RE: Lit Motors C-1
Discussion
One of these as a fuel-extended hybrid with a turbine from the C-X75 concept could have enough power to have drive-by-wire steering (read: a side-stick), sound the part, and go like the clappers, while not waking the neighbours up in the morning and sounding like something out of Blade Runner in the city...
wst said:
One of these as a fuel-extended hybrid with a turbine from the C-X75 concept could have enough power to have drive-by-wire steering (read: a side-stick), sound the part, and go like the clappers, while not waking the neighbours up in the morning and sounding like something out of Blade Runner in the city...
Turbines are noisy especially on small things like this. The Jag concept was still fairly loud and that had lots of space for sound deadening and silencing. One of these with a Tiny single rotor rotary range extender would be perfect.
Make it sound like a light cycle and every geek up and down the country will buy them and cover them in more neon than a Maxpower feature car.
The Crack Fox said:
Bear with me, Keith, I shall elaborate;
Why would I (being the typical selfish British motorist) buy one of these machines on the basis that it only makes other people's lives better? Why would I care about air quality for someone else? Why would I care if I leave more parking space for someone else? On this basis the thing only works if everyone drives one, and they won't, because it's as costly as a car with no tangible benefits for the person paying for the compromises it requires.
Renault Twizy, anyone? No-one bought those, either.
The benefit to you is that it will be much faster than a car - having sat stationary on the A34 in heavy traffic for 35 minutes on Friday night watching motorcycles whizzing past, I know where I would rather have been sat.Why would I (being the typical selfish British motorist) buy one of these machines on the basis that it only makes other people's lives better? Why would I care about air quality for someone else? Why would I care if I leave more parking space for someone else? On this basis the thing only works if everyone drives one, and they won't, because it's as costly as a car with no tangible benefits for the person paying for the compromises it requires.
Renault Twizy, anyone? No-one bought those, either.
And the parking issue, you are looking at the wrong way round. Rather than you leaving space for someone else to park, you will be able to park where other people cannot. So you will be closer to your destination than a car driver.
This has the advantages of car and motorcycle. The Twizy had the disadvantages of both in that you get stuck in traffic due to the width, and have no space/get wet.
The Crack Fox said:
Renault Twizy, anyone? No-one bought those, either.
But the Twizy was no fun. This thing would be a right laugh. Virtually all the fun of a motorbike with the practicality of a small sports car. On a B road it would be fantastic because it's just about slim enough to be able to overtake so you wouldn't have the same problem of being stuck behind granny as you do in a carThe Crack Fox said:
Why would I (being the typical selfish British motorist) buy one of these machines on the basis that it only makes other people's lives better? Why would I care about air quality for someone else? Why would I care if I leave more parking space for someone else? On this basis the thing only works if everyone drives one, and they won't, because it's as costly as a car with no tangible benefits for the person paying for the compromises it requires.
I disagree. You'd be able to "creatively park" in spaces too narrow for a car. You might even get away with parking it in a motorcycle bay (although you'd probably be unpopular with bikers as it would take up more space than a normal motorbike)
You'd have some degree of being able to weave in and out of traffic (although admittedly not to the extent of a normal motorbike).
It would be cheaper to run and cheaper to tax than a car too.
For me, the USP would be many of the advantages of a bike, but being safe and being dry. And parking would be the killer.
Think of it as a "personal commuting vehicle" bought in addition to a car, and it makes a lot of sense. In fact in a 2-car family it could even replace the 2nd car, if all that car is used for is personal commuting.
Edited by JonRB on Tuesday 2nd September 11:53
TinyCappo said:
Turbines are noisy especially on small things like this. The Jag concept was still fairly loud and that had lots of space for sound deadening and silencing.
One of these with a Tiny single rotor rotary range extender would be perfect.
Make it sound like a light cycle and every geek up and down the country will buy them and cover them in more neon than a Maxpower feature car.
It could run on batteries only for a fair distance, at least until you're past people who know who you are.One of these with a Tiny single rotor rotary range extender would be perfect.
Make it sound like a light cycle and every geek up and down the country will buy them and cover them in more neon than a Maxpower feature car.
But yeah, this was mainly a pipe dream. I think the intake and exhaust would have to be very convoluted to minimise noise... when we ran the turboshaft at college people could hear it in the town centre about half a mile away and every class with a window facing the car park would have their faces up against the window...
It wouldn't even need to be a hybrid anyway. If it's a personal commuter vehicle then, for all but the most long-distance commutes (which it would probably be unsuitable for anyway), its range is going to be well in excess of your round-trip commute distance. Put it on charge every night and you'd be fine.
The biggest issue with all these 2 wheeled concepts is the lack of legal clarity. Currently they exist in a sort of legal no-mans-land, where they don't have to meet most of the type approval requirements of a car and hence are relatively cheap to develop. If they became popular, that would change, and really they would cost the same to make as a small electric car does (you save the cost of 2 wheels, but have to add a load of extra clever stuff (like gyros) to make up for it instead)
Also, although almost certainly safer than a conventional motorcycle, if you made one as safe as a car, it would be the size of a car.
Then there is the fact that "mass" transit is simply a better idea in our crowded cities. A bus has something like 40 seats (or more) for it's 4 wheels and engine, rather than 1 seat, so in terms of ultimate and space efficiency it is the better solution.
