Segway, GM Partner On Two-Wheeled Electric Car 394
Slartibartfast was one of many readers sending in news of GM's partnership with Segway to develop a two-seater urban electric vehicle. It's called the Personal Urban Mobility and Accessibility, or "PUMA." This is just a prototype, so don't get your credit card out yet. Its total cost of ownership could be about 1/4 that of a traditional car, GM says. The prototype runs for 35 miles, at a top speed of 35 mph, on lithium-ion batteries. It features the now-familiar Segway balancing technology, though fore-and-aft training wheels are visible on the prototype. Some commentators have likened it to a high-tech rickshaw, others to a golf cart. Engadget describes how the ride feels.
Yeah, but what's the point? (Score:4, Insightful)
Add a third wheel and suddenly now you don't need thousands of dollars of gyroscopes and such.
Re: (Score:2)
Exactly my thoughts. A 3 wheel design would also use less energy since it wouldn't have to use motors to keep it balanced.
Re:Yeah, but what's the point? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Yeah, but what's the point? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Yeah, but what's the point? (Score:5, Informative)
Ideally, none. In a perfect world, the reduction on friction on the other two wheels equals the increase in friction from the third. Now, in practice, things don't work out quite that way (for example, the heating profiles change, which changes the coefficient of friction), and the third wheel also adds some weight (although they're losing the weight of the balancing hardware).
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Yeah, but what's the point? (Score:5, Insightful)
"More importantly, they're losing aerodynamics."
Are you freaking nuts.
Top speed 35 mph. And take a look at it. A small third wheel would add diddly to the drag of that beast. It goes so slow and already has such poor aerodynamics that it just doesn't matter.
This is nothing but a cool "look I am high tech" toy.
Really where is a less than 50 mile range going to work in the US?
New York is the only place where I can see this working. Chicago is too spread out and you have the L. LA? Also way to spread out, Atlanta, Boston, Dallas, Phoenix?
You can say all that you want about how we need to end sprawl but this would be a solution after sprawl is ended.
Now this could work in Japan.
The only good way I can see this work is if you could ban personal cars from a city and have these as sort of a rental system. You pick one up at a train station and drive it to where you want to go in the city.
Then you drive it back.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
"Four legs good, two legs BETTER! Four legs good, two legs BETTER! Four legs good, two legs BETTER!"
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Or add two more wheels, a couple more seats, a larger engine, and enclose it so you're better protected at higher speeds...
Obviously this is just GM wasting more (of my) money. A cell phone acting as the dashboard? Some proprietary wireless communication between pumas? Destined to fail.
Re:Yeah, but what's the point? (Score:4, Insightful)
Yup, and I'd love to see how it manages an emergency stop!
A far better design would be two electric drive wheels at the front and a simple free steering wheel at the back. You've got all the advantages of this when it comes to size & simplicity (no complex steering rack), but you then don't need all that complex balancing software, it's more stable both at rest and in motion, it uses less power, and has far better emergency brakes.
Oh, and it doesn't fall on its arse when the battery runs flat.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Yup, and I'd love to see how it manages an emergency stop!
Look at the Photo [crunchgear.com] of the thing.
It has wheelie bars on the front and back that prevent it from tipping over on a hard stop.
Re: (Score:2)
Three wheelers have terrifying cornering problems. Note that you can't buy three wheeled ATVs anymore because too many people drove them like four wheeled cars and killed themselves.
Re: (Score:2)
Three wheelers have terrifying cornering problems. Note that you can't buy three wheeled ATVs anymore because too many people drove them like four wheeled cars and killed themselves.
That would depend on the configuration. If you have the two wheels up front, and the rear wheel the one with power, that changes the dynamics considerably.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Two front wheels and one rear wheel = understeer. The other way around = oversteer. The former is generally considered to be safer.
The center of gravity is also a big concern. The reason those three-wheeled ATV's that vlm mentioned above were a problem was that they were top heavy and the engine was too far forward. If they'd put the engine a bit aft of the rear wheels and made it a flat configuration they'd have been much more stable.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I couldn't imagine anything much better than that
I could - a 5000 pound, 600 horsepower luxocruiser that runs dual fuel - gas, and crushed hippies.
Also, unsprung mass is bad. "Wheel in a box" hub-motor designs are problematic because of this. You want the motors separated from the wheels by some sort of suspension, or the ride quality will suck and the wheels will spend too much time in the air, except on perfectly smooth pavement.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Yeah, but what's the point? (Score:4, Interesting)
I'm pretty sure that this information is false. Let me see...yeah, here we go [straightdope.com]:
Groundbreaking research in bicycle dynamics was published in 1970 by David Jones. He mounted counter-rotating gyroscopes on bikes to counteract the gyroscopic effect of the wheels. The resulting bikes were quite rideable. So why do bikes stay up?
The answer is: trail. Trail is the difference between where the bike's front wheel contacts the ground and where the steering axis (drawn through the fork of the front wheel) meets the ground. Well-designed bicycles have negative trail--that is, the wheel contacts the ground behind where the steering axis meets the ground. When you tilt, the trail causes the wheel to turn, thus converting the tilting motion into a turning motion, etc., as per my original report. The acid test done by Dr. Jones is in creating bikes with positive trail. Even professional cyclists can't ride those very far.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
The conservation of angular momentum does not play a role in keeping a normal bicycle upright.
Yes, gyroscopic effects exist. They affect keeping your bike upright the same way finding change on the street affects your income: Not enough to be mentioned in a reasonable discussion.
I'm trying to avoid sounding like an ass, and probably not doing a very good job, sorry. Incr
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
No, the gyroscope effect of the wheels on motorcycles and bicycles is minimal. The dynamic stability of two-wheeled vehicles occurs because the point of contact on the front tire is behind the axis of rotation of the steering head. So as the bike moves forward, the front tire is being "pulled straight" and can be easily maintained on a track by the rider.
If the gyroscope effect was significant enough to keep a motorcycle upright, it would prevent leaning the vehicle over during turns, which doesn't happen
This is such a dumb idea (Score:2)
That I can only assume the ultimate plan is to use it as a base for a robot.
Re:Yeah, but what's the point? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
I agree, but the lack of the third wheel can probably help in adapting it for an automated-rental style system, as well as extra parking room (a big deal in places like NYC). They have such rental systems in other countries, where you rent a bike/mini car from an automated machine, and I imagine such a thing would be useful in large American cities.
It would certainly save money, but then so would just adapting a golf cart.
Re:Yeah, but what's the point? (Score:4, Funny)
http://www.thebestpageintheuniverse.net/images/segsuck2.jpg [thebestpag...iverse.net]
Re:Yeah, but what's the point? (Score:5, Funny)
Oh, well, it's a good thing they got rid of that third wheel for this one, then. For safety.
Re:Yeah, but what's the point? (Score:5, Insightful)
Apparently where you come from, the position of the wheels and the location of the center of gravity is irrelevant, and all that matters is wheel count.
Meanwhile, back in the real world [autospeed.com]....
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
The US car companies don't make big, inefficient cars because that's what Americans want. Rather, Americans want big, inefficient cars because that's what they are sold
Thank you! Sometimes it's like talking to a brick wall, those people who insist that the Big Three were just selling what people wanted. As though they don't spend over 7 billion dollars a year [dollarsandsense.org] on marketing. That's about 40% of NASA's annual budget, all on pushing the vehicles they want you to buy the most -- and this decade, those ads hav
Re:Yeah, but what's the point? (Score:4, Insightful)
Bull.
Every car company pushed SUVs and Trucks except Honda.
Toyota has a full sized pickup and several largish SUVs. All of them get bad mileage.
They have a few cars that get good millage plus the Prius.
Nissan? Also A good number of SUVs and trucks.
Even Honda has an SUV.
Gas was cheap. When gas is cheap you don't care about mileage as much. Heck I was looking at some big SUVs back when gas was $1.00 I didn't get one because I just didn't like them.
I find this picking on US car companys annoying.
Toyota has three small cars that get very good milage. The Yaris, Corolla, and the Pirus.
I will leave out Scion and Lexus for now.
Ford has one which is the Focus and they are bringing the Fiesta next year. They also have the Fusion Hybrid which gets better millage than the Camry and is much bigger the Pirus.
Also the Fusion gets top reliabity rating from Consumer Reports.
Chevy has three cars which get good millage. The Aveo, Cobalt, and HHR.
These three cars have been in the line up for while. People did choose bigger cars, suvs, and trucks because they wanted them.
And EVERY manufacture I can think of pushed them in the US.
I am sick of people blaming "advertising". That is the new "The Devil Made Me Do It". Damn companies trying to sell me what will make them the most money!
Yes the car companies sold big SUVs because people wanted them and gas was cheap!
Re:Yeah, but what's the point? (Score:4, Insightful)
The thing about the roads in Europe is the next city or, more often than not, country is a stone's throw away from your current location.
Their weather (if you can call it that) is just a wee bit different as well. One of those little SMART cars would be the dumbest choice you could make for winter driving here.
Re:Yeah, but what's the point? (Score:5, Interesting)
Their weather (if you can call it that) is just a wee bit different as well. One of those little SMART cars would be the dumbest choice you could make for winter driving here.
My friend has a smart. My boss has a mini. We live in sunny Montreal. Here we hit 30 degrees in summer and -30 in winter. That's a 60 degree c swing yearly and in 2007-2008, we had 3 (three) meters of snowfall. In winter they put on winter tires and driver very comfortably through snow. Moreover, my boss had a jeep explorer beforehand, and he had a harder time driving it on ice than the mini.
I think countries like Norway may actually know what snow is, ice and black ice are. I understand that from an intuitive point of view, it looks weird as it seems natural that a hummer with huge tires would get a better grip on the street than a dinky little car, but the issue of sliding is more a question of friction, and these car were designed to grip the road. Their wheels are placed "SMART"ly and the weight is "SMART"ly distributed.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
That fact that you refuse to listen to arguments why unions can be a problem shows that perhaps you are too stupid for someone to bother arguing with.
In 2007 Germany exported 11.4% more than China, not 3 times more so I'm not sure where you got that claim. That is impressive, nonetheless, I'll grant you that. I fail to see, however, h
Re:Yeah, but what's the point? (Score:5, Informative)
Additionally, you're seriously misguided about the quality of American cars. You're either stuck in the past, living in the 70s and early 80s when American cars were crap, or you merely eat up whatever the media feeds you.
I've owned numerous domestic made cars, Ford and GM. I care about longterm reliability, cost of repairs, gas mileage, offroad performance, and price. All the domestic cars I've owned were made in the 80's and 90's and (quite frankly) I got sick to death of fixing them, both performing the repairs and buying the parts or hiring people for stuff I couldn't do. They simply sucked. They rusted everywhere and everything broke and there were design flaws I could see at a glance. When I finally started making a little money, I unloaded my old Pontiac and bought a Geo Tracker. It was sold by GM but made by Suzuki and was an incredibly reliable and cheap and performed very well for what I needed. It was also fun to drive. It was just about bulletproof. Aside from minor maintenance I had to do one or two minor repairs over the whole time I owned it and when I found a really good deal on a larger, newer Suzuki truck (made in Canada) I upgraded and sold my old one to a friend who got another few years out of it (including rolling it at speed on the expressway in a snow storm and driving it home after the accident) who traded it in on his new car. I still see those well made little things driving around. They look odd, but they work. My new truck has similarly been pretty decent about reliability with some minor issues with accessories.
So, after my horrible experiences with US cars and very good experiences with foreign brands, what have domestic auto makers done to win me back and convince me their vehicles have improved and are on par? Why in the world would I consider buying another US car? When I buy something I usually do the research, but for newer cars, it takes many years for long term reliability to show up as hard data and anything else is probably just marketing. So as of a few years ago, what were independent review companies, who are paid entirely by their subscribers and don't take any cash or even donated vehicles from automakers saying:
Of the 47 vehicles on the most-reliable list, 39 were from Japanese automakers. Six came from the domestic automakers, and one each came from South Korea and Europe. Twenty-one Toyota vehicles earned top ratings. Honda had 11 vehicles at the top of our ratings. Ford, General Motors, and Subaru each had three, Mitsubishi and Nissan each had two, while Hyundai and Mini each had one.
Of the 45 least reliable models, 19 were European, 20 were from U.S. manufacturers, 5 were Japanese, and 1 was South Korean. General Motors had 12, Mercedes-Benz had 8, Ford and Nissan each had 5, Chrysler and Volkswagen each had 3, BMW and Jaguar each had 2, while Kia, Land Rover, Porsche, Saab, and Volvo each had 1.
And what do they say about long term reliability numbers?
And those reliable older models tend to be Hondas and Toyotas. If they're well-maintained, they still have a long, useful life ahead.
And:
Overall, the most reliable vehicles come from Asian nameplates. Though domestic cars are getting better, they still trail the Japanese models.
They also provide the data from their studies that backs up their claims. So with US automakers decades later still significantly behind japanese manufacturers, why should I support their failure to deliver. If US automakers want my money, the answer is simple, make reliable cars that meet my needs and keep the reliability at that level for 5 years so it shows up on the hard data. Don't promote the jackass who finds another way to cut costs at the expense of long term reliability that doesn't show up until years after they have been promoted and moved on. Make a real commitment to invest in the brand and make me respect it again.
Right now, in my mind and based upon the data I pay unbiased third parties to provide me, American cars really do seem to suck (in general).
Re:Yeah, but what's the point? (Score:4, Insightful)
> Then next time I hear someone say that union workers in the GM plant are "making $80/hr" I may just put my size 11 union-made shoe up their ass.
OK, then I'll say that it takes three union workers to accompany one industrial engineer to replace one fuse on the floor of a factory. Happens to my friend nearly every day.
> I came back from a trip to Rome and Milan in March, and when you see the level of technology and good design that is available on the road in Europe, you realize just how badly run American car companies are and have been.
Different != better. My Italian engineering prof claimed that every Italian car he owned while growing up there was a piece of garbage.
> Rather, Americans want big, inefficient cars because that's what they are sold.
Riiiight. It has nothing to do with relatively cheap gas, and the difference in cost between "big" and "small" cars relatively small. Poor consumers, unable to think for themselves...
> CAFE standards that are "just killing" the car companies. It's a complete load of bullshit
Yes, CAFE is crap, if that's what you meant, but probably not. Want people to buy less gas? Increase the price of gas, don't create some nonsensical average fuel economy standard that forces companies to build subcompacts that don't sell, so they can build SUVs that do.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
This last weekend I bought twelve 8 ft 2x6 boards for a raised garden. I brought them home all inside my Honda Fit, totally enclosed, all doors shut, all windows closed. All I'm saying is that some of those subcompacts are not as compact as people think they are.
Re:Yeah, but what's the point? (Score:4, Insightful)
FYI, the Chevy Cobalt includes parts from some of GM's European parts bins. The SS for example has the manual transmission from Saab. The new Ford Focus is now a shared platform car using international parts. The Saturn Astra is actually the Opel Astra, but unfortunately the engine, transmission, and options they are selling in the US are crap compared to what Europe gets. Chrysler just builds crap in general, I will never forgive them for what they did to Mercedes.
I wouldn't buy any of the American cars you mentioned either. But they are heading in the right direction. They very much need a forceful push though. Diesel engines would be a good "forceful push."
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
oops - not the 3 times part. Not close - but that Germany is ahead of China at all is surprising and impressive to me.
My Dad Had a 2 wheeled car (Score:5, Funny)
Built by a company called Yamaha.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Is it safe? (Score:4, Insightful)
I mean, let's say a bus is coming towards you. If you're in this thing, you're toast. But if you just WALK, you can always jump out of the way.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
A malicious hacker would have a field day with such a system. Causing computers to fail is one thing, but causing massive traffic jams takes hacking to a whole new level.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
In principle this is a great concept, but given that most vehicles don't have this yet, that's not something you can solely rely on for the time being.
In fairness, this thing's still a long way from seeing the market. Possibly GM predicts, or hopes, that such systems will have begun to proliferate before that day comes.
I'll agree with you anyway, but go further and say it's not something you'll ever be able to solely rely upon. Until cars can recognize pedestrians, animals, obstructions, big potholes, sudden lane changes, stuff falling off an overloaded truck, and suchlike, as well as take appropriate actions other than braking, this will be no more the
Re:Is it safe? (Score:5, Insightful)
I mean, let's say a bus is coming towards you. If you're in this thing, you're toast. But if you just WALK, you can always jump out of the way.
I suspect GM may include some sort of control for controlling the direction of movement. If so, you could, y'know, turn. I doubt it'll be any less safe than bicycles and motorcycles in that regard.
Walking is an excellent option and I do so whenever possible. However, it's tricky to walk at 35mph; I never got the knack.
Something like this looks like it'd be an okay option for someone who needs to travel a fair bit within a city metro area. I'm strictly meh on it from what's said in TFA, but I don't think your specific criticism is particularly valid.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, but with this thing, after you collide at 35mph the car will right itself automatically using gyroscopes. Just hang onto the controls and start screaming for help!
Boy this has politics written all over it... (Score:3, Funny)
"Hey GM, if you want to get another gov't loan, you have to do this partnership with Segway..."
Will create the perfect urban vehicle that sells as much as the original Segway does.
Why not just have GM resell these... Maybe bring the Oldsmobile name back just for them...
Oldsmobile Golf Cart! [globaltrailer.net]
Re: (Score:2)
35 miles, at a top speed of 35 mph (Score:4, Funny)
Re:35 miles, at a top speed of 35 mph (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
When I read various articles on this (and submitted my own story), what it should read is:
It can reach a top speed of 35 miles an hour or go for 35 miles on one charge.
It does not mean it can go at its top speed for 35 miles. Only that it can reach that speed but the charge won't last 35 miles at that speed.
At least that's how I took it after reading and re-reading the blurbs.
Re:35 miles, at a top speed of 35 mph (Score:5, Funny)
I'm bad at math...
So is the management at GM.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
So is the management at GM.
Don't worry, they're now being run by an organiztion which spent its entire GDP [bloomberg.com] in 6 months. A company that lost billions of dollars a year is now being run by an organization which loses over a trillion a year. I hope that works out for them. :\
Re: (Score:2)
If the commute is anything like Austin, you won't get above 26mph anyways.
Re: (Score:2)
Nah, in 18 month's it's 30 minutes. Gotta love lithium ion bomb, eh, battery technology.
No mention of any price either; one article mentions it'd cost 1/2 to 1/4 of an ordinary car in city driving, but I'd bet that neither includes capital cost or battery replacement cost.
Companies like Tata are so going to eat GM's lunch.
And really. I'd rather buy a Nano.
That's just sick (Score:5, Insightful)
The idiots are facing bankruptcy, living off taxpayer bailouts and here they are toying with one of the century's worst failures in venture capital backed technology.
PUMA? (Score:2, Funny)
I think it looks more like a Warthog.
Re: (Score:2)
PUMA? (Score:4, Funny)
Why name it after some mythical creature when it clearly looks more like a warthog?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Maybe this is some joke that went over my head, but since when are pumas mythical?
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Red vs. Blue [myspace.com]
Re:PUMA? (Score:5, Funny)
Red vs Blue - Season 1 Episode 2 - Red Gets a Delivery [roostertooths.com]
Sarge: Hurry up ladies, this ain't no ice cream social!
Simmons: Ice cream social?
Sarge: Stop the pillow-talk you two. Anyone want to guess, why I gathered you here, today?
Grif: Um, is it because the war's over and you're sending us home?
Sarge: That's exactly it, private. War's over. We won. Turns out you're the big hero, and we're gonna hold a parade in your honor. I get to drive the float, and Simmons here, is in charge of confetti!
Grif: I'm no stranger to sarcasm, sir.
Sarge: God dammit private, shut your mouth or else I'll have Simmons slit your throat while you're asleep!
Simmons: Oh, I'd do it too.
Sarge: I know you would Simmons... good man. Couple of things today, ladies: Command has seen fit to increase our ranks here at Blood Gulch Outpost Number 1.
Grif: Crap, we're getting a rookie.
Sarge: That's right dead man. Our new recruit will be here within the week. But today, we received the first part of our shipment from Command. Lopez... bring up the vehicle.
A jeep emerges from the hill behind Sarge
Simmons: Shotgun!
Grif: Shotgun! Fuck!
Sarge: May I introduce, our new light reconnaissance vehicle. It has four inch armor plating, maaag buffer suspension, a mounted machine gunner position, and total seating for three. Gentlemen, this is the M12-LRV! I like to call it the Warthog.
Simmons: Why 'Warthog' sir?
Sarge: Because M12-LRV is too hard to say in conversation, son.
Grif: No, but... why 'Warthog'? I mean, it doesn't really look like a pig...
Sarge: Say that again?
Grif: I think it looks more like a puma.
Sarge: What in sam hell is a puma?
Simmons: Uh... you mean like the shoe company?
Grif: No, like a puma. It's a big cat. Like a lion.
Sarge: You're making that up.
Grif: I'm telling you, it's a real animal!
Sarge: Simmons, I want you to poison Grif's next meal.
Simmons: Yes sir!
Sarge: Look, see these two tow hooks? They look like tusks. And what kind of animal has tusks?
Grif: A walrus.
Sarge: Didn't I just tell you to stop making up animals?
Church is looking at the red team through the sniper rifle, and Tucker is with him
Tucker: What is that thing?
Church: I don't know, but it looks like uh... looks like they got some kinda car down there. We'd better get back to base and report it.
Tucker: A car? How come they get a car?
Church: What are you complaining about man? We're about to get a tank in the very next drop.
Tucker: You can't pick up chicks in a tank.
Church: Oh, you know what, you could bitch about anything, couldn't you. We're gonna get a tank, and you're worried about chicks. What chicks are we gonna pick up man!? Firay, and secondly, how are we gonna pick up chicks in a car that looks like that?
Tucker: Well what kind of car is it?
Church: I don't know, I've never seen a car that looks like that before, it looks like a uh... like a big cat of some kind.
Tucker: ... ... what, like a puma?
Church: Yeah man, there ya go.
Back to the reds
Sarge: So unless anybody else has any more mythical creatures to suggest as a name for the new vehicle, we're gonna stick with 'the Warthog'. How about it Grif?
Grif: No sir, no more suggestions.
Sarge: Are you sure? How 'bout Bigfoot?
Grif: That's okay.
Sarge: Unicorn?
Grif: No really, I'm... I'm cool.
Sarge: Sasquatch?
Re: (Score:2)
PUMA? (Score:5, Funny)
Is that the best they could come up with?
If a transport product is going to be called PUMA, it should at the very least allow me to stalk prey from tree branches, rocky outcroppings, or tall grass, silently leaping with claws outstretched, to hamstring them and then choke them with my jaws, so I can drag them back to my lair and devour their tender innards at ease.
I think this product should be called COUGAR, for Compensatory Object for Urban Guys Against Railtransit.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
If it was called COUGAR, it would just start randomly bumping into all the brand new cars on the road.
YES, it's clever.
Ride a motorcycle? (Score:5, Insightful)
I know a motorcycle is still gas, but a battery will be using up other energy somehow, and if you live in Oklahoma like I do, it's just coming from coal or oil.
better yet, just get a horse.
Re:Ride a motorcycle? (Score:5, Informative)
if you live in Oklahoma like I do, it's just coming from coal or oil
And as has been shown many, many times before, the net impact on the environment is still much less than burning fuel in a small internal combustion engine. Power plants have the advantage of higher temperatures, more consistant loads, unlimited weight and size, and being always on. They are much more efficient at pulling energy out of fossil fuels, even including losses due to transmition, charging, and the electrical engine.
Re: (Score:2)
If you want an electric motorcycle, why would you pick this? If you're on a budget, I'd go for something like this [autobloggreen.com]. If you've got coin to spare, perhaps this [ridemission.com] (gotta love G-forces almost as high as those on the Space Shuttle ;) ).
Re: (Score:2)
Okay, so an electric motorcycle?
They currently exist in various forms. [wikipedia.org] My dad recently purchased electric bicycle [wikipedia.org] that can go around 10 miles on a charge. It only cost around $500. The best part is, when the battery runs out, you can peddle home!
Seems rather silly (Score:5, Insightful)
35 mph, 35 miles before a recharge is needed.
A bike will easily go 15 mph, doesn't have a range restriction, and uses no electricity.
A motorized scooter will go the same speed or faster, and has a greater range, plus has the advantage of being able to stop almost anywhere for gasoline.
So which niche is this targetting?
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
He quickly changed the subject.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You're taking your life in your hands when you drive everywhere, too, it just isn't so obvious. The risks from heart disease and other afflictions of the unfit are much larger that those from cycling, though perhaps your roads are unusually unsafe.
The weather problems of cycling are also overrated. The cars are much more dangerous in bad weather, so you have to be extra-careful of them, but clothing is a big help at dealing with the cold, and lack of clothing helps with the hot. Rain is, indeed, the wors
No range limit? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
So which niche is this targetting?
Let's look at the two companies behind this thing. We have GM, which is on the verge of bankruptcy. We also have Segway, which is also rumored to be on the verge of bankruptcy. [cnn.com] Both companies are known for creating devices that are tremendous [wikipedia.org] flops. [wikipedia.org] I think it's safe to say, they have no idea.
Messerschmitts are coming back . . . (Score:2)
The Germans mucked around with motorized scooter cars in post-WWII: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Messerschmitt_KR200 [wikipedia.org] and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Messerschmitt_KR175 [wikipedia.org]
Maybe they will be resurrected?
Re: (Score:2)
Unmanned Rickshaws?
A fleet of them sit at pickup/dropoff points in city centers, you get in one, select a destination and it drives itself there.GPS and some forward looking radar to avoid obstacles would all that would really be needed.
The fact it's on two wheel should mean it can rotate on the spot making it ideal for tight operating spaces.
Add a bit of network communication with a central server and the things could drive themselves to pickup points which are running low on vehicles or have them congrega
Re: (Score:2)
Depending on a person's needs and preferences, this vehicle could offer a number of advantages over a bike.
It's wider than a bike and the back could be painted a bright fluorescent color, making it quite visible to motorists.
It's got a full win
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Is it? A bicycle won't balance itself.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Yep, Slashdot... home of the fat lazy nerds.
Just dont make any... (Score:2)
I'm sorry... (Score:4, Insightful)
I'm happy to see... (Score:2)
/me thinks this idea won't save GM. (Score:2)
Too big for a standard sidewalk.
Too small to be safe on the road.
Has a roll-cage...because it needs one. /me thinks this idea won't save GM.
Naming (Score:3, Funny)
I think the GM name is a bit tainted these days, and as for Segway, that's synonymous with venture capital funded half-baked ideas that failed to learn the lessons of previous marketing failures.
How about something with a classical ring to it, like 'Sinclair.' And for the model name, well how about C for 'cool' and 5 for the number of people who will need to buy it? There. Sinclair C5 [wikipedia.org]. Perfect.
Segway's Motto should be: (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Oh god that was fucking, yeah, I'm saying it, fucking funny!
2012?! (Score:2)
Coming out in 2012? GM won't be around by then...
Now you can get beat up in pairs: http://www.yesbutnobutyes.com/archives/2009/04/get_beaten_up_i.html
Sheldon
Segway has jumped the shark (Score:2)
Okay, "jumped the shark" isn't a perfect fit, but I just can't think of a better phrase - but with the Segway and now this vehicle, it's like they have no idea how to really be original in a way that addresses an actual issue. It simply comes down to all this silly stuff about being able to balance on fewer wheels than normal. But what, exactly, do you actually gain from a practical standpoint by doing that? It seems like we've got these impractical, uselessly overengineered products that don't fit into any
Good grief... (Score:2)
Does Segway make anything that doesn't make you look like a dork when riding in/on it?
Sorry, not terribly impressed (Score:2)
Gm takes Federal bailout money... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
So did Moonbattery. [moonbattery.com]
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
when i was in college (not too long ago), people still rode bikes. the only problem was in the snow, as people would try to ride up a steep hill and bust their ass. you wouldn't catch me in one of these segway things on a steep, snowy hill either tho.
this seems a little too "road 2.0" to me.
Re: (Score:2)
Walking is a lot safer, especially in the winter. (And for that matter in the other season (road construction))
But there are some things you need a motor vehicle for, like shopping (to carry stuff home), or travel in bad weather. (eg rain, or -40 degree wind chill)