Living Car Free - The next segway....

Just reading a story on Yahoo about GM and Segway teaming up to create a two wheeled, two seat electric vehicle they are calling the PUMA(Personal Urban Mobility and Accessibility). Up to 35 mph and 35 miles on one charge. Apparently, it's supposed to have the two wheels side by side like on a Segway - I have no idea how that would work with two people on it.

Call me pessimistic, but this sounds like it will just become the butt of many jokes if it ever reaches production.

Still, it's a step in the right direction. I just wish GM would take their heads out of their ass and team up with the Canadian companies making the NEVs you see about sometimes. It seems that if you took the advanced batteries they are developing to make heavy cars do 0-60 in 5 seconds and put them in what is essentially a golf cart on steroids and then work with lawmakers to increase the safety measures in these vehicles to allow them to travel at 40mph (they are currently artificially limited to 25mph in the USA due to safety requirements), they really could have a winner. Light, energy efficient, and hopefully reasonably cheap.

Anyway, a link to the story about the "PUMA" http://finance.yahoo.com/news/GM-and-Segway-unveil-new-apf-14865215.html

I almost posted this in the Commuting forum. Glad I saw your post first.

Here (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/7987301.stm) is an article with a picture.

Sad that most folks feel like they 'have to have' some kind of self-propelled machine to haul their fatness around. There's so much more you can do with a bike than you could ever do in that silly thing - haul more, go farther, get thinner, and no batteries to wear out after 35 miles.

:deadhorse:

The problem with bicycles is that they can last forever with minimal maintenance (minimal compare to dumping thousands of dollars to maintene something like a car).

So if profits is your main concern, what is more appealing to you? A product that sells for $500-$2000 and last the life time of the consumer, and the consumer can do almost all the maintenance on their own. Or a product that sells for $10000-$20000, a product where social stigma pressure consumers to buy another one every 5-10 years, and a product where you need to bring it back to a qualified shop to have it properly maintained.

I almost posted this in the Commuting forum. Glad I saw your post first.

Here (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/7987301.stm) is an article with a picture.

Sad that most folks feel like they 'have to have' some kind of self-propelled machine to haul their fatness around. There's so much more you can do with a bike than you could ever do in that silly thing - haul more, go farther, get thinner, and no batteries to wear out after 35 miles.

:deadhorse:

I'd rather be shot than drive (ride?) that thing. It looks stupid as hell, and it seems to me that the gyroscopes or whatever that keep it from tipping over are just a waste of energy....put another wheel on the damned thing and save that power for making it go.

Thanks for the picture. For some reason I was imaging it having a front seat and back seat, haha. That makes much more sense now. But it seems nearly worthless with out any kind of cargo capacity. You at least need to be able to pick up groceries.

The problem with bicycles is that they can last forever with minimal maintenance (minimal compare to dumping thousands of dollars to maintene something like a car).

So if profits is your main concern, what is more appealing to you? A product that sells for $500-$2000 and last the life time of the consumer, and the consumer can do almost all the maintenance on their own. Or a product that sells for $10000-$20000, a product where social stigma pressure consumers to buy another one every 5-10 years, and a product where you need to bring it back to a qualified shop to have it properly maintained.

Let's not forget the energy & materials consumed for this thing compared to the energy & materials
used to build a bike. :innocent:

I think drivers licenses should be multi-tiered. It should be really difficult to get a license for a regular automobile, but people who don't pass said test will have an opportunity to pass an easier test to drive a low-speed vehicle like a golf cart or one of these.

It's better than cars, and more realistic than bikes for some people.

I thought this segment of the article was interesting:



Ideally, the vehicles would also be part of a communications network that through the use of transponder and GPS technology would allow them to drive themselves. The vehicles would automatically avoid obstacles such as pedestrians and other cars and therefore never crash, Burns said.

As a result, the PUMA vehicles would not need air bags or other traditional safety devices and include safety belts for "comfort purposes" only, he said.