And finally, if you "own" this vehicle, you still have to leave it somewhere, something that is going to become increasingly difficult as population density in our towns and cities continues to increase.
I could however imagine a fleet of these as a longer range, faster alternative to a Boris Bike for example!
Also, although almost certainly safer than a conventional motorcycle, if you made one as safe as a car, it would be the size of a car.
Then there is the fact that "mass" transit is simply a better idea in our crowded cities. A bus has something like 40 seats (or more) for it's 4 wheels and engine, rather than 1 seat, so in terms of ultimate and space efficiency it is the better solution.
And finally, if you "own" this vehicle, you still have to leave it somewhere, something that is going to become increasingly difficult as population density in our towns and cities continues to increase.
I could however imagine a fleet of these as a longer range, faster alternative to a Boris Bike for example!
Max_Torque said:
Then there is the fact that "mass" transit is simply a better idea in our crowded cities. A bus has something like 40 seats (or more) for it's 4 wheels and engine, rather than 1 seat, so in terms of ultimate and space efficiency it is the better solution.
For moving a load of people from the same point A to the same point B, yes. But how often are you able to catch a bus from your house directly to your place of work? Outside of London, I mean. I worked out how long it would take me to get to work from home using only public transport. The trip would involve 3 buses, a train, a lengthy walk, and take 3 hours. Contrast that with 50 mins by car.
Max_Torque said:
And finally, if you "own" this vehicle, you still have to leave it somewhere, something that is going to become increasingly difficult as population density in our towns and cities continues to increase.
Imagine new builds having a "half garage" that accommodates one of these instead of a full size garage. Opens up a whole range of possibilities!Edited by JonRB on Tuesday 2nd September 12:03
keith2.2 said:
How can it make no sense on any level?
If your commute takes place on some country roads or clear a-roads then fine, use a car.
However if 20% of the cars in a city centre, or congested stretch of motorway during rush-hour suddenly became something the size of a motorbike but that could be driven in the same clothes as when driving a car, and without having to put laptops in rucksacks or worry about getting wet - both the road conditions and the air quality in the surrounding area would be improved. Plus it'd be quieter.
It would also mean companies could spend less on costly employee car-parks (looks out of the window at the new 5-level car park being built next to the existing 2 level one) - because you'd get 3 or 4 into each car space.
It makes sense on a whole host of levels..surely.
It's a lovely idea. If your commute takes place on some country roads or clear a-roads then fine, use a car.
However if 20% of the cars in a city centre, or congested stretch of motorway during rush-hour suddenly became something the size of a motorbike but that could be driven in the same clothes as when driving a car, and without having to put laptops in rucksacks or worry about getting wet - both the road conditions and the air quality in the surrounding area would be improved. Plus it'd be quieter.
It would also mean companies could spend less on costly employee car-parks (looks out of the window at the new 5-level car park being built next to the existing 2 level one) - because you'd get 3 or 4 into each car space.
It makes sense on a whole host of levels..surely.
Which is why they're far from the first to have it. We've been trying on variations of "very small car" since the sixties.
Methinks you'd need a very specific context for these to work - point at NCAP results all you want, people will likely never get over the idea that a crash is a fight you win or lose. Short of punitive taxes or congestion charges, or dedicated road space, I can't see anyone giving up big boxes.
Though it is a rather good implementation of the "two wheeled enclosed vehicle" concept IMO.
dapearson said:
The future is already here in that respect
Having been looking at houses to buy most that have garages have them only about 16 foot by 8 which hardly makes sense when you think about 2 people trying to get into a bmw 3 series or similar car. with amount of stuff most people keep in their garage (lawn mower push bikes etc) a vehicle of this size would make sense. Other advantages mean that you also have advantages parking it at the other end. Maybe even using it in bus lanes to make your journey quicker too.
Max_Torque said:
The biggest issue with all these 2 wheeled concepts is the lack of legal clarity.
It's actually pretty clear. It's a motorcycle and you will need to wear a helmet.A helmet is designed to absorb approximately the amount of energy that represents your head falling from riding position to the ground. The fact that this vehicle has two wheels and can also "tip over" onto its side (absent fancy widgets) means that your head is similarly vulnerable compared to a motorcycle, ergo a helmet, being necessary for a conventional motorcycle, will also be necessary for this clever two-wheeler.
AER said:
It's actually pretty clear. It's a motorcycle and you will need to wear a helmet.
A helmet is designed to absorb approximately the amount of energy that represents your head falling from riding position to the ground. The fact that this vehicle has two wheels and can also "tip over" onto its side (absent fancy widgets) means that your head is similarly vulnerable compared to a motorcycle, ergo a helmet, being necessary for a conventional motorcycle, will also be necessary for this clever two-wheeler.
Perhaps for the UK market they need to make it a trike so that a) you don't need a helmet and b) you can drive it on a car license.A helmet is designed to absorb approximately the amount of energy that represents your head falling from riding position to the ground. The fact that this vehicle has two wheels and can also "tip over" onto its side (absent fancy widgets) means that your head is similarly vulnerable compared to a motorcycle, ergo a helmet, being necessary for a conventional motorcycle, will also be necessary for this clever two-wheeler.
Or perhaps the legislation could be dragged into the 21st Century to accommodate vehicles like this.
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff