Segway's P.U.M.A.

[Professor S]

Many thanks to GM and Segway (they're still in business?) for proving the point I made in he Cap in Trade thread:

http://www.usatoday.com/money/autos/2009-04-06-puma-segway-gm_N.htm

This is the dumbest goddamn idea I've ever heard of.

1) It's top speed is 35 mph, so it' basically limited to densely populated city travel. So city people never need to go out of town? They don't take public transport if it's available in these areas? What about L.A.? How will this work with the large, highway based cities? Even Phildelphia is a stretch for this. This still fails the same way the segway fails... because it still only replaces foot traffic and people would rather just walk or take public transport when they need to.

2) It seats two people with little to no storage. Don't city folk have kids? What about shopping and the need to haul shit? You've eliminated families from your market base and it tends to be those with families who have the expendable income to afford frivolous shit like this.

3) It has zero safety features beyond a computer that "will never let you crash". So you'll teleport if a Hummer bears down on you? It isn't intended to work on existing roads... thats right... not only is this a terrible idea, but it will require local, state and national governments as well as private institutions to create brand new infrastructure specifically for this one horrible idea that no one wants or asked for.

This shit blows my fucking mind. GM partnered with Segway on this? Is this what the federal government believes will save the auto-industry? A two seater Segway????? REALLY, YOU FUCKING OBLIVIOUS MORONS??? I apologize for swearing, but I'm actually restraining myself right now.

It boggles the mind to think that GM/the government think that partnering with this company (who's biggest success was a product cameo in Paul Blart Mall Cop) will save them.

[manasecret]

The partnership with Segway began about 18 months ago, predating GM's emergency survival loans from the government.

So try not to blame the government in your rant.

Just blame GM. Every true patriot says you must buy domestic. I say B.S. I'll buy domestic the day that the quality, reliability, MPG, and prices of their cars matches those of Toyota and Honda. And the day they stop focusing on stupid toys like the PUMA.

[Professor S]

So try not to blame the government in your rant.

Well then I blame the government for not immediately cancelling this travesty of an idea (they canned the CEO so why stop at that?), and giving any money to GM in the first place without first giving their creative team a collective IQ test.

Either way GM shouldn't get a dime from the government going forward if this is what our public investment gets us. GM has proven itself as a company that deserves to fail, and I say that being a GM car owner.

If we didn't need the US auto-industry's production lines to create military vehicles in the chance of a full war, I don't think any of this would be happening.

[Jason1]

I saw this on the news recently and I'll agree that obviously this cant replace your normal vehicle. And I dont assume they are positioning it in that way. Thats what the Chevy Volt is for...

[Professor S]

I saw this on the news recently and I'll agree that obviously this cant replace your normal vehicle. And I dont assume they are positioning it in that way. Thats what the Chevy Volt is for...

If it is not intended to replace existing modes of travel, it is not necessary, and now they ask people to spend a lot of money on something completely unecessary. This was the same problem with the original segway in the first place. I love the idea of green and convenient travel, but the entire segway experiment is a failure becuse they couldn't match their vision with a realistic market.

The Volt has promise, but it still needs big improvements in range and cost effectiveness in both price and maintenance. Until hybrid/green vehicles can become economical as well as environemental, I think they'll remain a popular fad, but won't have staying power in the marketplace. Most hybrids sold today are $5,000 - $7,000 more than their traditional versions, and that translates to 7-11 years of use before the buyer sees any economic benefit from their purchase. The economics is the missing link in all this.

I agree that there is a market for green products, but they need to make sense. To me, the PUMA makes no sense because it has no market. Hopefully the Volt, with improvements, will have a market.

[manasecret]

Until hybrid/green vehicles can become economical as well as environemental, I think they'll remain a popular fad, but won't have staying power in the marketplace. Most hybrids sold today are $5,000 - $7,000 more than their traditional versions, and that translates to 7-11 years of use before the buyer sees any economic benefit from their purchase.

My car is way past its prime and so I've recently started looking into what cars are out there.

While for all cars where there is a "normal" version and also a "hybrid" version (like almost all hybrid cars on the market), the cost is an extra $5,000 - $7,000 (or more for luxury cars) and, I agree, it is not worth it.

But I was surprised by the price of the Prius, the lone car on the market (or one of two cars) where there is only one version and that is hybrid. At $22,000 new, I find that it is an extremely economical price for the car with the best mileage on the road and what has been rated by ConsumerReports as an extremely reliable vehicle. Compare that to the most popular car - the Toyota Camry for about $19,000. Or compare that to the price for mid-size trucks or small-size SUVs - about $21,000 - $23,000. Or to large trucks and SUVs - about $28,000 and up. To me, the Prius can easily compete economically with the cars that most Americans buy.

Of course, if you really need an SUV or truck, then a Prius won't suffice. But I reckon for the average Joe out there, a hauling vehicle isn't necessary for their daily life, and a five-seater with plenty of storage space will work great.

Now, compared to a bare-bones Honda Civic (which I believe is around $15,000) or a small truck (about $15,000), the Prius can't compete for the budget consumer. But at $22,000, it's not like it's a luxury price either.

[Bond]

Don't forget about Honda's new competitor to the Prius: the Insight (http://automobiles.honda.com/insight-hybrid/).

[manasecret]

Don't forget about Honda's new competitor to the Prius: the Insight (http://automobiles.honda.com/insight-hybrid/).

Starting at $19,800, even cheaper. These are mainstream prices, and they are only likely to get cheaper as they catch on. I think hybrids are here to stay.

[Professor S]

Starting at $19,800, even cheaper. These are mainstream prices, and they are only likely to get cheaper as they catch on. I think hybrids are here to stay.

Perhaps. You have swayed me to the possibility. The real test will be getting SUV's and trucks have workable options as well. Americans love larger cars and I think once Prius and Insight-esque versions of those come out that can compete pricewise, they'll cement themselves.

You're right, though, those prices are encouraging. I am now optimistic. :)

[The Germanator]

I agree with the ideas that have come about here. Some kind of hybrid is my ideal vehicle, but until I either start making a lot more money or they get cheaper, it's hard for me to consider actually getting one.

Anyway, I don't like the P.U.M.A either. I appreciate the idea behind it, but that execution looks to be a failure. I feel like you're better served getting a bike than something like that.

What does everyone think about the Smart Cars?

[Jason1]

The more I look at that PUMA thing the more I think "where have I seen that before"

...oh yea...

http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1017/1413506458_2228ff1271.jpg

[Professor S]

What does everyone think about the Smart Cars?


I like the Smart Cars. They are under $20,000 fully loaded, made by Mercedes, and for a tiny car they top out at 90 MPH. They are also built around a brilliant orb-like frame that is very safe. My only issue with the car is that the miles per gallon isn't as good as you would expect from a car that small. Combine the idea and technology with a hydrogen cell or lithium battery to pump up the mpg, and you have yourself a small car movement.

It still doesn't meet large car demands, but it has enough going for it to be a second car consideration for most families, I think, especially if families are thinking about buying cars for their kids (used or new).

[KillerGremlin]

Hybrids will catch on when gas starts to really become expensive....that is the conclusion I have reached. Right now gas is still dirt cheap in America. For the majority of people who don't live in LA/sniff their own farts, the intensive to buy a hybrid or electric is null.

[Dylflon]

I think hybrids are a shitty compromise and we could do better. BRING ON THE ELECTRICS!


That said, I would drive the PUMA. Despite being totally lame, it's kind of cool.

[KillerGremlin]

The reality is electric cars can't go very far....they have low horse power.....and they rely on electricity. Most of your electricity comes from dirty coal and isn't all that green in the first place. If the electricity came from renewable sources like solar, wind or water, then it would be win-win. I'm also a proponent of nuclear power, which has become very clean and efficient outside of the US (for some reason the US has some objection to updating our plants). I can't wait till solar cells become more efficient....one day we will have solar cars.