Though the technology and its goals may seem like something out of science fiction, Burns said nothing new needs to be invented for it to become a reality.

"At this point, it's merely a business decision," he said.


Do you all think these claims are true, or is he full of it?

Would you rather share the road with an "uncrashable" Segway or more cars?

Here's the picture from BBC:

http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/45641000/jpg/_45641120__mg_5966.jpg

Let's not forget the energy & materials consumed for this thing compared to the energy & materials
used to build a bike. :innocent:

And compared to a Hummer? Or even to a Mini Cooper?

I think it's more likely that motorists will switch to this thing. Most cyclists will hate it.

So....would any of you buy one?

Not me. But I like it a lot better than cars.

I hope to see a transition to more low-speed "city vehicles" as global competition for materials drives up the price of driving. While I think personal transport is far more efficient and convenient than public transport, I'm not a fan of the freeway-oriented model of development that encourages people to drive long distances at high speeds. Perhaps our future will consist of more bikes and all forms for "air powered" (which aren't really powered by air at the source) and electrical vehicles, which, while not having sufficient energy capacity for the trips that people frequently make today, would be perfect in a world where expensive energy forces people to make shorter trips.

One easy way to make the city streets friendly to all types of vehicles: lower the speed limits on all surface streets to 25-30 mph.

It's better than cars, and more realistic than bikes for some people.

I thought this segment of the article was interesting:



Do you all think these claims are true, or is he full of it?

Would you rather share the road with an "uncrashable" Segway or more cars?
"The vehicles would automatically avoid obstacles such as pedestrians and other cars and therefore never crash, "
I don't think so. This wall street journal article makes a more sensible claim that the vehicle would "avoid" running into other moving objects. A cheap doppler radar or sonar coupled with a speed and limited direction control would achieve this.

http://online.wsj.com/article/BT-CO-20090406-716029.html

It looks like you could stack some groceries on the passenger seat. The police segways in DC have these pannier like boxes that fit over the mudguards.

Here's the picture ...

Thanks.. another source for a gale of laughter! I saw that (a smaller left side photo) and darn near split a gut! I suppose a few may appear like the Segway, pocket bikes, go karts. Funny they were banned.

A South American Puma sports car was around in the 1980s. Might be some sort of name mixup.

Already there are 2 seater vehicles that get great gas milage and go fast......


They're called scooters. Another solution looking for a problem IMO....well unless people are scared of scooters or something.

Do you all think these claims are true, or is he full of it?

Would you rather share the road with an "uncrashable" Segway or more cars?

I think it's an obnoxious claim. First, they have to prove that the technology actually works reasonably well. And then it still has to deal with reckless drivers and other obstacles that may appear in short notice. To suggest that this thing doesn't need safety features and only has seatbelts to make the passage "feel safe" is absurd.

Cycling has it's own dangers, and many of them will be shared by this vehicle. To them couple that with 35mph speeds sounds like a tragedy waiting to happen. These things don't need to survive a head on crash with a tank... er excursion at 80mph, but I think seat belts and airbags are well in order.


It looks like you could stack some groceries on the passenger seat.

Sure, as long as you always go grocery shopping alone and don't buy more than two-three bags worth of groceries.

It's a step in the right direction, but if this is the best GM could come up with, at a time like this when they really need to pull out all the stops and prove to the American people they are worth saving....

EDIT: Combined with commuter rail infrastructure, this could have some potential.

Want to go on a date? I've got a sweet ride!

http://imgs.sfgate.com/c/pictures/2009/04/07/ba-gmsegway18_jp_0500001353.jpg

I could be tempted by a lightweight vehicle that better protection from weather than a bicycle with fenders. Ability to carry a passenger doesn't hurt.

But hey, I could buy a velomobile.


"The vehicles would automatically avoid obstacles such as pedestrians and other cars and therefore never crash, "
I don't think so. This wall street journal article makes a more sensible claim that the vehicle would "avoid" running into other moving objects. A cheap doppler radar or sonar coupled with a speed and limited direction control would achieve this.

If you had roads where everything on the road was computer controlled, you could probably make them never crash, using existing technology.

But to have a perfect zero-crash record on regular streets you would have to be prepared for every pedestrian on the sidewalk to suddenly jump into the street in front of you, chasing a dog, a dropped umbrella, or a basketball. You'd have to assume that these events happen even while there is water or snow on the road. You'd have to assume that every human-controlled vehicle may suddenly stop/accelerate/turn without regard for traffic laws and common sense, even if there is water or ice on the road.

A computer might be able to imitate the common sense of a really good driver but that's not really "existing technology". Combining instant reaction times with really good driving skills is about as much as can be hoped for, and that still won't get your computer system a perfect driving record.

Want to go on a date? I've got a sweet ride!

http://imgs.sfgate.com/c/pictures/2009/04/07/ba-gmsegway18_jp_0500001353.jpg

meh...with an open cockpit like that, you can't even steam up the windows.

meh...with an open cockpit like that, you can't even steam up the windows.

It would be like going on a date in a motorized wheelchair wouldn't it? It would be more fun on an xtracycle or even a regular seqway with your date hangin on the back.

I wonder which company initiated the idea? Did GM go to Segway and pitch the idea? Probably not. They aren't too innovative.

This vehicle looks like its development must have started before the severe drop in car sales. If that is the case and GM fails, will Segway be able to take this idea to other companies and get this into production? Segway already licenses their technology to other companies so if any other automobile manufacturer wanted to make something similar Segway could do the same with them.

This looks like a great idea. Having cities filled with these instead of cars would be a great benefit to all of us. There would be less smog; more parking, fewer accident with cars (due to internal radar), and a quieter environment.

Honestly I would prefer the current Segway for around town travel. It just needs a longer range than twenty-four miles. Let the unfit and elderly use the two-seater Segway car. That would be fine with me. The final production models will surely have an option for fully enclosing the passengers for bad weather days.

motorized wheelchair
That's exactly what it looks like :lol:

It looks stupid as hell, and it seems to me that the gyroscopes or whatever that keep it from tipping over are just a waste of energy....put another wheel on the damned thing and save that power for making it go.

I agree, and while you're putting another wheel on it, add at least a little cargo space!


One easy way to make the city streets friendly to all types of vehicles: lower the speed limits on all surface streets to 25-30 mph.

I like that idea, unfortunately many people here already drive 40+mph on quiet residential streets with, apparently, no repercussions whatsoever. Granted, our police force is about half of the national average, and I'm sure they're usually busy rushing to all the car crashes so they don't have much time for speeding tickets...

Let's not forget the energy & materials consumed for this thing compared to the energy & materials
used to build a bike. :innocent:

While the fabrication materials may be slight compared to a Hummer or even a Prius, I wonder what would really happen if these things became popular. I can see them working well for anyone living in a moderate climate in the right urban environment -- lets say the layout of Rome vs a suburb like Schaumberg IL...

I also can't see them being at all feasible for about half the year in Iowa. The thought of driving that thing through -30F windchills is not good.

I'm afraid that GM would sell a ton of these things and every family in the USA would need one, along with a Hummer, a 3 wheeler, a scooter.

I also can't see them being at all feasible for about half the year in Iowa. The thought of driving that thing through -30F windchills is not good.

If people can survive riding bicycles and snowmobiles in the winter, then surely one of those lame segway things is also usable. Your body isn't producing much heat but you've got a bit of wind protection with the roof/windshield and you can always bundle up.

Cultural norms in the US seem to say that you can't go around in really hot/cold weather exposed to the elements, even though that's what the majority of the world's people do today, and it was the only option at all up until the last (less than) 1% of human history.