backtop


Print 67 comment(s) - last by Polynikes.. on Nov 16 at 12:06 AM


MIT City Car conceptual drawing  (Source: SciFi.com)
MIT dreams up a rentable, stackable, all-electric car for cities

America just seems to be obsessed with large vehicles. Maybe it’s our expanding waistlines, image consciousness or our "You can't tell me what to do, so I'm gonna buy whatever I want" mentality that persuades people to transport junior in a Suburban, go grocery shopping with a Tundra CrewMax or take Fido to the get his yearly shot in an Escalade EXT.

With rising gas prices, an increasing attention to our consumption of fossil fuels, an increasing awareness of vehicle emissions and expanding city centers, many are looking for more cost effective and efficient ways of transporting people in metropolitan areas. MIT Media Lab's Smart Cities group is thinking small with a new stackable car to reduce emissions and congestion in and around city centers.

The MIT "City Car" would be an all-electric vehicle capable of carrying two passengers and their cargo. The vehicles would be located near train stations, bus terminals and airports to ferry travelers to their final destination.

"The problem with mass transit is it kind of takes you to where you want to go and at the approximate time you want to get there, but not exactly," said Ph.D. candidate Franco Vairani of MIT's school of architecture. "Sometimes you have to walk up to a mile from the last train or subway stop."

The City Car will be stackable -- the entire back end of the vehicle would rise up allowing as many as eight of the vehicles to fit into a conventional parking space. The vehicle itself would also be mechanically simple with the electric motor, steering system and suspension enclosed within the wheel hubs.

The vehicle is said to weigh between 1,000 to 1,200 pounds and will be powered by lithium-ion batteries. According to Vairani, there could also be multiple versions of the City Car to accommodate a certain city's needs. A City Car destined for use in New York City might have a less powerful battery and a lower top speed due to traffic congestion. In other cities where interstate travel is more frequent, more powerful batteries capable of propelling the City Car faster and farther could be used.

If all goes well, MIT will show a prototype of the City Car sometime next year.



Comments     Threshold


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

RE: so much for unbiased opinions
By Brandon Hill (blog) on 11/7/2007 4:04:53 PM , Rating: 5
Meh, my car seats five and has pretty decent cargo hold (Mazda 3s Hatch).

If I fold down the rear seats, I can transport just about anything that I could possibly need. I've transported a queen-sized bed frame/rails/headboard/footboard, 42" Plasma TVs, huge HP LaserJet printers still in the box, book cases, TV stands, desks and once a recliner.

That being said, small hatchbacks are very versatile and wagons can be equally as versatile as SUVs and far more economical -- it's just that Americans won't shake the stigma of owning a wagon (or a hatchback for that matter).

Same goes for minivans. Minivans are way more efficient at carrying people and cargo than SUVs, but we silly Americans can't be bothered with such practicality at the sake of losing our manhood or dignity ;)


RE: so much for unbiased opinions
By TomZ on 11/7/07, Rating: -1
RE: so much for unbiased opinions
By Brandon Hill (blog) on 11/7/2007 4:55:39 PM , Rating: 4
I said that everyone is entitled to their own choices. That doesn't mean that I can't add my two cents ;)

As for minivans vs SUVs, minivans have always had more maximum cargo room and versatility. Especially as a people mover. Sliding doors > swing out doors when trying to get as many people in/out at once and ease entry/exit.

Maximum cargo capacity
GMC Acadia (largest crossover available): 117 cu ft
Honda Odyssey: 147 cu ft.


RE: so much for unbiased opinions
By TomZ on 11/7/07, Rating: -1
By Brandon Hill (blog) on 11/7/2007 5:14:03 PM , Rating: 3
I didn't say it was more ethical, just easier for ferrying people and getting babies in and out ;)

Comparing the Odyssey to an Acadia is a somewhat fair fight due to pricing and fuel economy. Throw in the Escalade ESV (your 137 cu ft figure), and it's at a huge disadvantage as far as pricing and fuel economy goes.

The Suburban and Yukon XL aren't cheap either.


RE: so much for unbiased opinions
By Screwballl on 11/12/2007 3:15:50 PM , Rating: 2
try a 04 or newer Durango... the rear doors swing out to 90º rather than 60-70º like most vehicles. This makes it much easier getting kids out of the back.
The reason we did not go for the minivan was the same as my original post, my height and long legs. Even with the seat all the way back I still felt cramped in the minivans.
In my case the SUV works out better.


RE: so much for unbiased opinions
By pauldovi on 11/7/2007 8:30:08 PM , Rating: 2
You don't live in the south!

Everyone down here has a minivan.


RE: so much for unbiased opinions
By emoser96 on 11/8/2007 2:31:22 PM , Rating: 2
You must not live in the "Deep South." Here everyone owns a truck (preferably American made), and, if you want it to be a SUV (or minivan), you just pile in a bunch of people in the bed.


By baseball43v3r on 11/11/2007 3:07:57 PM , Rating: 2
no, everyone in the south has 2 cars that dont work and a ride-on lawn mower sitting in their front yard.


RE: so much for unbiased opinions
By masher2 (blog) on 11/8/07, Rating: -1
RE: so much for unbiased opinions
By clovell on 11/8/2007 2:28:00 PM , Rating: 1
> "And your mistake lies in thinking what you possibly need is identical to what everyone else may possibly need."

I don't think that's what he was getting at at all.

> "First of all, wagons are not "far more economical". Look at the MPG figures for modern station wagons of the same size and weight as an SUV. They're usually a couple more MPG better-- that's it. In fact, the "crossover" car category is just this. Its a slightly taller station wagon, built on a car chassis, rather than a truck platform."


Looking at the Fuel Efficiency of SUVs vs. that of Wagons and controlling for size and weight doesn't seem very fair as weight and size are highly correlated with fuel efficiency.

> "Second of all, wagons are not "equally as versatile", especially for anyone who occasionally needs to tow something, or travel on rough roads."

Of course. And, for someone who does that - they should buy an SUV or something that handles those cases well. But, I think what Brandon is getting at is that you can do a lot more than you think with a small wagon.


RE: so much for unbiased opinions
By Rovemelt on 11/10/2007 10:22:26 AM , Rating: 3
quote:
Second of all, wagons are not "equally as versatile", especially for anyone who occasionally needs to tow something, or travel on rough roads.


I've lived in rural parts of the country where the roads can get real, real bad. Yet I got through them with a simple front wheel drive POS compact car. Driving skill is equally important to passing a road as the vehicle itself. And if the ruts are two foot deep with mud, your run-of-the-mill SUV won't get through it either. Many modern SUV's have rather lousy clearance which makes them perform similarly to 4wd wagons in those situations.

I put a hitch on my compact car and can haul a trailer. Mind you, I'm not hauling a horse trailer or a boat up hills, but I can haul 1000lbs. You just have to go slower (which you should do anyway for safety when hauling something heavy.) I've driven some compact 4 wheel drive cars that handle the snow just as well as an SUV, but with twice the fuel efficiency. Most people I've seen who own SUV's simply don't need them for the type of driving they do. For the bulk of the driving that is done in the US, a good wagon is just as versatile as an SUV.


RE: so much for unbiased opinions
By mindless1 on 11/11/2007 6:32:19 PM , Rating: 2
Your distinctions seem quite arbitrary, an SUV obviously does better than a car in many scenarios. Given a need you have better tire options on SUV and many do have more ground clearance as well as more suspension travel. You seem to imply it would be only a little bit of snow versus 2 feet of mud. Hardly a reasonable contrast as there are in fact many if not most places where the mud is less than 2 feet deep and the snow is more than 6" from time to time, if there is mud and snow at all.

It's not necessarily the case that 100% of a trip is so bad the SUV is needed, it's that one bend in a snowy road or washout at a creek that you have to cross. That doesn't mean everyone needs an SUV, certainly many people don't, they use it like a van on easily traveled roads.

Sometimes the only reason someone in a FWD or AWD car can drive down a bad road is because those in SUVs already did, their tires plowing out a path.


By hashish2020 on 11/12/2007 5:31:18 PM , Rating: 3
"They're usually a couple more MPG better-- that's it."

Add a couple MPG to 12 MPG and you have a 25% increase---

Oh, just 25% more efficient, THAT'S IT

And that is referring to MINIVANS, which average about 20, as compared to SUV's, which are around 15.

Station wagons raise that up from 20 to up near 25.

"Second of all, wagons are not "equally as versatile", especially for anyone who occasionally needs to tow something, or travel on rough roads."

Right, because those Subaru station wagons are so miserabel getting beaten up on rally races. I've traveled on rough roads with a 93 Maxima...roads that were nothing more than trails

Most of the people who defend SUV's are much like you---pussies who think riding high gives them some sort of defense against small gravel

I mean honestly, the SUV's most people buy now don't even have full time 4WD, and even THEN, the worst roads they go on are gravel.


"I'm an Internet expert too. It's all right to wire the industrial zone only, but there are many problems if other regions of the North are wired." -- North Korean Supreme Commander Kim Jong-il

















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