Hybrids are the best of both worlds right now.....you get like 50+ miles to the gallon on the better cars.....

For the record I think hybrid SUVs are dumb.

[Professor S]

I think hybrids are a shitty compromise and we could do better. BRING ON THE ELECTRICS!

Electrics aren't the best compromise either, since you have a 50% chance that your electric car is really powered by coal (at least in the US where 50% of all electricity is from coal fired plants).

That, and the battery is a huge issue. 100% electrics have horrible ranges, and while they might get better with time, it will likely take 50 years or more to make a battery powerful enough to power industrial vehicles, trucks and SUV's. The only other way for it to work would be to build a network of electrical " gas stations" across the US, and that would require a massive change in infrastructure, as well as considerations of how long it takes to charge a battery of that size. It takes me 4 hours to charge my lithium ion battery cell phone. I doubt people would be willing to wait that long to recharge.

Thats why I think hybrids (electric/hyrdrogen/carbon combos) are the real future of US travel once costs are reduced and it becomes mass market driven instead of niche market driven. The advantage for your belief, is that hybrids realistically allow for the future development of improved electric technology that could make your ideal fuel more pragmatic over time. Perhaps, if we expanded on this research?

http://www.tfcbooks.com/articles/tws12.htm

We simply can't ignore that our nation (the US) was built around the car, and that puts us at a significant disadvantage when trying to create cars that run on alternative fuels that are marketable in the US.

[KillerGremlin]

Not to mention charging up your electric car takes a while......means you have to leave it in the garage overnight....

[manasecret]

Project Better Place (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Better_Place) is the best idea so far to make electric cars work, and I believe it can. There has been much buzz about it lately. Wired magazine had a cover-story on it a few months ago.

Essentially the idea boils down to having all electric cars, that when going to a re-"fueling" station, instead of sitting there and waiting for the battery to charge, pre-charged batteries from the station are simply switched out with the one in your car. In this case, you don't really "own" the battery, although you do, because you would switch them out with pre-charged different ones all the time.

As quoted from Wikipedia (and backed up from the Wired article I read), "Better Place will build its first electric vehicle networks (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electric_vehicle_network) in Denmark (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denmark), Israel (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israel) and Australia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australia)<sup id="cite_ref-0" class="reference">[1] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Better_Place#cite_note-0)</sup> where the electricity will be generated by renewable energy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renewable_energy)." They've already made a deal with the automaker Renault who will be building the electric cars.

The range of the car is about 110 miles on one battery, but the distance you can drive would only be limited by the battery station infrastructure.

It's the best idea I've heard to actually make electric cars viable.

[Fyacin]

I say hydrogen is far more likely to replace gas then anything. It just seems like it has the least infrastructure to overcome, and it's incredibly plentiful.

[KillerGremlin]

Project Better Place (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Better_Place) is the best idea so far to make electric cars work, and I believe it can. There has been much buzz about it lately. Wired magazine had a cover-story on it a few months ago.

Essentially the idea boils down to having all electric cars, that when going to a re-"fueling" station, instead of sitting there and waiting for the battery to charge, pre-charged batteries from the station are simply switched out with the one in your car. In this case, you don't really "own" the battery, although you do, because you would switch them out with pre-charged different ones all the time.

As quoted from Wikipedia (and backed up from the Wired article I read), "Better Place will build its first electric vehicle networks (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electric_vehicle_network) in Denmark (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denmark), Israel (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israel) and Australia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australia)<sup id="cite_ref-0" class="reference">[1] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Better_Place#cite_note-0)</sup> where the electricity will be generated by renewable energy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renewable_energy)." They've already made a deal with the automaker Renault who will be building the electric cars.

The range of the car is about 110 miles on one battery, but the distance you can drive would only be limited by the battery station infrastructure.

It's the best idea I've heard to actually make electric cars viable.

That's pretty sweet...I'd say that would be the best bet to making electric cars work. I just wonder if the costs of implementing that on a global scale would be worthwile, or if a cheaper alternate (green) fuel will be coming down the pipe soon.

[manasecret]

Another problem is making the thing automated. The idea is to make it so that you pull in, and a machine takes out your battery and puts a new one in. All with little error.

I imagine one of those automatic mechanical car wash machines -- y'know those ones at self-wash places and gas stations that always seem to be broken? -- except they do batteries and they're even less reliable because everyone is using it.

I can't wait to get feedback from the tests in Israel and the others.

[Dylflon]

Here in glorious British Columbia, our electricity is pretty much all hydro.

Therefore we can drive electrics and still be super cool.

[Dylflon]

Oh, and you guys seem to be taking the anti-electric arguments that seem to be mysteriously popping up all over the place despite the glowing reviews from everyone who has been in test groups for electric cars.

http://www.peachygreen.com/electric-cars/7-electric-car-myths

Here is for the counter arguments.

[Professor S]

Dyflon, I hate to say it but the only "myths" involved in that article are the author's counter-arguments. Most of what the author cites are arguments based on technology that doesn't yet exist. Its a bunch of "shoulds" and "will" but there is little "does". The Volt is still at least a year away and still gets less that 40 miles per charge. It's nice that people think it will get up to 80, but thats a big "if". Even with 80 miles per charge, I still think an American car needs 100 miles per charge before it will be a true fuel replacement alternative

I'd love to see electric cars succeed. But that article did little to dispel electric car criticisms.

[Jason1]

Electrics aren't the best compromise either, since you have a 50% chance that your electric car is really powered by coal (at least in the US where 50% of all electricity is from coal fired plants).



Now wait just a second, that is true to an extent but not entirely. It is true that when you actually plug in the car the electricity could be coming from a coal power plant, I'll give you that. But here is how the Volt actually works for longer distance driving...

Lets say your going on a 200 mile trip. Your car is fully charged before you leave so obviously it will swith over to the gasoline powered engine after 40 miles. But, as soon as it does this, the engine will begin to re-charge the electric motor, so after awhile the gasoline engine will again turn off and the car should be able to go another 40 miles on the electric engine. GM says on a long trip, combining this on and off action of the electric motor, the VOLT should average over 100mpg. That sounds pretty good to me.

[Dyne]

This thread boggles my mind. The companies have done nothing wrong. Why are people getting upset?

From a design perspective the PUMA works. It seems like there's a lot of filling of blanks being done here despite the problem and solution being quite clear cut on the behalf of the developers of electric cars in general.

[Professor S]

This thread boggles my mind. The companies have done nothing wrong. Why are people getting upset?

From a design perspective the PUMA works. It seems like there's a lot of filling of blanks being done here despite the problem and solution being quite clear cut on the behalf of the developers of electric cars in general.

I'm not upset with electric cars, per se, but instead I'm upset at stupid ideas being funded by failing companies that rely on your and my tax dollars. The PUMA is not an electric car. It is not intended to be driven on highways or existing infratsructure, but instead is a casual vehicle that demnds that brand new infrastructure be built. That and it's essentially a two seated version of an already failed product.

True electric cars, on the other hand, make more sense because they meet existing demands, use existing infratstructure, but have problems regarding battery life, charging, affordability and disposability. These aren't overwhelming problems, but one's that need to be overcome before they will be widely accepted as a fossil fuel replacement.

Mainly, I am frustrated at simplistic solutions based in idealism and not pragmatism. I'd love to see people combine hydrogen/carbon/electric options to make a beast of a vehicle fit for consumer and commercial use that gets 50-80 mpg but still has excellent power, size and style that have proven to be attractive to American buyers.

We're headed in that direction, but the PUMA does not fit into a workable model, IMO, and they are using taxpayer dollars to do so. Thats my issue.

Jason, if the Volt can do what they claim, it's definitely a step in the right direction, but the proposed price points aren't that great from what I've read. I'd like to see them come down, but instead they seem to continue to pump the price up farther and farther. Maybe thats necessary in the long run, but not an immediate solution. Personally, I see so much cheap hydrogen out there that only emits water when burned, and I wonder why we aren't pshing harder in that direction.

[Jason1]

Jason, if the Volt can do what they claim, it's definitely a step in the right direction, but the proposed price points aren't that great from what I've read. I'd like to see them come down, but instead they seem to continue to pump the price up farther and farther. Maybe thats necessary in the long run, but not an immediate solution. Personally, I see so much cheap hydrogen out there that only emits water when burned, and I wonder why we aren't pshing harder in that direction.

I also love the Hydrogen idea, but I think the main problem with it is infrastructure. Where do you go to put Hydrogen in your car? The costs of setting up hydrogen stations all over the country would be astronomical. But maybe it just needs to be spent, I dont know there obviously is no ideal quick soultion.

[KillerGremlin]

I think the Puma is dumb because it is supposed to cut down on urban traffic. Come on.......you REALLY think you can sell that BS to me? Sorry. I live in the major metropolitan area known as Chicago and traffic and commuting sucks ass here. They need to invest more money in public transportation and solving the never-ending highway issue. Rush hour inbound/outbound Chicago traffic is some of the worst in the nation. Driving around in a little segway-mobile isn't going to resolve shit except adding another annoyance to bikers. And I have nothing against bikers, it's green and we already have a bunch of bike paths. That to me is a wise investment...that and adding more funds to our shoddy bus system and dirty underground train system. Hope the olympics go to Rio...

Reason cities have traffic is commuters. Commuters can't drive 45-miles in a little segway thingy.

[Jason1]

Really the only American City I can see that working in is New York, and even then it will really only work if you stay in Manhattan all the time. I think everywhere else you at times need to go much faster than 35MPH.

[Acebot44]

I read about Better Place about a year ago and thought it sounded very neat. This thread made the idea pop back into my head and I'm glad to see that Jason knew about it too. Coincidentally, TED.com just posted Shai Agassi's talk on Project Better place for us all to enjoy.


<object width="446" height="326"><param name="movie" value="http://video.ted.com/assets/player/swf/EmbedPlayer.swf"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true" /><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><param name="bgColor" value="#ffffff"></param> <param name="flashvars" value="vu=http://video.ted.com/talks/embed/ShaiAgassi_2009-embed_high.flv&su=http://images.ted.com/images/ted/tedindex/embed-posters/ShaiAgassi-2009.embed_thumbnail.jpg&vw=432&vh=240&ap=0&ti=512" /><embed src="http://video.ted.com/assets/player/swf/EmbedPlayer.swf" pluginspace="http://www.macromedia.com/go/getflashplayer" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" bgColor="#ffffff" width="446" height="326" allowFullScreen="true" flashvars="vu=http://video.ted.com/talks/embed/ShaiAgassi_2009-embed_high.flv&su=http://images.ted.com/images/ted/tedindex/embed-posters/ShaiAgassi-2009.embed_thumbnail.jpg&vw=432&vh=240&ap=0&ti=512"></embed></object>

[Angrist]

And I have nothing against bikers, it's green and we already have a bunch of bike paths. That to me is a wise investment...that and adding more funds to our shoddy bus system and dirty underground train system. Holland is known for being a bike country. We have bicycle paths everywhere. I really agree that they would be wise investments for other countries.

Oh and Xantar really envies Europe's train system. You can go from Amsterdam to Paris in a few hours. And to Berlin... there's just a very fast train network, it a really good alternative to flying.

[The Germanator]

Everybody interested in new ideas for transportation should read this week's Good magazine. You can read a lot of it here. http://www.good.is/