I think cars are here to stay but there are ways we can improve on them and better integrate the system. We’re slowely moving toward more automation in car driving. Self-driving cars have been technically feisable for some time, but we’re finally seeing things like active cruise control coming online and eventually I think cars will be able to basically drive themselves on the highway, but it might not be for some time.
This could be where we’ll eventually see things go: highways with cars traveling at 90 mph with just a few inches of clearance, possibly at rush hour, a whole four lanes and the breakdown lane traveling at such speeds bumper to bumper, with the cars signaling to each other to briefly make a gap so one of the cars can get off at an exit.
One of the things with a car is that most people don’t have the income or storage space to have multiple vehicles for different purposes. A standard car might not be optimal for all travel needs, but it can cover most of them decently.
Quote Comment
April 10th, 2009 at 9:12 am
There’s just two problems with people pods/movers/whatever they are called this year. They are very expensive, both to build and operate,with very high maintenance cost. They also just don’t work beyond beyond the demo setups in very limited circumstances. These kinds of systems lack the flexibility and durability to survive the real world as the littered remnants of earlier efforts to do the same kind of thing attest. They may look good in a paper and make statist university professor types happy, but in the real world, the excess maintenance costs, low reliability and high first costs are killers every time one of these systems is tried. I wish there were a website for bad transportation ideas with pictures of all the failed vehicles and explanations of how they died so we don’t keep making the same stupid mistakes.
DV82XL said:
Quote Comment
April 10th, 2009 at 9:33 am
J Carlton said:
Again, I don’t want my remarks to be taken out of context. I linked to these other sites only to illustrate that conceptually the automated GM/Segway system is nothing new or revolutionary in and of itself. I happen to agree that the expense of creating a usable system of this type is probably prohibitive and it is unlikely that they will become widespread.
I agree also with drbuzz0 that it is more likely that anything along these lines is going to manifest itself as autopilots on private automobiles
Quote Comment
April 10th, 2009 at 7:23 pm
No good deed goes unpunished and no bad idea remains unrepeated:
http://blog.modernmechanix.com/2009/04/05/see-all-body/
The advantage of a car is it’s flexibility and ability remove the chains of time and give freedom to its driver. If I had to do all the things that I do with even the best transportation systems in the world, like Japan’s system the time costs would become unreasonable very quickly or many of the things I want to do would just cease to exist.
Quote Comment
April 10th, 2009 at 7:45 pm
JCARLTON said:
…..and no bad idea remains unrepeated
So very true
Quote Comment
April 11th, 2009 at 12:34 am
J Carlton said:
Actually, the electric ultralight vehicle will be far more reliable than the extremely complex ICE vehicle. Built of composites – should last a lifetime. No problem in extreme cold – no broken brake lines or power steering hoses or CV boots. With wheel motors, zero turning radius, accelerations of 0-60 km/hr in 2.5 secs are easily achievable. Industrial Frequency Drives and Motors commonly run for 4 yrs or more non-stop – the equivalent of over one million miles for a vehicle. You could build an AWD out of composites yourself for about $7,000 using powerful Bicycle Hub Motors like the Crystalyte 5304’s. 25 km per kwh is easily achievable. Less than Obama’s subsidy for buying a new vehicle. For heat in the winter, an onboard fuel powered heater is very economical. Methanol, being the best fuel. It is 6 times more efficient to heat a vehicle with a fuel fired heater than running an ICengine for heat. 1 litre of diesel or 2 litres of Methanol will keep a small computer car warm for 5 hrs. Composites can have 13 times the energy absorbing ability of steel, in a head on collision at a top speed of 80 km/hr, two ultralight BEV’s could be made to simply bounce off each other.
In most cities a peddle bike can keep up to a car in a typical commute. And an E-Bike can easily beat a car, due their high maneuverability and small footprint. With cars in the city, the main premise is hurry up and wait. Why have all those intersections, with people waiting most of their commute, in particular for left turns, when highways designed for ultralight BEV’s could have prefab overpasses, due to the light weight and low height of the vehicles, installed in a day or two.
Note that traffic congestion cost the consumer in the U.S, $64 billion, and traffic accidents $164 billion in 2005. Have a collision between the typical Steel Tank automobile and there will be mayhem & destruction, which caused 40,443 deaths and 2.7 million injuries in the U.S. in 2005. And the mess created in these accidents can block already crowded roads for an hour or more. With the ultralight BEV, if broke down or damaged, grab it with one hand and drag it off the road.
Just bury a communication cable in the road, when on the road the BEV drives itself, take your hands off the controls – and relax until you get to your destination. For longer distance travel, like between cities or a dozen or so points in a large city, use high speed rail lines, you simply drive your BEV onto a carrier which moves it onto a rail line – charges it while its being transported – drops you off on a off-ramp at destination – no waiting – no delays.
Much more efficient to have an open architecture – mass produced ultralight BEV for commuter travel – using standardized components – namely – battery pack, driver interface (drive by wire and steer by wire), wheel motors, Power Electronics Module and battery charger. For pulling loads, 4 or more passengers, country travel, or carrying substantial cargo, the more traditional vehicle would be great, except it should be a series hybrid with 60-80 miles per gallon is quite acheivable – for those who can afford them – or rent one – and they can be driven on the truck route.
Quote Comment
April 11th, 2009 at 1:08 am
Warren Heath said:
The trouble with having spent a lifetime in industry is that when people are pitching an idea you learn to pick up on key words: ‘just’ for example is code for watch my hands wave us past this difficulty; ‘prefab’ – generally means ‘we expect someone else to solve this problem; and ’should last a lifetime’, ‘No problem’, ‘no waiting’ and ‘no delays’ are all code for ‘we haven’t even considered these things’
Again, I will point out that these ideas were being modeled 70 years ago, by GM (ironically) in their pavilion at the ‘39 World’s Fair. They haven’t been implemented because they do not meet the markets needs and they would be expensive to create. They are as J Carlton said: pipe dreams of engineering schools, not practical systems.
Systems like this are very hard to make, just look at the similar efforts of building automatic baggage routing at major airports. Some systems have been in beta for over a decade, just over the software and these were builds that had the advantage of being compact, indoors with a limited number of operators. They also got to change existing infrastructure on a scale that would make any urban planner wet his pants with glee. Yet still many just don’t work.
The other factor is that always good enough is the enemy of better, and that means that all of these systems, if they are not evolutionary, and based on existing infrastructure and hardware, will always be stillborn.
Quote Comment
April 11th, 2009 at 1:12 am
Jason Ribeiro said:
Understood that the concept of a small electric person mover has applications, but going back to the well formed arguments, please explain why this hyper-expensive thing is better than say a golf cart or electric scooter. It’s a lot of engineering toward a non-existnat problem. Why bother with the whole segway thing? just put four wheels on it and a small electric motor.
There is a big difference between saying this thing is crap and saying that small electric vehicles are crap. As far as small electric vehicles go, this is an unnecessarily complex and expensive one with no real benefits and it also happens to be of a form factor that makes it less portable than some of the same performance and it’s also appears to be not the safest thing because it’s too short and squat to see well.
we can make short-range electric vehicles that fill needs without this kind of reinventing of the wheel.
Quote Comment
April 11th, 2009 at 1:18 am
Wow. I love the “Facebook on wheels” comment. That’s horrible. That guy needs to be fired NOW. Have you ever heard such a missplaced and blatent attempt to try to make something seem hip, trendy or new?
What else can he throw at it “Web 2.0 of transportation” “It’s transportation for the blogosphere” “This is the Youtube autombile” “It’s the prefect companion for your iphone and your Wii”
That just about made me sick.
No, idiot. Facebook is a website that is popular becasue it makes it easy to organize your contacts and network and connect with friends you haven’t seen since high school. That’s why it’s popular. This is not “facebook on wheels” This worse than the microsoft Zune when it comes to horribly failing to get in on some new trend.
Quote Comment
April 11th, 2009 at 1:49 pm