backtop


Print 138 comment(s) - last by Reclaimer77.. on Apr 9 at 3:27 PM


  (Source: Autoblog)

GM has partnered with Segway to release the P.U.M.A., a unique two wheeler that can do 35 mph. The device will be marketed to city commuters.  (Source: AutoBlog)

The P.U.M.A.. has a range of 35 miles, plenty for city commutes. It communicates wirelessly with vehicles around it to prevent crashes.  (Source: AutoBlog)
What's black and yellow, has two wheels and goes 35 MPH? GM and Segway's new 2-wheel vehicle!

GM has paired up with Segway to develop and market a new vehicle, which GM is calling the vehicle of the future. The new vehicle, named the Personal Urban Mobility and Accessibility Project (P.U.M.A. for short), balances on two wheels, much like the Segway. 

What's different is its speed and range.  Whereas the Segway could only go 12 MPH -- suitable for mall officer cruising speeds, but not for the roads -- the P.U.M.A. can do 35 MPH.  It also has an extended range, which bumps its range up to a commute-worthy 35 miles.

The vehicle could indeed make a splash on city roads, where speed limits would make a 35 MPH vehicle practical.  This side-by-side two wheeler could potentially steal business from tradition two wheelers -- which have one wheel in front of the other -- like mopeds.

The new machine is powered by a lithium-ion battery pack.  GM should be able to bring some of its engineering experience from designing the Chevy Volt to extending the range of the vehicle and cutting the weight of the pack.

Another key feature of the vehicle is its ability to communicate information to its fellow P.U.M.A.'s and potentially other vehicles around it.  This feature can be used to reduce traffic congestion and to prevent accidents.  This should help to slightly reduce the risk of blazing down city streets doing 35 MPH with the new vehicle.

Cost is still being worked out, but early estimates point to a cost of somewhere around $3,500-5,500 USD, about a quarter of that of a traditional automobile.  The P.U.M.A. will be officially unveiled to the world this week at the New York Auto Show.



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

I submit to the court...
By MadMan007 on 4/7/2009 1:10:16 PM , Rating: 4
Exhibit A in the 'Why GM is an epic failure' trial.




RE: I submit to the court...
By aebiv on 4/7/2009 1:10:40 PM , Rating: 2
Wonder how long it will be before the Blart MallCops put flashing lights on the top of these things...


RE: I submit to the court...
By dubldwn on 4/7/2009 1:19:38 PM , Rating: 5
I cannot wait for the youtube video of one of these getting hit by a Navigator.


RE: I submit to the court...
By MrBungle123 on 4/7/2009 1:33:57 PM , Rating: 2
ROFL!


RE: I submit to the court...
By MrPeabody on 4/7/2009 2:12:15 PM , Rating: 3
Watching one take a tight turn at thirty-five miles-an-hour would also be entertaining, though probably less ultimately spectacular.


RE: I submit to the court...
By Entropy42 on 4/7/2009 3:37:51 PM , Rating: 5
I don't understand why everyone is knocking these things so hard for being unsafe in an accident. They are small, lightweight, carry one person, and probably can't be driven in bad weather. Just like .... a motorcycle. A motorcycle getting hit by a Navigator is totally screwed as well.

I guess the theory is a motorcycle is more maneuverable, and so is less likely to be in an accident? But no one here has any idea how maneuverable this will be.


RE: I submit to the court...
By Reclaimer77 on 4/7/09, Rating: -1
RE: I submit to the court...
By Reclaimer77 on 4/7/09, Rating: -1
RE: I submit to the court...
By MadMan007 on 4/7/2009 5:10:26 PM , Rating: 5
You can do what all day, make up rediculous fear scenarios about how every single right will be taken away because your side didn't win an election? I guess that makes sense since the politics of fear was perfected by the neocons.


RE: I submit to the court...
By Bruneauinfo on 4/7/2009 5:04:22 PM , Rating: 5
in which case no one will be driving a Navigator so you won't have to worry about getting hit by one.


RE: I submit to the court...
By Machinegear on 4/7/2009 5:53:02 PM , Rating: 2
You may have a point, though I dispute your example. Motorcycles do better than 35MPH and perform incomparable acceleration. From observation, my Ducati can dance around Navigators and 'get out of their way' with a flick of the wrist; think 125MPH before the soccer mom knew the light turned green. In converse, these two wheelers are sitting ducks with limited speed, and I would contend limited maneuverability too from the side-by-side wheel arrangement (sure they can turn on a dime, but at a slow *don't-tip-me-over* speed). They will be more unsafe than motorcycles if they are to play in the sea of faster, bigger vehicles.


RE: I submit to the court...
By lagomorpha on 4/7/2009 6:27:44 PM , Rating: 2
http://hellforleathermagazine.com/2009/04/2009-zer...

Even the equivalent electric motorcycle can do 60miles at 60mph. Looks a LOT more fun and safe as well.


RE: I submit to the court...
By phxfreddy on 4/7/2009 10:21:02 PM , Rating: 1
Its the Obama-Mobile!!! YAY !! Superhero Barack Obama can speed towards the seen of crimes in this with a low carbon purple satin boot print. Men will look in envy. Womenz will want him. Little kids will admire him.

Is there any way this can not be a complete and total success?

Cue the BattyMan theme!


RE: I submit to the court...
By phxfreddy on 4/8/2009 3:18:56 PM , Rating: 2
Larry Sinclair is going to LOVE the purple outfit. He dances everytime he sees his own personal pop-cycle give a speech. But remember as black guys always say....you are not gay if you are not the guy giving head.


RE: I submit to the court...
By mmcdonalataocdotgov on 4/8/2009 11:37:49 AM , Rating: 2
Segway, an answer to a question nobody asked. And we wonder why GM is in the toilet.


RE: I submit to the court...
By Spuke on 4/8/2009 12:33:30 PM , Rating: 2
You've never heard of Segway before? They're not a GM company.


RE: I submit to the court...
By Spuke on 4/7/2009 9:12:23 PM , Rating: 2
LOL!!!!


RE: I submit to the court...
By mondo1234 on 4/8/2009 5:05:27 PM , Rating: 2
I heard Wozniak took time off from Dancing with the Stars to order one (and to change his socks)

http://img2.timeinc.net/people/i/2009/galleries/dw...


RE: I submit to the court...
By mondo1234 on 4/8/2009 5:14:15 PM , Rating: 2
Round one of " Fix the Headline "
quote:
What's black and yellow, has two wheels and goes 35 MPH? GM and Segway's new 2-wheel vehicle!

to

What's black and tan, has two legs and is larger than GM's new Segway?

http://img2.timeinc.net/people/i/2009/galleries/dw...

Please disregard my post above ;)


RE: I submit to the court...
By AntiM on 4/7/2009 1:21:46 PM , Rating: 2
No doubt. I can't imagine any self-respecting person even considering riding around in such a contraption. However, for the disabled, it could potentially replace the electric wheelchairs that I occasionally see on the sidewalks.

Seeing this got me to thinking, what about an electric motorcycle?? How come we don't hear much about those?


RE: I submit to the court...
By Pirks on 4/7/2009 1:28:46 PM , Rating: 4
quote:
What about an electric motorcycle? How come we don't hear much about those?
Because you never bothered to look. I ordered a custom LiFePO4 one at jvbike.com and it gives me the same 35MPH speed and 35 miles range for much less $$$. GM one has a roof tho, nicer in the rain. I give 'em that.


RE: I submit to the court...
By The0ne on 4/8/2009 12:02:13 AM , Rating: 2
Yea, they're around. There's also the 3 wheel vehicle (not sure if it's a car or cycle hehe) that I've seen around. It's pretty pricey however.


RE: I submit to the court...
By Iger on 4/8/2009 6:31:58 AM , Rating: 2
Tricycle :)


RE: I submit to the court...
By smackababy on 4/7/2009 1:30:28 PM , Rating: 3
I think the problem is motorcycles already cost less and get 60+MPG. Oil companies are already mad about that kind of efficiency. Imagine a lighter, more cost efficient model that uses no gas? Completely impractical...


RE: I submit to the court...
By aebiv on 4/7/09, Rating: -1
RE: I submit to the court...
By stromgald30 on 4/7/2009 4:06:08 PM , Rating: 2
Um...it uses Lithium Ion batteries so yes, it is light weight. These aren't your typical lead-acid motorcycle batteries.

In addition, electric motors are generally lighter and more compact than combustion engines.


RE: I submit to the court...
By erple2 on 4/7/2009 5:59:45 PM , Rating: 1
I think you're missing the point - While lithium ion (or lithium polymer) batteries have a higher energy density than the ol' lead acids, gasoline still has a substantially higher energy density than any battery that is mass-available today. In fact, for the same range and power spec, you would have a lighter gas powered motor + fuel.

You're going to have to come up with something to back up your claim that the electrical drivetrain is lighter than an IC motor. Don't forget, you have to also include the weight of the battery capable of supplying very similar range as an IC motor + transmission + fuel.

Less complicated, probably, but I don't think that it's lighter.


RE: I submit to the court...
By Spuke on 4/7/2009 9:26:50 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Less complicated, probably, but I don't think that it's lighter.
I would say just as complicated (or as simple) as a gas engine. And, seriously, how many people here understand how an electric motor works? Electric motor operation is as foreign for most people as gas engine operation. They'll still pay mechanics to perform maintenance and repairs on them and the costs to work on them will more than likely be similar (or even more expensive in my opinion).


RE: I submit to the court...
By PrinceGaz on 4/8/2009 12:35:43 PM , Rating: 2
I'd guess the vast majority of people here understand the basic principles behind typical electric-motors, and ICEs. Many will also know how various types of electric-motor work and the differences between various types of petrol and diesel powered engines. One thing for sure is that they'll know an electric-motor is much lighter and simpler in design for a given power than any engine (even a rotary engine like in some Mazdas).

Whilst most users wouldn't maintain electric powered vehicles themselves, there is a helluva lot less to go wrong in an electric motor than in an ICE, and if something did fail, it would likely be much quicker and easier to replace.


RE: I submit to the court...
By Jeffk464 on 4/7/2009 11:07:43 PM , Rating: 2
I think if you use the super high end lithium polymer you are starting to get close to matching gasoline/engine performance for the weight. Its to the point now where I do believe someone even made a lithium electric airplane. The price of the high end lithium polymer stuff makes lithium ion look cheap though.


RE: I submit to the court...
By FredEx on 4/8/2009 3:53:44 AM , Rating: 2
This is one of many. It is the lightest. Read the specs.

http://www.zeromotorcycles.com/


By mmcdonalataocdotgov on 4/8/2009 11:39:54 AM , Rating: 2
The battery maxim is still:

High Speed, Long Distance, Low Cost: Choose any TWO.


