RE: Lit Motors C-1
Discussion
This one shows the mech stands deploying, just before 1 min.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jICGl9jmulc
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jICGl9jmulc
Greg66 said:
Ooh, well lookee here. New user, from the USA, registered today and this is the first post.
I spy with my little eye Google alert + a hidden agenda.
So, what's your real interest in this?
It's kind of complicated, Greg. As for Google Alert, guilty as charged. Concerning who I am, I encountered Lit as a journalist working for a "news" outlet that, to put it politely, does not encourage critical reporting. From time to time I continue to work in such media, and I don't want to piss in the well from which I drink, hence my anonymity. In my job as a fawning hack, I have seen the Lit Motors C-1 prototypes in person, interviewed Danny Kim, and not received a straight answer as to how the bike turns. Additionally, every video I have seen indicates that the bike can't turn. When the opportunity presents itself, I like to point this simple fact out: there is no credible evidence that this vehicle can bank into a turn, or for that matter turn without banking. This problem gets waved off with appeals to software and fly-by-wire, but it's a non-trivial problem, and from what I've seen of their facilities, there are not enough seats in the engineering department to solve it. I spy with my little eye Google alert + a hidden agenda.
So, what's your real interest in this?
As I said before: I want to believe. Really, I do. Danny is a likable guy, and if it works this is an awesome product. All it would take to shut me right up is a picture of the C-1 going around a track, or even slaloming some cones. But I haven't seen that, and it's been well over a year since the full-scale working prototype (the one you see getting tugged on by the truck in the video) first stood up.
If the suggestion is that it can't turn because of the gyro effect, then surely the simple answer is to factor the amount of gyro into the banking? Because, looking at the design, there's no obvious physical reason why it shouldn't be able to turn with the gyros off. The tyres look big, maybe too big, but bigger-tyred choppers manage to get round corners OK (sort of).
I do wonder if the gyros are actually required for anything other than a perhaps slightly gimmicky ability to stay upright at 0mph, or as a potential crash-mitigator. It would be interesting to see the base performance of the cycle parts, without the gyros being active. The C-1 may be perfectly viable as a transportation device without the gyros.
I do wonder if the gyros are actually required for anything other than a perhaps slightly gimmicky ability to stay upright at 0mph, or as a potential crash-mitigator. It would be interesting to see the base performance of the cycle parts, without the gyros being active. The C-1 may be perfectly viable as a transportation device without the gyros.
Edited by Blackpuddin on Wednesday 3rd September 16:03
Blackpuddin said:
If the suggestion is that it can't turn because of the gyro effect, then surely the simple answer is to factor the amount of gyro into the banking? Because, looking at the design, there's no obvious physical reason why it shouldn't be able to turn with the gyros off. The tyres look big, maybe too big, but bigger-tyred choppers manage to get round corners OK (sort of).
I do wonder if the gyros are actually required for anything other than a perhaps slightly gimmicky ability to stay upright at 0mph, or as a potential crash-mitigator. It would be interesting to see the base performance of the cycle parts, without the gyros being active. The C-1 may be perfectly viable as a transportation device without the gyros.
If the gyros can't be used for anything other than keeping it upright at low speeds then they can't be used for crash protection as they'd be unable to spin up in time. But other than that, I agree. In fact I think I said much the same earlier on in the thread - ie. that as the conventional gyroscopic forces that all bikes create increase so the spun gyros would be throttled back. But, of course, that means you lose the crash protection USP. With a sufficiently strong bodyshell, airbags, and harnesses, I don't think that would be a show stopper though. I do wonder if the gyros are actually required for anything other than a perhaps slightly gimmicky ability to stay upright at 0mph, or as a potential crash-mitigator. It would be interesting to see the base performance of the cycle parts, without the gyros being active. The C-1 may be perfectly viable as a transportation device without the gyros.
I think the staying upright at low speeds is more than a gimmick though, because it is one of the things that always plagues enclosed bikes. Most designs use automatically-deployed stabiliser wheels but that has never really seemed like anything other than a workaround rather than an elegant solution. If the gyro issues can be overcome then I think they are that elegant solution.
I guess the gyros would be spinning at max revs at all times. Then the steering wheel angle and road speed tells the gyros what cornering angle is required. Based upon the presumption - if the gyros can keep it at 90 degrees they can also allow other various angles to be held at will? Or perhaps the gyros would only suggest a tip in angle, then let the natural balance / g-force (call it what you will) take over in cornering. I cannot see (or cannot understand) a huge issue other than software programming.
I posted on the Lit forum for a while .... and then left in disgust. As with any `new´ idea, there was too much gushing enthusiasam and a critical outlook was just not on the menu. The C-1 fuselage was made by a Hollywood props manufacturer and could hardly have been intended for the final production prototype (the front wheel suspension travel is non-existent and there´s not sufficient space for the necessary software, together with the passenger in the back). The main object was hype in an attempt to gain pre-production sales and investor interest. At present, the newest prototype is only shown as a lump of modelling clay in the hands of the office boy and testing is being done on a rudimentary frame with outriggers. There have been several previous attemps at constructing a two-wheeled vehicle supported by gyros. And none of these have been successful. So the idea is not a novelty. The difference with the C-1 is that steering and re-acting to road conditions and driver input are to be governed by software. All previous efforts only enable two-wheeled, gyro assisted vehicles to drive in a straight line, at very limited speed and they have only been able to negotiate very slight turns. Bosch and some major motorbike companies have been experimenting with software to reduce motorbike accidents in which riders apply brakes during a turn. Only very limited progress has been made. And yet Lit still maintains that their software will be able to emulate the optimal input of an experienced biker to make the gimbal controlled gyros re-act correctly in all conditions experienced by a normal car driver on the road. As mentioned previously, they have not yet even managed to lean the C-1 in a curve. Lit still maintains that the first production run will be towards the end of this year. I submit that the project is rapidly heading for its demise. Lit has taken the Facebook logos from their website and questions regarding repayment of deposits are no longer visible.
Edited by paravil on Wednesday 3rd September 19:15
Edited by paravil on Wednesday 3rd September 19:18
Greg66 said:
From the FAQ on Lit's site:
Is the C-1 street legal? What kind of license do I need?
Yes, the C-1 will be 100% street legal, and we’re working to make sure that only a standard driver’s license will be needed, with no motorcycle endorsement required. We’ll share updates on our progress with that as we near production.
Whether that is achievable here as opposed to in California remains to be seen. But if you could use one of these with a drivers licence and no need for a helmet, I could them really taking off as a commuter vehicle. Were my commute not short enough to do on a pedal bike, I'd have one in a shot.
I don't know about California, but in the vast majority of states (including mine), you are required to hold a motorcycle endorsement to operate any vehicle with less than four wheels. That means everything from an Isetta to a Campagna T-Rex to a Morgan Three-Wheeler requires a motorcycle license. It's a truly asinine and antiquated system. Is the C-1 street legal? What kind of license do I need?
Yes, the C-1 will be 100% street legal, and we’re working to make sure that only a standard driver’s license will be needed, with no motorcycle endorsement required. We’ll share updates on our progress with that as we near production.
Whether that is achievable here as opposed to in California remains to be seen. But if you could use one of these with a drivers licence and no need for a helmet, I could them really taking off as a commuter vehicle. Were my commute not short enough to do on a pedal bike, I'd have one in a shot.
As for it being safer than a motorcycle, I'm not convinced. Even if it had an impervious "safety cell" made out of unobtanium, there's still the intense G-forces acting upon your body. Not that something like a Smart ForTwo is any safer than this, either.
On another note, that Wolseley Gyrocar thing is incredible!
"On another note, that Wolseley Gyrocar thing is incredible! "
Not all that "incredible"! It too could only progress very slowly in a fairly straight line and needed to reverse several times to negotiate even a slight curve. The Russian aristocrat who invented it and had it made by Wolesley deposited the vehicle with the manufacturer and they evidently saw no potential, so they dumped it in a pit. The inventor only saw potential in further development of a single track gyro assisted railway in Russia after the revolution. But this was also eventually abandoned.
The future of the Lit C-1 would seem to depend on their ability to develop failsafe software. In the words of the Lit website FAQ:-
"Like any two-wheeled vehicle, the C-1 leans into turns. At speed, the front wheel turns only slightly, and the turn is accomplished through the lean. However, the C-1 uses a steer-by-wire system. That allows it to have the familiar, intuitive interface of a car, while using two-wheeled turning dynamics. This is where the gyro technology gets really interesting: the C-1 takes information from a wide array of sensors to determine everything that’s going on around it, from road surface conditions to wind to traffic. The vehicle is then able to take input from the driver – from the steering wheel and accelerator/brake pedals – and translate that into both movement of the front wheel and a precise lean angle to complete the desired turn. With a car-like interface and motorcycle dynamics, the C-1 will have a driving experience that is both intuitive and very unique—and very, very fun!
Of course, things can (and will) always go wrong, so all critical systems are double- or triple-redundant. We’re using aerospace standards for redundancy and failsafes. Additionally, the steering has a direct mechanical backup linkage, so the driver will be able to control the C-1 no matter what happens."
But as the complexities of riding even a pushbike and the inter-dependence of the various parameters still remains unexplained, it is doubtful whether the Lit software (if it is ever successfully completed together with the gimbal actuated gyros) will be able to replicate the unknown or to satisfy US and/or EU authorities and insurance agencies.
Not all that "incredible"! It too could only progress very slowly in a fairly straight line and needed to reverse several times to negotiate even a slight curve. The Russian aristocrat who invented it and had it made by Wolesley deposited the vehicle with the manufacturer and they evidently saw no potential, so they dumped it in a pit. The inventor only saw potential in further development of a single track gyro assisted railway in Russia after the revolution. But this was also eventually abandoned.
The future of the Lit C-1 would seem to depend on their ability to develop failsafe software. In the words of the Lit website FAQ:-
"Like any two-wheeled vehicle, the C-1 leans into turns. At speed, the front wheel turns only slightly, and the turn is accomplished through the lean. However, the C-1 uses a steer-by-wire system. That allows it to have the familiar, intuitive interface of a car, while using two-wheeled turning dynamics. This is where the gyro technology gets really interesting: the C-1 takes information from a wide array of sensors to determine everything that’s going on around it, from road surface conditions to wind to traffic. The vehicle is then able to take input from the driver – from the steering wheel and accelerator/brake pedals – and translate that into both movement of the front wheel and a precise lean angle to complete the desired turn. With a car-like interface and motorcycle dynamics, the C-1 will have a driving experience that is both intuitive and very unique—and very, very fun!
Of course, things can (and will) always go wrong, so all critical systems are double- or triple-redundant. We’re using aerospace standards for redundancy and failsafes. Additionally, the steering has a direct mechanical backup linkage, so the driver will be able to control the C-1 no matter what happens."
But as the complexities of riding even a pushbike and the inter-dependence of the various parameters still remains unexplained, it is doubtful whether the Lit software (if it is ever successfully completed together with the gimbal actuated gyros) will be able to replicate the unknown or to satisfy US and/or EU authorities and insurance agencies.
Edited by paravil on Friday 5th September 10:24
Edited by paravil on Friday 5th September 17:37
Couple of points:
1: The gyroscopes weigh around 50kg and are spinning at a speed close to that of their material strength limit. This means that they are substantial stores of kinetic energy which can be converted into electrical energy to run the actuators the system shouldn't just conk out. Failures in any of the systems could be designed to drop the stands automatically.
2: The two gyroscopes are counter rotating. Provided the two of them stay in the same plane the forces from both should cancel out. The thing stays upright by two actuators nodding the gyros in or out when it senses the car going over. Once the thing is moving rake and trail should keep it upright it should just drive like a motorcycle.
Even though it is fatter than any bike it should still be better at overtaking than a car and could filter around the outside of traffic as a minium.
1: The gyroscopes weigh around 50kg and are spinning at a speed close to that of their material strength limit. This means that they are substantial stores of kinetic energy which can be converted into electrical energy to run the actuators the system shouldn't just conk out. Failures in any of the systems could be designed to drop the stands automatically.
2: The two gyroscopes are counter rotating. Provided the two of them stay in the same plane the forces from both should cancel out. The thing stays upright by two actuators nodding the gyros in or out when it senses the car going over. Once the thing is moving rake and trail should keep it upright it should just drive like a motorcycle.
Even though it is fatter than any bike it should still be better at overtaking than a car and could filter around the outside of traffic as a minium.
I agree that the gimbal regulated gyros could induce the vehicle to `lean´ into a turn ... and even determine the angle of lean, depending on its speed. But: `Once the thing is moving rake and trail should keep it upright it should just drive like a motorcycle´ doesn´t apply, as Lit has planned to keep the gyros running and regulate ALL driver inputs (see Lit´s FAQ on their homepage). So the software then has to translate every driver input into the optimal re-action of an experienced motorcycle rider to enable an inexperienced first-time driver to get in and drive it like a car. This means that the drive-by-wire software would have to emulate a motorcycle rider´s reaction to an unlimited number of imponderable factors. Many of the results of combining the paramaters experienced when riding a motorbike have never even been satisfatorily explained. Bosch and major motorbike manufacturers have been working for years to produce safety software for motorcycles with only limited success. So it´s highly unlikely that Lit will be able to satisfy EU authorities and insurers that their software is capable .... even if they are ever able to demonstrate that the C-1 can run through a slalom course.
Edited by paravil on Wednesday 24th September 13:28
JonRB said:
Richard A said:
The big thing that I don't get about these (though I have to admit that I haven't researched it yet) is that although we can see that it's great at staying upright what actually happens when you attempt to weave your way down a twisty road? Imagine barrelling into a tight right hander and the damn thing doesn't want to lean. How is it going to know that you want to corner hard / lean over?
I'm guessing that it will have speed and steering input going into an ECU that will identify that you're entering a bend. Also, I would imagine that at anything above walking speed the gyros will be throttled back as it will be generating its own gyroscopic forces just like a normal motorbike by then. It's a reasonable question to ask though. Quite apart from all that, there's the small matter of cramming enough battery power into the tiny amount of space available around the double-gyro. With the current battery technology there isn't enough space to achieve anything like the range and performance claimed, even if they left out the gyro altogether! (Such 'Fred Flinstone' machines do exist, a friend of mine has one, built by the legendary Malcolm Newell in the mid-80s and powered by a rear-mounted GPZ1100 motor). My own Genesis 650 safer motorcycle, inspired by both the Quasar and the BMW C1, but based on the Suzuki Burgman, also uses the trusty human leg to support the vehicle at a standstill, and it's perfectly capable of being trickled between the cars like any other big scooter or motorcycle. See here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FfS3ZYwWk1E
Contrary to what some people seem to think, there are two important precedents for riding a motorcycle without a crash helmet: the Peraves cabin machines and the BMW C1. The UK government would be the laughing stock of the world if they tried to impose the wearing of a helmet inside a seat-belted C1 Lit, the way they did with the BMW C1. I've ridden BMW C1s both with and without a helmet and believe me, with a helmet is a damn sight more comfortable, especially on a motorwary. On the other hand, I've never worn a helmet in either an Ecomobile or a Monotracer, even when driving them in the UK. (And has been mentioned earlier, Tony M should have mentioned that the 215bhp electric Monotracer superceded the 130bhp K1200 petrol-powered machines a couple of years ago, with a top speed governed down to 155mph and a range of 200 miles at 75mph).
The simplest way of overcoming both the motorcycle licence and the helmet issues is to make a fully enclosed leaning narrow trike, with two wheels at the front, like the well-established Piaggio MP3, and the newer Peugeot Metropolis and Quadro. You can ride all 3 of these machines on a car licence today, sans casque if you're daft enough, (just as you can with a road-legal quad). The only snag with 'delta' leaning trikes is that if you want to use a sensible car-type driving position the front wheels are precisely where you want to put your feet! Could be done though. Imagine a longer, lower version of this:
http://bikeweb.com/node/2031
Finally, getting back to the C1-Lit, all the videos linked to above are at least 2 years old. There's a new BBC video which shows a radically different 3rd prototype; I think it demonstrates very clearly just how far this machine is from being ready to drive on the road, even as a one-off prototype with a top test rider/driver. I'll eat my crash helmet if there's a gyro-balanced C1-Lit on sale before 2020. It's a long way from flip-flopping through the Donington Park chicane, or the average roundabout come to that:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pg_IP3p8OII
Now watch what the first electric Ecomobile could do at the Brno Grand Prix circuit way back in 2008, in the rain!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H4J4lBIHuvs
If I were C1-Lit, I'd try to get a 'Fred Flintstone' version in production a lot quicker!
PNB
Lit have stated that the gyros are powered at the same rate permanently and can only be stopped when the vehicle is at a standstill (when the sidestand automatically descends). It should be technically possible to govern the gimbals so that the vehicle `leans´, depending on the rate of steering angle and speed. And it would seem that this has (to a certain extent) already been accomplished. So it would only be honest to give the team its due. But this is not even the beginning of what is necessary to market it as suitable for an average car driver who must trust the `software´ to behave safely in the intuitive manner of an accomplished motorcycle rider under any of the complex circumstances experienced in traffic (on a gradient, on a wet surface, fully laden or with only one passenger etc. etc.). Don´t know how strict the authorities are in the USA, but in Europe, licencing and insurance people are going to be very wary about letting my granny think that she´ll be as safe in this two-wheeler as in a mini.
Edited by paravil on Saturday 29th November 17:16
Edited by paravil on Sunday 30th November 18:13
Edited by paravil on Monday 1st December 15:35
TinyCappo said:
Would one solution in respect to old people and minis not be to force its registration it as a bike? Atleast that way the occupants have some understanding of the sort of dynamics this thing is potentially capable of.
And that would at a stroke pretty much wipe out your market, I'd have thought. A bike that you can drive like a car is its USP surely?Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff