ruphus13 writes "The race for a hyper-fuel-efficient car is on in a big way. Now, Riversimple has tried to leverage the knowledge of the masses to bring its vision to reality soon with a car that gives the equivalent of 300 miles to the gallon. 'The idea to build an open source car isn't a new one, but you've got to give vehicle design company Riversimple credit for originality. The company plans to unveil its first car in London later this month, a small two-seater that weighs roughly 700 pounds. If you agree to lease one for 20 years (yes, 20), Riversimple will throw in the cost of fuel for the lifetime of the lease...The team decided to release the car's designs under an open source license in order to speed up the time it takes to develop the vehicle while also driving down the cost of its components.'"
The company plans to unveil its first car in London later this month, a small two-seater that weighs roughly 700 pounds.
A car that will never sell anywhere in the US due to total inability to pass crash safety test. I'm actually surprised that it can be sold anywhere in the first world, to be honest.
Introducing bigger cars into the market is a zero sum game for car safety, and a net safety loss for pedestrians. This car would be safe enough without all those SUV's.
Time will tell, but as soon as oil prices are high enough, those kind of car will become a necessity, while SUV's will have to stay parked.
You mean there would be no trouble selling it to people who want to drive motorcycles and didn't care about style or performance.
Many people don't consider motorcycles safe enough to own one let alone drive it. The difference here is that it is being presented as a car and people are taking the same objections as they would have for motorcycles.
I guess you'll find it isn't actually a car, but it is registered and taxed as a quad bike. A popular electric vehicle in London, the GWiz, is classed as a quad bike.
A car that will never sell anywhere in the US due to total inability to pass crash safety test.
This is something that people in the US seem to bring up a lot. You do realise that American cars are incredibly expensive to insure in the UK and EU, because they do so badly in crash tests? A great example is the Hummer H2 - uninsurable in the UK, because if you clip a kerb at anything above parking speeds, you'll die. A friend of mine recently shredded an H2 that had clipped a parked car (Renault Scenic) at
Of course the majority of the worlds population now lives in cities, and many of them are huge. In London it's pretty common to have a one hour commute from one part of the city to another.
Ob.: Move closer to work, or get a job somewhere more convenient ?
You only have one life to live. I'd rather not spend mine stuck in traffic, which is why I'm quite glad my office is only 2 miles away from my apartment and an 8 minute bike/bus/cab ride.
A long commute does not add value to your job. If you work a 40-hour work week, and your commute is an hour each way, it's kind of like taking a 20% pay cut. Well I'd rather take a job that pays 20% less and spend those two free hours on something else, like arguing on slashdot;)
I don't see the point of very small cars like this. If I don't need to carry anything I will ride my bike. If I do then I use my big, inefficient van. A small car wouldn't be much use to me because it can't carry much.
Yes, it certainly is a total piece of crap because it doesn't suit your lifestyle.
Many countries are full of tiny cars, where they serve as the primary (and inexpensive) vehicle for many people, some of who either can't afford a full-size car or are moving up from scooters and motorcycles. It might sound strange to you, but there are many countries where automobiles are not a religion, and paying a fixed lump sum a month to own a car is an attractive option. Plus, if you've ever seen the tiny winding streets of many European cities, you'll realize that this car isn't all that impractical in the right setting.
Of course, forget about it in the US, except maybe in Oregon.
"there are many countries where automobiles are not a religion" Sorry, I couldn't hear your reply over your snootyness. Cars are a necessity in the US. We have more room and things are much father spread out. Try getting around a typical western US city without a car.
by Anonymous Coward
on Saturday June 13, @08:29AM (#28319363)
I call shenanigans on this. Australia has a population density of 2.6/sq. km. The USA has a population density of 31/sq. km. That means that the US is nearly 1200% more densely populated than Australia. With the exception of rural folk like farmers and miners (who need them), "Soccer Moms", and other types that have their heads filled with The American Dream, almost no-one drives American-style big cars here. Quite a few of my friends get around without cars at all - bikes, public transport, motorbikes/scooters, etc. Many of them own unnecessarily big houses, just because they're cheap, and yet they're doing fine getting around. I'm sorry that your automotive industry have ignored your needs and pushed a bunch of expensive and unnecessary cars on you, but please don't try and pretend America's natural geography somehow requires a car, much less the SUVs that are dominant. It's everything BUT geography at play here.
And before you start criticising me for taking your comment out of context, keep in mind that GRANDPARENT was discussing both cars and car sizes.
Australia has a population density of 2.6/sq. km. The USA has a population density of 31/sq. km.
True, the population of the United States is somewhat concentrated near the coasts, but not nearly to the same extent as in Australia (near the coasts) or Canada (near the southern border).
Quite a few of my friends get around without cars at all - bikes, public transport, motorbikes/scooters, etc.
How well does a bike work in the rain? And how well does public transport work at night, on Sundays, or on national holidays?
Or what about Canada? I live in Calgary, and we have sub-zero weather from October to April.
You ride your bike to work in the rain? You were lucky! I used to dream of riding a bike to work in the rain. It beats the hell out of trying to ride a bike to work in -25 C with driving snow and a wind-chill of -60 and exposed flesh freezes in 30 seconds.
I love it, only on slashdot. Mod parent up for being a true geek! Only a true geek who doesn't do daylight or weather query whether bikes work in the rain.
For your information, pretty well. Stopping distance is slightly longer and like motorbikes and cars, performance is somewhat reduced.
People who use bicycles in wet weather handle the rain by using "coats". They put their luggage in waterproof containers which keeps the rain (a type of "weather") off the contents.
I cycle to work and back, 8 miles each way, any weather apart from ice and heavy snow. You put on a coat, and waterproof trousers. Gortex is a wonderful invention. Waterproof panniers keep my laptop nice and dry. No problem.
Some people wear specialist cycling clothing, I just use my walking gear.
I'm guessing you're not much of an outdoors kind of person.
I hear you, and I bike to work rain or shine (but only 2 miles). Still, there are some serious disadvantages of a bike.
In the rain, it's much harder to see anything than in a car (particularly with glasses), and coat or no coat, it is considerably less comfortable than in a car.
Splash guards take care of the "brown stripe" problem well enough, but you still have to be careful not to get bike grease on your stuff. I've ruined a few pairs of pants by absentmindedly hopping on the bike without pinning up, or by parking the bike and brushing my leg against the chain. Even my hat has some "character"... got greased up while strapped to the rack or in one of the baskets... dunno how exactly. I would not want to ride with a suit.
Carrying capacity is pretty limited, even with rack+baskets+backpack. 30 pounds of groceries for 5 miles, fine, but a CostCo run is out of the question. Furniture, computers etc are also more difficult (I did haul a desk chair once, though). What's more, the lack of suspension makes carrying glass, eggs, etc a risky proposition.
And of course, it makes a long, tiring day full of errands even longer and more tiring.
On the other hand, biking is the only fast way to get around my campus. Parking is hideously expensive, there are bollards all over, and it's too big to walk everywhere. Plus, it helps keep you in shape.
I live in the US and we just went for a little trip from Indianapolis to Madison, Wisconsin. Round trip with side ventures and a little driving around Madison came to over 800 miles.
That's just a couple of neighboring states. I drive 30 minutes at 60 MPH to get to work and that is all within city limits. The suburbs and exurbs and much further away.
Cars should be banned within city limits. This simple rule will save more lives than the last 30 years of cancer research. Cars are like cockroaches, getting rid of them in cities would be a blessing.
That's just plain stupid. Take a look at the map of the city I live in [laalmanac.com]. It's 30 miles in diameter, and there's nothing but other cities outside those city limits. There simply is no means by which a mass transit system could replace the road system in my city, as there is absolutely no "center" that people go to--- everyone lives somewhere else and goes to a different place to work. You probably live in one of those "cities" with 300K people that can easily be served by two light rail lines and a dozen buses. When you have a greater metropolitan area that's home to 12 million plus people that spans a dozen city entities in two counties, mass transit becomes a much bigger problem than can be solved by an idiotic handwave of "just ban cars from city limits".
I won't even begin to address the issue of what you consider "cars" and what constitutes a legitimately necessary vehicle. No... I will. Do you expect supermarkets to get food deliveries by bus? Is the plumber going to bring tools and 10-foot lengths of copper pipe to your house on the subway? Are old people who can barely walk expected to somehow drag 30 pounds of groceries home a kilometer from the nearest transit station? No, I'm guessing you'd suggest some sort of "permit" system that'd allow certain "special" classes of people to have personal vehicles... and like any such system, those with money would be able to game it and drive as they please. So what you're really suggesting is that poor people should be banned from driving in the city.
I live in London. 7-8 million people, and a few more in the surrounding metropolitan area. I can get anywhere I want with public transport - in fact I don't even have a drivers license (never did).
Cars are only a necessity in the US for most people because most of the US lacks decent public transport system and because cities are planned based on a population that travels everywhere by car. Start building decent transport systems and make planners consider pedestrians and bikes and the number of people who need cars to get around will plummet quickly. With better public transportation, other aspects (such as denser downtown shopping areas instead of megastores spread out over large areas as in some of the more sprawling areas in the US will follow.
On another note, I've always felt that SUVs were more or less entirely bad, in the sense that they don't do anything well: they can't carry as much stuff as a van or pickup, they can't carry any more people than a large station wagon (there were seven seat wagons long before there were SUVs), they mostly suck off road, they use more fuel than any two of these other options, they generally drive quite poorly, and because the headlights and bumpers and center of mass are higher off the ground, SUVs do more da
The difference is, you guys have significantly better public transportation infrastructure. I was amazed when I first experienced it, because there is nothing like it on the North American continent.
What we have is crappy because shoddy designs and materials were used to save money, prohibitively expensive to use because it is privately owned and viewed as nothing more than a vehicle to tax the masses, and the people inside are packed into too little space and bombarded with so much propaganda that it's re
There is also, the "car culture" that the US has...that car (much like a motorcycle) gives one a feeling of independence, etc. And to many in the US, a car isn't simply a means to get from point A to point B as efficiently as possible.
A car can be something fun to 4-wheel/offroad with. With me...I like a car that looks good, has a good exhaust note, and is a performance car.
I can't imagine getting a keeping a car for 20years?!?! The body style would be way out of style way before the lease was up.
I live in Japan, one of those countries where small cars are prevalent. Kei cars aren't exactly 700 lbs. but the smallest are close. This country is decidedly not third world, last I checked.
This vehicle would hardly be dangerous at all if we got rid of the rest of the 1 ton+ passenger vehicles.
Considering that the Toyota Prius weighs in at 2,765lb-3042lb, that would be every other car on the road. Meaning your suggestion would be to replace all cars with this one.
I've never understood why anyone buys the Smart car. It gets worse gas milage than a used Jetta TDI, has basically zero cargo room and looks ridiculous. For $7000 or less you can get a 50mpg FULL SIZED sedan that will last you to 500k miles.
Or you can spend $15k+ to a Smart car, have no room to haul anything around (much less 5 people if you're so inclined) and get substandard gas milage. The only possible reason I can see to buy a smart car vs a used (or even new) diesel car is because you live somewher
Well I guess that means they aren't planning on marketing this in the Northeast, or anywhere that there's occasionally snow on the ground. I doubt that much of that 700 lbs would *not* be riddled with rust long before that lease would run out.
Seriously, why lease a car for 20 years? And what'd the lease payment be? Not to mention the fact that you could probably just buy the damn thing (or maybe even a nicer car) using a 20 year car loan and cover the fuel out of pocket for far less than what you'd pay these jokers. Effectively locking in the cost of fuel for 20 years may sound attractive, but in practice it's more likely a win-win for the company --sure, you don't pay extra when fuel prices go up, but you also miss out on the downward fuel price fluctuations. The company is certain to make more money from you than you'll get out in fuel in any case, since if the prices are such that the deal would seem to work out in your favor, the company will just go bankrupt.
I doubt that much of that 700 lbs would *not* be riddled with rust long before that lease would run out.
If you RTA you'll see that the bodywork is made from carbon composite. I don't think it's that unreallistic for a car to still be going after 20 years - how many cars are there around on the roads from 1989/1990? Still quite a few (esp. Japanese made), in some parts of the world the majority of cars are that old or older.
But this post is a great illustration of how many people view cars as throwaway, disposable products, good for only 10 years. Cars don't just impact the environment with CO2 emissions, the material and energy cost of production, maintenance and disposal have to be taken into account, and it's about time seeing a manufacturer taking responsibility in this regard, rather than cashing in on the easy profits of throwaway consumerism
I bought a used car because I can buy twice the car (performance/safety/features) for half the price of the current model. Not because of CO2 emissions or the price of fuel or being "Green". I wanted a BMW M3 and couldn't afford the current model, but could afford one with 45k miles on it.
You've obviously never tried to convince someone that they should buy a used car. The most common responses I've heard: "if the car was still good, the previous owner would still be driving it." or "I don't want someone el
Those throw away cars don't go to the dump to get buried with all the household waste.
They get sold to people willing to do some work to them and drive them for a while longer or they go to a salvage yard and get cannibalized for parts until everything of value if picked from them, then they get recycled. All the throw away mentality does is present poorer people with an opportunity to own a car or repair their cars at a decent rate.
If you RTA you'll see that the bodywork is made from carbon composite
I guarantee that the vast majority of that 700 pound weight is made up of steel and copper. The body is the least of your worries in a salt environment.
But this post is a great illustration of how many people view cars as throwaway, disposable products, good for only 10 years.
That's because in a salt environment they are. The measures needed to preserve a car in those areas generally involve keeping it in a garage for the winter.
You can actually build a workable vehicle from carbon fiber and ceramics nowdays without using any metal at all. The biggest problem is how to you repair such a vehicle when it's damaged? Is it even possible? What about recycling the materials? Both steel and aluminum are easily recyclable, thus reducing actual energy costs associated with the manufacturing of the parts but cutting out the mining process.
What I'd rather see is the push to design a vehicle that's as close to 100 percent recyclable as possibl
The Urban Car weighs just 772 pounds (350 kilograms), can reach speeds of 50 miles (81 kilometers) per hour, and has a range of more than 200 miles (322 kilometers).
While my Jeep may be heavier, it too on a full tank of gas has a range of 200 miles, and can reach speeds of 50 MPH. And it won't struggle on a hill and I can take my groceries home. I'll be more interested in a car like this that would more practical for the family life.
But it is interesting that the engineers will soon post the entire design on the wiki, and anyone can lease the it for free, modify it, and manufacture their own vehicle.
40 Fires Foundation [40fires.org] is a forum to develop energy-efficient cars using an open source approach.
It looks similar in size to the G-Wiz [google.com], an all-electric car which can only be legally driven in the UK because it's not classed as a "car", it's a "quadricycle". Quadricycles are basically thought of as a four-wheel motorcycle, so there are almost no safety requirements.
There is little to no chance of these being legal to drive in an US state, other than those that allow "neighborhood vehicles", like golf carts and Japanese Kei-class cars - here in Ilinois you can drive those on streets that have a maximum speed limit of 35 MPH, but no faster.
I especially recommend Clarkson's G-Wiz review [google.com]. The G-Wiz is beaten by a table in the drag race test. Golf carts move faster and are roomier.
700lbs? 1/2 the weight of a SmartCar? An enclosed go-kart. 20 year lease? You mean I'm still going to be making payments on this thing in 2029? Gimme a break. Hydrogen fuel cell? And we refuel it where?
I don't care how green it might be (if it ever comes to pass), but locked into payments and a design for 20 years is just silly.
The link in the Slashdot abstract, to http://ostatic.com/ [ostatic.com] causes Norton Security to throw a fit about no fewer than _164_ drive-by downloads on that site.
What an unfriendly link to provide. Serves me right for attempting to actually read the article.
This generally doesn't equate to "as much fuel as you can use." If you read the fine print on these type of statements they often mean "1 per." When I was a kid I won a "years supply of mac n cheese." This turned out to be a coupon book with 12 coupons in it which could be used one per month. I believe Chik-fil-a did the same thing with their 'years supply' of sandwiches. They just provided 52 coupons for one sandwich per week.
The business model of making carts that can be rented for 20 years is the exact opposite of the current car industry's business model: the car industry of today makes cars that are not exactly reliable and long lasting. They don't have any interest to, because they want you to buy a new car every 5 to 10 years. They also want to make a ton of money from spare part sales. But if you design a car to be reliable and with cheap spare-parts, that is also fuel-efficient, why that's the best thing one can do for the Earth, car-wise.
I read through the article and a lot of blogs covering Riversimple [riversimple.com]. Here's what it looks like under the hood [riversimple.com]. It seems too early and preliminary for adoption. "Open Source" seems to have been employed purely as a buzzword to generate interest. Most of the detail is actually at the 40 Fires foundation website which will probably release design schematics. Their FAQ [40fires.org] answers questions I had in mind and is a good place for a starting read. The codename for this car is Hybran [40fires.org]. The EU welcomes Hydrogen cars [europa.eu] as a strong "Green" alternative.
If you do compare it to other initiatives like OSCar [theoscarproject.org], you would find this option from Riversimple probably at a better stage of adoption. But until they unveil their prototypes (16-Jun-2009 is not far) and manufacturing goals (however they intend to go about it,) consumers will be skeptical about adoption. They first have to hit a note on consumers _wanting_ it or _needing_ it before proposing an attractive business model. Most of the prior comments reflect that we are not yet ready. Design momentum on OSCar seems to have stalled in the year 2006.
In contrast another vehicle release earlier this year happened in India with a lot of buzz about a $2,500 car, the Nano [tatamotors.com] from India. This car _can_ do more than 56 mpg on Gasoline. It isn't green, but you can grab one, drive one and feel much safer than the electric counterparts that roam about the cities. This car went through at least 2 yrs of testing because the average consumer was scared about safety. The adoption was further slowed down by slow manufacturing response from Tata Motors.
India has allowed an Electric car (REVA) to be used within City limits (for road safety and range concerns) manufactured by Reva [revaindia.com]. The vehicle (a modest 4 wheeler) which comes in multiple flavors has low adoption rates in cities which allow it. This car through evolution has been heavier than India's top selling gasoline small-car the Maruti Suzuki 800cc 4 seater, and offers lesser range within a city. It has a very short range of 80-100km and requires battery packs to be replaced every two years (or depending on usage.) From June, 2001 the adoption has been very slow. During July, 2008 at least 260 Reva's (multiple models) were sold which is a record high. The Reva is priced at a one time price tag of close to $6,500 with an installed set of batteries. These have to be replaced at about $1000 every year. There's some comprehensive information and links on the Wikipedia Article (Reva) [wikipedia.org]. The cost has been a factor in slowing down adoption added to the fact that electric charges are required almost on a nightly basis. India has welcomed the car with reduced parking charges and several cuts. The G-Whiz model sold outside India is far too pricey ($12000 in Chile) and does not enjoy these environment friendly regulatory benefits.
For crowded cities in India where pollution is a heavy problem, Electrical cars with limited range for office commuters who'd prefer some shade (where public transport is a little inconvenient with timings) has received early adoption. i would presume that countries facing rapid development and growth rates will have to take this more seriously. Scaling public transport infrastructure has always been a challenge in many developing countries owing to a myriad of reasons. The basis for creating indices to track air pollution is outlined quite well in this paper (PDF) from
Last year I gave my students as an assignment to compare various fuel cell technologies, and also to compare various hydrogen storage technologies. There are many viable alternatives for hydrogen storage, you would be surprised. Even the good-old (but with a modern twist) pressure tanks are now viable.
There are also reformation technologies that create hydrogen on the go, from (for instance) methanol. So you can look at methanol as a hydrogen storage of sorts.
Sure we can make enough methanol. My colleagues in this superproject are working on that part of the equation as we speak - there are many approaches to producing cheap methanol. Most of them require expensive catalysts, sure, but that's a one-time cost. Unless we are talking about biocatalysts, but those, on the other hand, are (or an be) extremely cheap.
700 pounds -- goodbye safety standards! (Score:5, Insightful)
The company plans to unveil its first car in London later this month, a small two-seater that weighs roughly 700 pounds.
A car that will never sell anywhere in the US due to total inability to pass crash safety test. I'm actually surprised that it can be sold anywhere in the first world, to be honest.
Re:700 pounds -- goodbye safety standards! (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re:700 pounds -- goodbye safety standards! (Score:4, Insightful)
Introducing bigger cars into the market is a zero sum game for car safety, and a net safety loss for pedestrians.
This car would be safe enough without all those SUV's.
Time will tell, but as soon as oil prices are high enough, those kind of car will become a necessity, while SUV's will have to stay parked.
Parent
Re:700 pounds -- goodbye safety standards! (Score:5, Insightful)
The paradox of this simply amazes me.
If it were a motorcyle there would be no trouble with selling it.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
You mean there would be no trouble selling it to people who want to drive motorcycles and didn't care about style or performance.
Many people don't consider motorcycles safe enough to own one let alone drive it. The difference here is that it is being presented as a car and people are taking the same objections as they would have for motorcycles.
Re:700 pounds -- goodbye safety standards! (Score:4, Interesting)
I guess you'll find it isn't actually a car, but it is registered and taxed as a quad bike. A popular electric vehicle in London, the GWiz, is classed as a quad bike.
Parent
Re:700 pounds -- goodbye safety standards! (Score:4, Insightful)
"Quad bike"? Come on! You people invented the language.
-Peter
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
A car that will never sell anywhere in the US due to total inability to pass crash safety test.
This is something that people in the US seem to bring up a lot. You do realise that American cars are incredibly expensive to insure in the UK and EU, because they do so badly in crash tests? A great example is the Hummer H2 - uninsurable in the UK, because if you clip a kerb at anything above parking speeds, you'll die. A friend of mine recently shredded an H2 that had clipped a parked car (Renault Scenic) at
Re:700 pounds -- goodbye safety standards! (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re:700 pounds -- goodbye safety standards! (Score:5, Insightful)
Ob.: Move closer to work, or get a job somewhere more convenient ?
You only have one life to live. I'd rather not spend mine stuck in traffic, which is why I'm quite glad my office is only 2 miles away from my apartment and an 8 minute bike/bus/cab ride.
A long commute does not add value to your job. If you work a 40-hour work week, and your commute is an hour each way, it's kind of like taking a 20% pay cut. Well I'd rather take a job that pays 20% less and spend those two free hours on something else, like arguing on slashdot ;)
Parent
Re:700 pounds -- goodbye safety standards! (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't see the point of very small cars like this. If I don't need to carry anything I will ride my bike. If I do then I use my big, inefficient van. A small car wouldn't be much use to me because it can't carry much.
Yes, it certainly is a total piece of crap because it doesn't suit your lifestyle.
Many countries are full of tiny cars, where they serve as the primary (and inexpensive) vehicle for many people, some of who either can't afford a full-size car or are moving up from scooters and motorcycles. It might sound strange to you, but there are many countries where automobiles are not a religion, and paying a fixed lump sum a month to own a car is an attractive option. Plus, if you've ever seen the tiny winding streets of many European cities, you'll realize that this car isn't all that impractical in the right setting.
Of course, forget about it in the US, except maybe in Oregon.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
"there are many countries where automobiles are not a religion" Sorry, I couldn't hear your reply over your snootyness. Cars are a necessity in the US. We have more room and things are much father spread out. Try getting around a typical western US city without a car.
Re:700 pounds -- goodbye safety standards! (Score:5, Insightful)
I call shenanigans on this. Australia has a population density of 2.6/sq. km. The USA has a population density of 31/sq. km. That means that the US is nearly 1200% more densely populated than Australia. With the exception of rural folk like farmers and miners (who need them), "Soccer Moms", and other types that have their heads filled with The American Dream, almost no-one drives American-style big cars here. Quite a few of my friends get around without cars at all - bikes, public transport, motorbikes/scooters, etc. Many of them own unnecessarily big houses, just because they're cheap, and yet they're doing fine getting around. I'm sorry that your automotive industry have ignored your needs and pushed a bunch of expensive and unnecessary cars on you, but please don't try and pretend America's natural geography somehow requires a car, much less the SUVs that are dominant. It's everything BUT geography at play here.
And before you start criticising me for taking your comment out of context, keep in mind that GRANDPARENT was discussing both cars and car sizes.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Australia has a population density of 2.6/sq. km. The USA has a population density of 31/sq. km.
True, the population of the United States is somewhat concentrated near the coasts, but not nearly to the same extent as in Australia (near the coasts) or Canada (near the southern border).
Quite a few of my friends get around without cars at all - bikes, public transport, motorbikes/scooters, etc.
How well does a bike work in the rain? And how well does public transport work at night, on Sundays, or on national holidays?
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
You ride your bike to work in the rain? You were lucky! I used to dream of riding a bike to work in the rain. It beats the hell out of trying to ride a bike to work in -25 C with driving snow and a wind-chill of -60 and exposed flesh freezes in 30 seconds.
Why did I move here?
Re:700 pounds -- goodbye safety standards! (Score:5, Funny)
I'm suspecting you visited in the summer when it is suitable for human habitation. When things took a turn you got so cold you forgot your way home.
Parent
Mod parent up for being a true geek! (Score:5, Informative)
"How well does a bike work in the rain?"
I love it, only on slashdot. Mod parent up for being a true geek! Only a true geek who doesn't do daylight or weather query whether bikes work in the rain.
For your information, pretty well. Stopping distance is slightly longer and like motorbikes and cars, performance is somewhat reduced.
People who use bicycles in wet weather handle the rain by using "coats". They put their luggage in waterproof containers which keeps the rain (a type of "weather") off the contents.
I cycle to work and back, 8 miles each way, any weather apart from ice and heavy snow. You put on a coat, and waterproof trousers. Gortex is a wonderful invention. Waterproof panniers keep my laptop nice and dry. No problem.
Some people wear specialist cycling clothing, I just use my walking gear.
I'm guessing you're not much of an outdoors kind of person.
Parent
Re:Mod parent up for being a true geek! (Score:4, Interesting)
I hear you, and I bike to work rain or shine (but only 2 miles). Still, there are some serious disadvantages of a bike.
In the rain, it's much harder to see anything than in a car (particularly with glasses), and coat or no coat, it is considerably less comfortable than in a car.
Splash guards take care of the "brown stripe" problem well enough, but you still have to be careful not to get bike grease on your stuff. I've ruined a few pairs of pants by absentmindedly hopping on the bike without pinning up, or by parking the bike and brushing my leg against the chain. Even my hat has some "character"... got greased up while strapped to the rack or in one of the baskets... dunno how exactly. I would not want to ride with a suit.
Carrying capacity is pretty limited, even with rack+baskets+backpack. 30 pounds of groceries for 5 miles, fine, but a CostCo run is out of the question. Furniture, computers etc are also more difficult (I did haul a desk chair once, though). What's more, the lack of suspension makes carrying glass, eggs, etc a risky proposition.
And of course, it makes a long, tiring day full of errands even longer and more tiring.
On the other hand, biking is the only fast way to get around my campus. Parking is hideously expensive, there are bollards all over, and it's too big to walk everywhere. Plus, it helps keep you in shape.
Parent
Drove over 800 miles in last three days (Score:3, Interesting)
I live in the US and we just went for a little trip from Indianapolis to Madison, Wisconsin. Round trip with side ventures and a little driving around Madison came to over 800 miles.
That's just a couple of neighboring states. I drive 30 minutes at 60 MPH to get to work and that is all within city limits. The suburbs and exurbs and much further away.
Re:Drove over 800 miles in last three days (Score:4, Insightful)
Cars should be banned within city limits. This simple rule will save more lives than the last 30 years of cancer research. Cars are like cockroaches, getting rid of them in cities would be a blessing.
That's just plain stupid. Take a look at the map of the city I live in [laalmanac.com]. It's 30 miles in diameter, and there's nothing but other cities outside those city limits. There simply is no means by which a mass transit system could replace the road system in my city, as there is absolutely no "center" that people go to--- everyone lives somewhere else and goes to a different place to work. You probably live in one of those "cities" with 300K people that can easily be served by two light rail lines and a dozen buses. When you have a greater metropolitan area that's home to 12 million plus people that spans a dozen city entities in two counties, mass transit becomes a much bigger problem than can be solved by an idiotic handwave of "just ban cars from city limits".
I won't even begin to address the issue of what you consider "cars" and what constitutes a legitimately necessary vehicle. No... I will. Do you expect supermarkets to get food deliveries by bus? Is the plumber going to bring tools and 10-foot lengths of copper pipe to your house on the subway? Are old people who can barely walk expected to somehow drag 30 pounds of groceries home a kilometer from the nearest transit station? No, I'm guessing you'd suggest some sort of "permit" system that'd allow certain "special" classes of people to have personal vehicles... and like any such system, those with money would be able to game it and drive as they please. So what you're really suggesting is that poor people should be banned from driving in the city.
Parent
Re:Drove over 800 miles in last three days (Score:4, Informative)
Cars are only a necessity in the US for most people because most of the US lacks decent public transport system and because cities are planned based on a population that travels everywhere by car. Start building decent transport systems and make planners consider pedestrians and bikes and the number of people who need cars to get around will plummet quickly. With better public transportation, other aspects (such as denser downtown shopping areas instead of megastores spread out over large areas as in some of the more sprawling areas in the US will follow.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
On another note, I've always felt that SUVs were more or less entirely bad, in the sense that they don't do anything well: they can't carry as much stuff as a van or pickup, they can't carry any more people than a large station wagon (there were seven seat wagons long before there were SUVs), they mostly suck off road, they use more fuel than any two of these other options, they generally drive quite poorly, and because the headlights and bumpers and center of mass are higher off the ground, SUVs do more da
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
The difference is, you guys have significantly better public transportation infrastructure. I was amazed when I first experienced it, because there is nothing like it on the North American continent.
What we have is crappy because shoddy designs and materials were used to save money, prohibitively expensive to use because it is privately owned and viewed as nothing more than a vehicle to tax the masses, and the people inside are packed into too little space and bombarded with so much propaganda that it's re
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
A car can be something fun to 4-wheel/offroad with. With me...I like a car that looks good, has a good exhaust note, and is a performance car.
I can't imagine getting a keeping a car for 20years?!?! The body style would be way out of style way before the lease was up.
Hell, a
Re:700 pounds -- goodbye safety standards! (Score:4, Informative)
Cars are a necessity in the US. We have more room and things are much father spread out. Try getting around a typical western US city without a car.
That's not because you have more room. That's because public transportation sucks and has a social stigma.
You don't need a car in London, for example.
Parent
Re:700 pounds -- goodbye safety standards! (Score:4, Insightful)
Parent
Re:700 pounds -- goodbye safety standards! (Score:4, Funny)
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
This vehicle would hardly be dangerous at all if we got rid of the rest of the 1 ton+ passenger vehicles.
Considering that the Toyota Prius weighs in at 2,765lb-3042lb, that would be every other car on the road. Meaning your suggestion would be to replace all cars with this one.
Re:700 pounds -- goodbye safety standards! (Score:4, Informative)
The Smart ForTwo weighs over 2.5 times as much (1880 lbs.) in large part to the hardware required to pass those crash tests.
A 700 lb. car is going to get squashed like a bug in a crash with a vast majority of the vehicles on the road.
Parent
Organ Donors (Score:5, Insightful)
The Smart ForTwo weighs over 2.5 times as much (1880 lbs.) in large part to the hardware required to pass those crash tests.
How well do, for example, motorcycles pass crash tests?
Motorcycles don't. You get into a wreck with another vehicle, you die. We refer to motorcycle riders as "organ donors" in the US.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I've never understood why anyone buys the Smart car. It gets worse gas milage than a used Jetta TDI, has basically zero cargo room and looks ridiculous. For $7000 or less you can get a 50mpg FULL SIZED sedan that will last you to 500k miles.
Or you can spend $15k+ to a Smart car, have no room to haul anything around (much less 5 people if you're so inclined) and get substandard gas milage. The only possible reason I can see to buy a smart car vs a used (or even new) diesel car is because you live somewher
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
20 years?! (stupid gimmick) (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:20 years?! (stupid gimmick) (Score:5, Insightful)
If you RTA you'll see that the bodywork is made from carbon composite. I don't think it's that unreallistic for a car to still be going after 20 years - how many cars are there around on the roads from 1989/1990? Still quite a few (esp. Japanese made), in some parts of the world the majority of cars are that old or older.
But this post is a great illustration of how many people view cars as throwaway, disposable products, good for only 10 years. Cars don't just impact the environment with CO2 emissions, the material and energy cost of production, maintenance and disposal have to be taken into account, and it's about time seeing a manufacturer taking responsibility in this regard, rather than cashing in on the easy profits of throwaway consumerism
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I bought a used car because I can buy twice the car (performance/safety/features) for half the price of the current model. Not because of CO2 emissions or the price of fuel or being "Green". I wanted a BMW M3 and couldn't afford the current model, but could afford one with 45k miles on it.
You've obviously never tried to convince someone that they should buy a used car. The most common responses I've heard:
"if the car was still good, the previous owner would still be driving it." or
"I don't want someone el
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Those throw away cars don't go to the dump to get buried with all the household waste.
They get sold to people willing to do some work to them and drive them for a while longer or they go to a salvage yard and get cannibalized for parts until everything of value if picked from them, then they get recycled. All the throw away mentality does is present poorer people with an opportunity to own a car or repair their cars at a decent rate.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
If you RTA you'll see that the bodywork is made from carbon composite
I guarantee that the vast majority of that 700 pound weight is made up of steel and copper. The body is the least of your worries in a salt environment.
But this post is a great illustration of how many people view cars as throwaway, disposable products, good for only 10 years.
That's because in a salt environment they are. The measures needed to preserve a car in those areas generally involve keeping it in a garage for the winter.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
You can actually build a workable vehicle from carbon fiber and ceramics nowdays without using any metal at all. The biggest problem is how to you repair such a vehicle when it's damaged? Is it even possible? What about recycling the materials? Both steel and aluminum are easily recyclable, thus reducing actual energy costs associated with the manufacturing of the parts but cutting out the mining process.
What I'd rather see is the push to design a vehicle that's as close to 100 percent recyclable as possibl
Eh, maybe. (Score:3, Informative)
The Urban Car weighs just 772 pounds (350 kilograms), can reach speeds of 50 miles (81 kilometers) per hour, and has a range of more than 200 miles (322 kilometers).
While my Jeep may be heavier, it too on a full tank of gas has a range of 200 miles, and can reach speeds of 50 MPH. And it won't struggle on a hill and I can take my groceries home. I'll be more interested in a car like this that would more practical for the family life. But it is interesting that the engineers will soon post the entire design on the wiki, and anyone can lease the it for free, modify it, and manufacture their own vehicle. 40 Fires Foundation [40fires.org] is a forum to develop energy-efficient cars using an open source approach.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
It's not a car, it's a quadricycle (Score:4, Interesting)
It looks similar in size to the G-Wiz [google.com], an all-electric car which can only be legally driven in the UK because it's not classed as a "car", it's a "quadricycle". Quadricycles are basically thought of as a four-wheel motorcycle, so there are almost no safety requirements.
There is little to no chance of these being legal to drive in an US state, other than those that allow "neighborhood vehicles", like golf carts and Japanese Kei-class cars - here in Ilinois you can drive those on streets that have a maximum speed limit of 35 MPH, but no faster.
I especially recommend Clarkson's G-Wiz review [google.com]. The G-Wiz is beaten by a table in the drag race test. Golf carts move faster and are roomier.
so much wrong with this (Score:3, Insightful)
20 year lease? You mean I'm still going to be making payments on this thing in 2029? Gimme a break.
Hydrogen fuel cell? And we refuel it where?
I don't care how green it might be (if it ever comes to pass), but locked into payments and a design for 20 years is just silly.
Website full of drive-by downloads (Score:3, Informative)
I don't get the idea (Score:4, Funny)
Lifetime supply of fuel? (Score:3, Informative)
This generally doesn't equate to "as much fuel as you can use." If you read the fine print on these type of statements they often mean "1 per ." When I was a kid I won a "years supply of mac n cheese." This turned out to be a coupon book with 12 coupons in it which could be used one per month. I believe Chik-fil-a did the same thing with their 'years supply' of sandwiches. They just provided 52 coupons for one sandwich per week.
So maybe you'll be allowed one fill-up per month.
Why I love this concept (Score:3, Insightful)
The business model of making carts that can be rented for 20 years is the exact opposite of the current car industry's business model: the car industry of today makes cars that are not exactly reliable and long lasting. They don't have any interest to, because they want you to buy a new car every 5 to 10 years. They also want to make a ton of money from spare part sales.
But if you design a car to be reliable and with cheap spare-parts, that is also fuel-efficient, why that's the best thing one can do for the Earth, car-wise.
I wish these dudes good luck.
Consumer Friendly?! Why "Open Source" Tag? (Score:5, Informative)
If you do compare it to other initiatives like OSCar [theoscarproject.org], you would find this option from Riversimple probably at a better stage of adoption. But until they unveil their prototypes (16-Jun-2009 is not far) and manufacturing goals (however they intend to go about it,) consumers will be skeptical about adoption. They first have to hit a note on consumers _wanting_ it or _needing_ it before proposing an attractive business model. Most of the prior comments reflect that we are not yet ready. Design momentum on OSCar seems to have stalled in the year 2006.
In contrast another vehicle release earlier this year happened in India with a lot of buzz about a $2,500 car, the Nano [tatamotors.com] from India. This car _can_ do more than 56 mpg on Gasoline. It isn't green, but you can grab one, drive one and feel much safer than the electric counterparts that roam about the cities. This car went through at least 2 yrs of testing because the average consumer was scared about safety. The adoption was further slowed down by slow manufacturing response from Tata Motors.
India has allowed an Electric car (REVA) to be used within City limits (for road safety and range concerns) manufactured by Reva [revaindia.com]. The vehicle (a modest 4 wheeler) which comes in multiple flavors has low adoption rates in cities which allow it. This car through evolution has been heavier than India's top selling gasoline small-car the Maruti Suzuki 800cc 4 seater, and offers lesser range within a city. It has a very short range of 80-100km and requires battery packs to be replaced every two years (or depending on usage.) From June, 2001 the adoption has been very slow. During July, 2008 at least 260 Reva's (multiple models) were sold which is a record high. The Reva is priced at a one time price tag of close to $6,500 with an installed set of batteries. These have to be replaced at about $1000 every year. There's some comprehensive information and links on the Wikipedia Article (Reva) [wikipedia.org]. The cost has been a factor in slowing down adoption added to the fact that electric charges are required almost on a nightly basis. India has welcomed the car with reduced parking charges and several cuts. The G-Whiz model sold outside India is far too pricey ($12000 in Chile) and does not enjoy these environment friendly regulatory benefits.
For crowded cities in India where pollution is a heavy problem, Electrical cars with limited range for office commuters who'd prefer some shade (where public transport is a little inconvenient with timings) has received early adoption. i would presume that countries facing rapid development and growth rates will have to take this more seriously. Scaling public transport infrastructure has always been a challenge in many developing countries owing to a myriad of reasons. The basis for creating indices to track air pollution is outlined quite well in this paper (PDF) from
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Last year I gave my students as an assignment to compare various fuel cell technologies, and also to compare various hydrogen storage technologies. There are many viable alternatives for hydrogen storage, you would be surprised. Even the good-old (but with a modern twist) pressure tanks are now viable.
There are also reformation technologies that create hydrogen on the go, from (for instance) methanol. So you can look at methanol as a hydrogen storage of sorts.
Hydrogen fuel cells is the main topic of my PHD
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Sure we can make enough methanol. My colleagues in this superproject are working on that part of the equation as we speak - there are many approaches to producing cheap methanol. Most of them require expensive catalysts, sure, but that's a one-time cost. Unless we are talking about biocatalysts, but those, on the other hand, are (or an be) extremely cheap.
Methanol may very well be the fuel of the future.