RE: I submit to the court...
By aebiv on 4/7/2009 9:59:30 PM , Rating: 2
Okay, build me an electric bike that can compete with a normal gasoline bike. Don't even make it extreme, say a 600 Ninja. I need the same range as one tank of fuel, and the same power.


RE: I submit to the court...
By RamarC on 4/7/2009 1:32:26 PM , Rating: 2
i wouldn't take a smartcar on the expressway and this thing shouldn't be on the road with real cars either. but these would be great in planned communities that have dedicated scooter/golfcart/seqway lanes.


RE: I submit to the court...
By Bruneauinfo on 4/7/2009 5:10:06 PM , Rating: 2
yeah, except mopeds and slow drivers are in great enough numbers already that 35mph being a poor idea for a vehicle's max speed is an ideal for people who drive fast. but even if you give everyone a V-8 it's not going to change the fact that you'll always be getting stuck behind slow drivers the rest of your driving career.


RE: I submit to the court...
By lagomorpha on 4/7/2009 6:33:34 PM , Rating: 2
"these would be great in planned communities that have dedicated scooter/golfcart/seqway lanes."

Not to mention inside warehouses where vehicles that emit carbon monoxide are unwelcome. Though there are already plenty of electric and propane forklifts and golfcarts to compete with.


RE: I submit to the court...
By MozeeToby on 4/7/2009 1:37:37 PM , Rating: 2
There really isn't any point in producing an electric motorcycle; not when standard bikes are available for a quarter the price, with more power and and still get 70 mpg.


RE: I submit to the court...
By lagomorpha on 4/7/2009 6:31:35 PM , Rating: 2
Well for one my landlord won't let me park gasoline powered vehicles on the porch due to fire concerns. An electric motorcycle could be attached to my front porch well enough to require an angle grinder to steal it.


RE: I submit to the court...
By Jeffk464 on 4/7/2009 11:11:08 PM , Rating: 2
My Suzuki sv650 only got like 45-50mpg. Its a light motorcycle with fuel injection, what do you know that gets 70mpg?


RE: I submit to the court...
By lagomorpha on 4/8/2009 9:57:29 AM , Rating: 2
My SV650SF gets a bit over 60mpg, though I do weigh 120 lbs and ride it gently.


RE: I submit to the court...
By ThePooBurner on 4/8/2009 1:35:56 PM , Rating: 2
My Yamaha Z180 scooter got 110mpg. It had a 1 gallon tank and would go 110miles before i ran out.


RE: I submit to the court...
By suryad on 4/8/2009 3:03:29 PM , Rating: 2
I think the Ninja 250R can get awfully close to the 60-70 mpg range.


RE: I submit to the court...
By tastyratz on 4/7/2009 4:29:09 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Replying To: RE: I submit to the court... by AntiM on April 7, 2009 at 1:21 PM No doubt. I can't imagine any self-respecting person even considering riding around in such a contraption.

One could say the same of the Prius, but people drive that too.

Chances are these will be a staple in the treehugger community for distributing pamphlets.


RE: I submit to the court...
By CommodoreVic20 on 4/7/2009 2:25:16 PM , Rating: 2
LOL! Voted you up on that one!


RE: I submit to the court...
By amanojaku on 4/7/2009 5:08:20 PM , Rating: 2
But you took away that vote when you posted your message. As far as I know you can't rate AND post.


RE: I submit to the court...
By ipay on 4/7/2009 2:29:38 PM , Rating: 2
Hmmm... spend money on developing a better motor vehicle, or funnel cash into a pointless project that will never turn a profit, much less break even?

Guess which one GM went for.


RE: I submit to the court...
By FITCamaro on 4/7/09, Rating: 0
Double Take
By satinspiral on 4/7/2009 1:27:20 PM , Rating: 2
The geek in me immediately went "Oh sweet! That's so cool, I want one!"

Then the sane part of me looked again and said. "Oh yeah. We have bicycles that do this for $25 dollars."




RE: Double Take
By Pirks on 4/7/2009 1:33:12 PM , Rating: 1
Forgot 00 after 25


RE: Double Take
By satinspiral on 4/7/2009 5:33:36 PM , Rating: 2
No. I really meant to write 25. Even ten such cheap bicycles over the course a few years' commute would be more cost efficient than anything else on two wheels discussed here. Can someone explain to me why I would want to pay 500 or more for a souped up "commuter" bike, when for practically nothing I can replace a cheap bike at will?


RE: Double Take
By mindless1 on 4/7/2009 10:19:50 PM , Rating: 3
While I think the price of this is excessive, you ignore many factors.

1) Many people aren't healthy enough to ride very far, and someday you won't be either.

2) Your estimate that a $25 bike is acceptable is incorrect, at that price you'd get a used huffy or something similar which is dangerous to ride and subject to frequent failure. How many times will you push your $25 bike several miles before you wished you had spent a few dozen dollars more?

3) You'll look like a dork on a cheap junk bike.

4) Varying road and weather conditions will prevent constant travel over 20 MPH, vs 35MPH. Even if you don't mind a significantly longer travel time, this also limits where the bike will be allowed even more. In many areas it is legal to travel at 35MPH on main roads, but not 20MPH on a bicycle. Most areas in the US at least, do not have a bike lane and sidewalks are not an option for continual travel at speeds substantially higher than people walking or jogging (plus the walkers have right-of-way).

5) Replacing the cheap bike requires addt'l time finding one, tuning it up (nobody is going to adjust a bike for you right before selling it @ $25, it'll be a junker that sat around rotting the tires or rusting, meaning with regular use you will soon enough have addt'l expenses if not immediate need for new tires.

6) I have owned cheap bikes, when better ones were stolen they tided me over till I found a suitable replacement. The cheap ones are fine for a weekend warrior riding around short distances in their residential neighborhood for some exercise, but not reasonable for longer commutes which increase wear and pose safety issues to the rider.

Odds catch up to everyone sooner or later, it's not worth it to risk being crippled or worse for a couple hundred bucks which is where a decent used bike starts. Nobody wrote $500, you pulled that number out of thin air, but actually if you were really putting over 30 miles a week on a bicycle to commute, it would be reasonable to spend $500 unless you are a masochist that insists everything in life be crappy all to suit an excessively greedy nature. Everyone deserves better than a $25 bike.

Similarly, you could go find yourself a $300 car but that also has drawbacks.


RE: Double Take
By phxfreddy on 4/7/2009 10:28:13 PM , Rating: 2
Keep tryin' Al Gore. But it looks good on you!


RE: Double Take
By Shadowmage on 4/7/2009 1:36:28 PM , Rating: 3
Actually a good commuter road bicycle - one that you can ride for years for 10+miles a day - cost around $500 at the "low end" all the way to $1000+.

The price that they're projecting it at is higher than their main competion, a moped/scooter (about $1000), but it does have the advantage of being fully electric as well as having a weather shield (very important in places like Seattle!)

If GM is able to lower the cost to under $2000, then this could potentially be a viable alternative to the moped.


RE: Double Take
By Pirks on 4/7/2009 2:14:37 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Actually a good commuter road bicycle - one that you can ride for years for 10+miles a day - cost around $500
A good electric bicycle capable of 35MPH of speed and 35 miles of range costs $2500, so satinspiral forgot 00 after 25.


RE: Double Take
By erple2 on 4/7/2009 6:03:49 PM , Rating: 2
Maybe, but satinspiral was specifically referring to a used Huffy or a Schwinn.


RE: Double Take
By Pirks on 4/7/2009 6:48:29 PM , Rating: 2
He said "We have bicycles that do this for $25 dollars". No bicycle does THIS (35 MPH and 35 mile range) for 25 dollars.


RE: Double Take
By PhoenixKnight on 4/7/2009 7:20:19 PM , Rating: 2
By "this" he was referring to commuting to work at 35 mph. And I'm pretty sure bicycles have a range greater than 35 miles.


RE: Double Take
By Pirks on 4/7/2009 7:34:17 PM , Rating: 2
But do they have speed of 35 MPH? :P


RE: Double Take
By mindless1 on 4/7/2009 10:51:28 PM , Rating: 2
Often bicycles don't have a range of even 35 miles, because they go too slow to be allowed on main roads meaning the range ends when the roads they're allowed on, end. Granted, police officers might not stop an occasional biker but for it to be a reasonable plan for a larger number of people, bikes could not be allowed on main roads in greater numbers as the congestion and safety problems would surface. Cars and bicycles simply aren't supposed to be traveling in the same lanes.

Perhaps someday more areas will have bike lanes, but considering the extent of the existing road infrastructure this is a long way off, all roads would need them or else you can't depend on getting from point A to point B unless you took advantage of circumstance, just happened to need travel where there were bike lanes.


RE: Double Take
By Reclaimer77 on 4/7/09, Rating: 0
RE: Double Take
By MrPeabody on 4/7/2009 3:54:11 PM , Rating: 2
I wasn't even aware that an alternative was sought by that particular demographic.

Next up, we need viable alternatives for the unicycle demographic, pogo-stick enthusiasts, and anyone who still owns a velocipede.


RE: Double Take
By Reclaimer77 on 4/7/09, Rating: -1
RE: Double Take
By Shadowmage on 4/7/2009 4:32:30 PM , Rating: 2
What about students living in big cities where there's no car parking?


RE: Double Take
By Reclaimer77 on 4/7/09, Rating: -1
RE: Double Take
By MrPeabody on 4/7/2009 6:32:54 PM , Rating: 2
You mean, students living in big cities that don't commute via penny-farthing?

I'm not sure. Bus?


RE: Double Take
By mindless1 on 4/7/2009 10:27:08 PM , Rating: 2
I have to think you are overlooking a couple things.

1) GM is international.

2) Many cities in the world are quite congested and this sure beats a 2 cycle autorickshaw or moped except for the cost. Get rid of the segway connection, overhead, and make it a 3 wheeler and it could be a viable vehicle in the future for much of the world instead of the US.


RE: Double Take
By FITCamaro on 4/7/2009 4:06:16 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
If GM is able to lower the cost to under $2000, then this could potentially be a viable alternative to the moped.


It'll just get you laid even less.


RE: Double Take
By Shadowmage on 4/7/2009 4:35:42 PM , Rating: 1
I'm pretty sure girls who choose guys solely based on transportation choice are fat, stupid, or both.


RE: Double Take
By Suntan on 4/7/2009 4:48:01 PM , Rating: 3
Fat chicks don’t choose, they can’t afford to be picky.

-Suntan


RE: Double Take
By FITCamaro on 4/7/2009 9:19:19 PM , Rating: 2
Got rated down by the fat tech chicks dude.


RE: Double Take
By Reclaimer77 on 4/7/2009 4:52:05 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I'm pretty sure girls who choose guys solely based on transportation choice are fat, stupid, or both.


Wrong.

A recent scientific study confimed what we all KNEW. Women find men with expensive cars MORE attractive. They polled intelligent professional and very attractive ladies and asked them what man they thought was more attractive. They were shown pictures of a man next to an average cheap car, and then showed them pictures of THE SAME MAN next to an expensive European sport luxury car. Guess what ? The women by a HUGE majority reported that the more attractive male was the one in the expensive car. Even though he was the SAME man, wearing the same clothes.


RE: Double Take
By Shadowmage on 4/7/2009 5:05:54 PM , Rating: 1
Ah ha, good point. That's only for the first impression though, unless you're implying that guys with fancy cars have nothing better to do other than to stand in front of them all the time :)


RE: Double Take
By eldakka on 4/8/2009 12:38:31 AM , Rating: 2
You only need the first impression to last long enough to get them in for a one-night stand.

Who cares about tomorrow? That's a different one-nighter.


RE: Double Take
By Boze on 4/7/2009 5:30:42 PM , Rating: 2
Reclaimer77,

I'm not calling you a liar, but you're really piqued my interest... can you provide a reference to this study? I would really love to read it, although it confirms something that I've known for years anyway...

Women like men with money and power - if they can find a good-looking guy, that's just a bonus.


RE: Double Take
RE: Double Take
By Boze on 4/7/2009 6:39:49 PM , Rating: 2
What a gold mine... thanks man.


RE: Double Take
By Spuke on 4/7/2009 11:27:54 PM , Rating: 2
Money = Stability and women value stability. Women want a man that can take care of their children. That, my friends, is biological. Poor men can't take care of themselves let alone a wife and kids. That's why the "rich" guy gets the women and the "poor" one doesn't. There are exceptions, of course.


RE: Double Take
By lagomorpha on 4/7/2009 6:41:13 PM , Rating: 2
http://www.india-server.com/news/women-give-thumbs...

There is probably a study that shows women prefer men with x where x can mean just about anything. Trying to figure out what women as a whole want is a waste of time.


RE: Double Take
By mindless1 on 4/7/2009 10:36:57 PM , Rating: 2
Women, at least those without major self-esteem issues, want successful men. A nicer car tends to be one indicator of that. It need not be a sports car or tricked out SUV.

As for the survey, there is a big problem with it. When people are polled they tend to give what they think is the politically correct answer, regardless of the truth. Further, it was arbitrary for a study to make people pick between these two alternatives as if this factor would necessarily matter as much as many other factors, and it would be silly to pick a type of car based upon it being more attractive to the opposite sex instead of whatever is most appropriate for the owner's needs.


RE: Double Take
By lagomorpha on 4/7/2009 11:12:27 PM , Rating: 2
"it would be silly to pick a type of car based upon it being more attractive to the opposite sex instead of whatever is most appropriate for the owner's needs. "

Have you seen the cars on the road lately (lately being from the invention of the chariot to present day)? How many people do you honestly believe purchase cars based on their own needs? 10%? less? Most Americans refuse to be seen in something like a Geo Metro because to them the way a vehicle projects their success is a vital feature (look how much I paid for this, I must be successful). Tragic really considering how unpleasant large vehicles are to drive.


RE: Double Take
By mindless1 on 4/8/2009 1:44:14 AM , Rating: 2
You suggest a Geo Metro is desirable, but fail to see people are placing more value on things other than cheap and fuel efficient. For example, you felt a need to be here, but it would be more efficient to turn off the computer. Everyone has their own needs and it makes little sense to second guess someone who has free will to buy what they need unless they are financially limited.

Other cars are more reliable than a Metro, more utilitarian, look better, provide more interior room, more trunk room, better acceleration, better resale value, better sound systems, better handling, and the list goes on and on. After all, it is a car, it should do well what a car is supposed to do instead of only doing it really cheap and fuel efficiently. More fuel efficient would be to ride the bus if that is the goal.

Yes people buy cars based on their needs, even if what they feel they need is to sit up higher to see better and have an extra thousand pounds of metal around them to survive a crash better, or a need to feel sporty when they pick an SUV instead of a minivan.

Small vehicles can be a novelty zipping around in the city, but are suited more to small people, it only makes sense that someone 20% taller would want a 20% larger car, or someone with growing, older children who needs be able to put them in the back seat.

A Geo Metro is not at all a fun car to drive compared to other more sporty or slightly larger cars. If you want a fun non-sports car try a Mazda 6.

I will agree that a crappy vehicle like a Metro projects failure, because nobody would chose one if financial limitations weren't present to prevent them from buying something that better suits their needs. The only "need" a Metro suits well is a need for it to cost less initially, otherwise there is nothing that car does as well as several others in the market.

Larger vehicles are find to drive, if you shop for quality instead of the most metal per dollar. Keep in mind the type of vehicle should also suit the terrain. Some people have lots of stoplights, curves, traffic, etc., per mile, and some don't. Even so, the cheapest smallest cars aren't even suited for anything except lower budget.


RE: Double Take
By Spuke on 4/8/2009 12:50:52 PM , Rating: 2
Or instead of buying a brand new Geo Metro, how about a nicer, better built used Honda Civic for the same price? What is this affinity with having a brand spanking new car? People claim to want to be more efficient or easy on the environment but insist on brand new cars. LOL! You are creating MORE resource usage by buying new. Plus you get more bang for your buck as most of the depreciation on a car is during the first two years of ownership. Save the environment and your wallet, buy a USED, fuel efficient, quality car!


RE: Double Take
By Reclaimer77 on 4/9/2009 3:27:00 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Women, at least those without major self-esteem issues ,


And what planet do THOSE live on ?? :)


RE: Double Take
By Jeffk464 on 4/7/2009 11:15:04 PM , Rating: 2
And ironically so do baboons. There is a spot in africa where people drive up along this road and feed baboons. Anyways, the baboons have learned that more expensive cars give better treats.


RE: Double Take
By lagomorpha on 4/8/2009 10:01:29 AM , Rating: 2
Suddenly it's all starting to make so much sense.


RE: Double Take
By mindless1 on 4/7/2009 10:23:45 PM , Rating: 2
For transportation purposes instead of racing, the rules change when it comes to cost. Racers will spend hundreds more to shave 4 pounds off of the total weight, but a commuter will do fine on a $500 bike and can consider it midrange for the purpose instead of low-end.

After all, when you have a rider weighing about 100lbs if not more, a difference of less than 10 lbs is not much.


RE: Double Take
By phxfreddy on 4/7/2009 10:23:26 PM , Rating: 2
Yah sure.....this is going to be way more popular than segways!


RE: Double Take
By oab on 4/8/2009 9:33:08 AM , Rating: 2
No, $25 is a pretty good price.

Steps to get it:

1) visit police auction
2) buy bicycle for $25
3) if required, replace offroad tires w/ road tires $3/tire


RE: Double Take
By satinspiral on 4/8/2009 7:54:35 PM , Rating: 2
bingo.
or craigslist.
or whatever. Thanks for seeing my point.

I live in Philly, and in many cases it's faster to travel by bike than just about anything else (especially since cyclists are not made to obey traffic laws; getting hit by a car in a low speed collision = lottery win for most folks). For people like me who live in a city with plentiful bike lanes and only live a short distance from work, it makes more sense to buy a cheap fugly bike that is unlikely to get stolen. Most of the bikes I see on the road are used. Not some fancy uber cycle. The only people who generally ride a "nice" bike around here are ones who can afford not to miss it when it gets stolen.


The future?
By DonkeyRhubarb on 4/7/2009 1:45:00 PM , Rating: 3
I have to say that I don't personally agree with anyone who says 'no self respecting' person would use one of these.

What aout in 50 years when cities in certain parts of the world are so crowded from emigration from countries destroyed by climate change or fule is so expensive that cars are not at all practical?

If everyone had one, the wireless communication would prevent crashes AND if there was a failure, your hitting two light machines at 35mph each. Not great, but not catastrophic.

I'm happy to embrace anything that encourages people to use less energy, and IMO, I think this would be a hell of a lot faster around most cities where you could actually use most of the 35mph most of the time instead of 10mph to 40 and back again.




RE: The future?
By AntiM on 4/7/2009 2:28:40 PM , Rating: 2
I'm an advocate of decreasing human population as a means of conserving resources and decreasing pollution. When I say decreasing population, I not saying we should kill 2 billion people, but we should control our growth so that 10 years from now, the population will be down to a more sustainable 3 to 4 billion.

Then our grandkids won't be forced to endure the humiliation of riding around in some kind of humanless rickshaw. That's what this thing reminds me of, a human-powered rickshaw, without the human.

Speaking of population decrease, I suspect these things were designed to contribute to it.


RE: The future?
By mindless1 on 4/7/2009 10:39:44 PM , Rating: 2
Which pollutes less, 50 million 2 cycle engines or 200 million 4 cycle? Tech is the key, not reducing population though I do agree that at some point population growth will have to be limited to keep a certain quality of life but we are not at that critical point yet.


RE: The future?
By Boze on 4/7/2009 5:28:39 PM , Rating: 2
I like how people say "climate change" now instead of "global warming". Since more and more science is showing that "global warming" is less likely a threat to mankind and, I dunno... more likely just the natural damn cycle of things... climate scientists can now say "climate change", then it doesn't matter what the hell happens... it gets hot - climate change! It gets cold - climate change! They can never be wrong!

I won't sit here and try to predict the future... but I seriously doubt any countries at all will be "destroyed" by climate change. 5000 years of history so far, and Earth is still doin' okay. I think you can wipe the sweat off your brow and breathe a sigh of relief.

Hopefully though, this page will be archived in the Internet Archive and we can all go back and see how ridiculous this sounds... or that I will owe you an apology. I guess we'll find out in 50 years.


RE: The future?
By Jeffk464 on 4/8/2009 12:27:46 AM , Rating: 2
There have been some really brutal climates in the earth's history, 5000 years in geological time is a drop in the bucket.


And some say that Toyota's hybrids are ugly...
By darkweasel on 4/7/2009 1:15:37 PM , Rating: 2
These aren't really "ugly", but I don't think I'd be caught riding in one.




By Mitch101 on 4/7/2009 1:51:23 PM , Rating: 5
What if they pimp it out with a set of 22" spinners, rear wing and flames paint job?


By The0ne on 4/8/2009 12:06:44 AM , Rating: 2
Never understood having the spinner thing.


bad weather
By stimudent on 4/7/2009 1:24:32 PM , Rating: 2
How is it in snow?
It doesn't look like it will take on more than a couple of centimeters at a time effectively. How well do the batteries hold up in cold weather?
It is here in NY state where they're testing it in. It seems it would only be useful/practical for about half the year or just over.




RE: bad weather
By CurtOien on 4/7/2009 2:32:29 PM , Rating: 2
They were demonstrating Segways a couple of years ago here in Minnesota and I could not take one for a ride because it was too cold for them to work and the snow was a problem.
With only two wheels, if a stand up fails you can jump off. It appears they have you trapped in this thing.


RE: bad weather
By Suntan on 4/7/2009 4:52:42 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
With only two wheels, if a stand up fails you can jump off. It appears they have you trapped in this thing.


Gee, in that picture, I wonder what those little round things on the front and back are? But yeah, I’m sure you are right and they haven’t figured out a way to keep the thing from falling forward or backward…

-Suntan


RE: bad weather
By DatabaseMX on 4/8/2009 2:46:59 PM , Rating: 2
If it falls over on its side (say due to wind), it's gonna be:" Help,I've fallen and I can get up/out." !! Maybe it will have Life Alert built in ?

Is any of the GM bail out money being used for this insane venture ??


Ma look!
By Chernobyl68 on 4/7/2009 2:53:33 PM , Rating: 2
My new coffin has a windshield!




RE: Ma look!
By werepossum on 4/7/2009 3:36:15 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
My new coffin has a windshield!

That is EXACTLY what I was thinking - when you hit something, they can just bury you in it.

This is why GM will continue to get bail-out money; liberals are going to freaking love this.


RE: Ma look!
By phxfreddy on 4/7/2009 10:25:46 PM , Rating: 2
Its called a Daisy-Mobile.

Tomb stone and daisies are spring loaded in the truck. In case of wreck clean up crew digs hole then hits button to pop up daisies and stone. They plant you on the spot.


RE: Ma look!
By borowki2 on 4/7/2009 5:40:02 PM , Rating: 2
To me it looks like bubble-boy on wheels.

Look ma, I can see the world!


Brakes
By Smilin on 4/7/2009 1:35:56 PM , Rating: 3
I want to see that happy guy flying along do some emergency braking.

Go on picture him coming up on some stopped traffic... either that thing won't brake well, it will brake after a delay (it would have to lean back first), or it will face plant the driver.




RE: Brakes
By CurtOien on 4/7/2009 2:36:46 PM , Rating: 2
My thoughts exactly.


RE: Brakes
By RoberTx on 4/9/2009 9:27:11 AM , Rating: 2
The stand up segway likes to dump people on their faces when it has to stop quick.


Looking at this without the GM-hate bias
By Cullinaire on 4/7/2009 1:15:36 PM , Rating: 2
This looks actually pretty cool. If they can really deliver 35mph + 35 miles and keep it reasonably priced, there'd be a lot of useful applications for this.




RE: Looking at this without the GM-hate bias
By KnightBreed on 4/7/2009 1:26:46 PM , Rating: 2
Without the GM-hate bias? Oh mon'dieu!

This thing is pretty cool for what it is. I question the sanity of anybody running about in one in city streets though, given they're probably illegal on the sidewalks. Does NYC have a lot of bike lanes?

I give GM a lot of credit for trying something different. I suggest they give it some style, though, since nearly anybody willing to buy one is probably just getting it for a fashion statement. Maybe they're going after the commercial crowd - couriers, meter maids, and various delivery jobs.


By Spuke on 4/7/2009 11:34:19 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Does NYC have a lot of bike lanes?
NYC barely has room for cars.


By DatabaseMX on 4/7/2009 3:40:52 PM , Rating: 1
Absolutely! WTF?

Can't wait to see this unit on California highways and downtown LA rush hour traffic! Of course this will never come to pass, because this unit will never hit production ... because it's just way to stupid! No wonder GM is close to BK !!!

"It also has an extended range, which bumps its range up to a commute-worthy 35 miles"

OMG LOL ... WOW ... 35 miles! That's barely across LA!

<sigh>




By erple2 on 4/7/2009 6:11:37 PM , Rating: 2
What part of "top speed of 35 MPH" didn't you understand? How is that useful on an LA Highway?

Also, when did GM introduce their partnerships for Whoppers?


By The0ne on 4/8/2009 12:08:51 AM , Rating: 3
You haven't travel much in LA roads and highways have you? :) That 35MPH is insane speed compare to the bumper to bumper speeds hahaha

partly joking and unfortunately partly serious :(


Does it Come With Air Bag?
By SpaceJumper on 4/7/2009 1:46:57 PM , Rating: 2
I think this will be the most unsafe vehicle on the road even with an air bag. If the driver get rear ended or frontal collision by a regular vehicle at low speed, the driver will be dead or on a wheel chair for life and talk using MS Sam.




RE: Does it Come With Air Bag?
By Smartless on 4/7/2009 2:38:03 PM , Rating: 1
Didn't you see? It communicates wirelessly with other vehicles to keep it safe....

Of course....
1) Must be a European thing because I'm pretty sure, wireless in America means it will call your cellphone.
2) Last I checked, user error would be a bigger issue in hitting these things. I would hit one just because it makes my eyes bleed.


RE: Does it Come With Air Bag?
By FITCamaro on 4/7/2009 4:09:15 PM , Rating: 2
It has an air bag. It's called the air.


Cost
By btc909 on 4/7/2009 2:17:23 PM , Rating: 2
What will this cost? A Segway already costs $5000. $7-10K for this wouldn't surprise me one bit. Why not buy a small used car for that amount of money.




RE: Cost
By lagomorpha on 4/7/2009 6:42:46 PM , Rating: 2
... or a large new motorcycle


Toyota has already done this
By Nik00117 on 4/7/2009 3:06:45 PM , Rating: 2
This is nearly exactly like the car that Toyota was developing, Top Gear show cased.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tir27qgT5zg

Looks like GM is preempting their move.




By SpaceJumper on 4/7/2009 5:33:37 PM , Rating: 2
It is not the same, the Toyota one is safer. It is actually a three wheeler, not like the seaway. If it runs over a pot hole, the driver will flip over and crash.


By MrBungle123 on 4/7/2009 6:49:02 PM , Rating: 2
We could mandate that all members of congress, the administration, and other elected government officials drive these things to work everyday. :)




By RoberTx on 4/9/2009 9:24:49 AM , Rating: 2
Pure effing genius! I'm all for it.


Bool sheet....
By RoberTx on 4/9/2009 9:21:52 AM , Rating: 2
A Kawasaki KLR 650 or a Suzuki DR 650 both cost about the same as this GM joke. They both can easily get 60+ mpg at freeway speeds. They both cost pocket change to operate and maintain. They both can be serviced by almost anyone who can figure out a screwdriver. Both are pavement optional vehicles. Neither bike requires sensors and devices to remain upright when moving, when stopped they have a simple sidestand. The Kawasaki can go over 350 miles on one tank and has been called the most versatile transportation machine ever. Many regard it as the best commuter ride ever made yet you can still take it to the middle of nowhere. The GM/Segway thing is just a complicated and inferior motorcycle. You would need a motorcycle license to operate it anyway so why not just get a real motorcycle?




RE: Bool sheet....
By ericmccormick on 4/9/2009 12:46:20 PM , Rating: 2
good point but you have to remember that motorcycles are tooo dangerous for the masses and the liberals like Obama know this and desire to protect us poor helpless citizens


An hour for 35 miles?
By jordanclock on 4/7/2009 1:48:00 PM , Rating: 2
GM and Segway are the last two companies that need to get together. GM needs to focus on real, profitable products based on dependable models. Segway is waaaay too head in the clouds for this kind of economy. This is the most horrible team up I've ever heard of.




Fixed it
By DigitalFreak on 4/7/2009 1:55:02 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
The vehicle could indeed make a splash on city roads


I think it was supposed to be "The vehicle could indeed make a splat on city roads"...




See
By DASQ on 4/7/2009 2:24:42 PM , Rating: 2
This is why GM shouldn't get more 'bailout' funds.




Déjà vu
By chris2618 on 4/7/2009 2:44:45 PM , Rating: 2
Sinclair C5 if i remember promised the same thing




Brilliant
By rmlarsen on 4/7/2009 3:48:47 PM , Rating: 2
Damn! Sweet! Hand those geniuses some bailout money!




By FITCamaro on 4/7/2009 4:04:33 PM , Rating: 2
Giant handicapped hornets.




Forget the P.U.M.A.
By amanojaku on 4/7/2009 4:16:14 PM , Rating: 2
I want this to be my commuter car:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Kart_KF1_2007_02...

And then maybe they could legalize racing on city streets and highways. Crap, I'm late for work...




By kilkennycat on 4/7/2009 5:04:10 PM , Rating: 2
Refashioning an old Roman Empire quote:-

"While management fiddles, General Motors burns..."

Please look up the name of GM's vice president of R&D and strategic planning...... (Hint: Add the name Larry to one of the words in the above quote....)

Yet another "green" boondoggle in an attempt to corral more public money. However, as per the statements in their analysis recommending the refusal of GM's appeal for another $20 billion or so, I think Obama's motor industry task force has finally got the true measure of GM.




By Boze on 4/7/2009 5:22:17 PM , Rating: 2
...now GM is determined to help Segway remove all doubt from passersby that you are, in fact, a douchebag .




I'm Confused
By btc909 on 4/8/2009 1:00:23 AM , Rating: 2
Is it GM or OM?




Japanese auto - bicycles
By Senju on 4/8/2009 4:29:53 AM , Rating: 2
I do not think they have them in the US or other countries outside Japan but here we have battery powered bicycles that go uphill at high speeds. The cool thing is you can switch from auto to manual and then petal (to get exercise) if you want. I think this Seaway car thing will compete against these auto-bicycles. They are already on the market and used a lot in Japan.




Top Gear episode on Toyota...
By suryad on 4/8/2009 3:00:10 PM , Rating: 2
...had the concept of the vehicle to vehicle communication. The episode is quite old too. And the concept is extremely similar. I am surprised Toyota is not slapping lawsuits!




By One43637 on 4/9/2009 1:29:22 PM , Rating: 2
... to Top Gear last year. I think the Toyota one looks more interesting then this one.

http://videos.streetfire.net/video/Top-Gear-Toyota...

Fast Forward to 2 minutes if you guys don't want to watch the whole thing.




"A politician stumbles over himself... Then they pick it out. They edit it. He runs the clip, and then he makes a funny face, and the whole audience has a Pavlovian response." -- Joe Scarborough on John Stewart over Jim Cramer














botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki