YC's latest moonshot bet is a startup building a $380K “flying motorcycle” • Hacker News Board

Re: YC's latest moonshot bet is a startup building a $380K “flying motorcycle”

#141

Post by benj111 » Fri, Mar 08, 2019, 7:45 AM UTC

dmayman wrote: post #117

benj111 wrote: post #88

So if you lie on top of a ducted fan like that, how is it not going to impede airflow? Also what happens if you have a loose thing on your person that gets sucked into the fan. The image looks nice and Sci fi, but that design isn't practical.

The airflow works, we’ve modelled it. Pilot needs to wear similar jacket to current standard motorcycle jacket. No loose change in pockets

Thanks for your reply.

If you've tested it and works, I retract the last paragraph, still looks Sci fi though.

Have you tested for a coin strike? For a plane you're going to have an upper bound for what your going to get in the engine, because it has to be picked up by the engine. This design, anything could fall in, potentially quite dense.

Re: YC's latest moonshot bet is a startup building a $380K “flying motorcycle”

#142

Post by mirimir » Fri, Mar 08, 2019, 7:46 AM UTC

Florin_Andrei wrote: post #126

npunt wrote: post #42

These don't look safe, even assuming perfect mechanical reliability, because humans will be piloting them over major population centers. Humans are generally dumb and inattentive, and this particular vehicle looks like it would attract especially dumb humans who'd use them to try dumb things. Since they won't need any piloting certification, this is basically offloading risk onto everyone on the streets below. I'd fe…

People do crazy shenanigans on motorcycles in 2D already. Source: owned sportbikes, have the titanium implants to show as my "credentials". Can't imagine the stupid s%%t some are going to do in 3D.

This!

So back in the day (fault of bad meds) I was sometimes a crazy driver. Poor impulse control. Drive it like you stole it. Whatever. But hey. I'm still alive, and I never got anyone else seriously injured or killed.

But anyway, one afternoon I was doing slalom at ~90 mph through ~70 mph traffic. And then, out of nowhere, this dude on a racing bike blew through at 140 mph or more. And we were all damn lucky that I saw him just before using the same gap that he was heading through. It would have been a serious mess.

Re: YC's latest moonshot bet is a startup building a $380K “flying motorcycle”

#143

Post by npunt » Fri, Mar 08, 2019, 7:50 AM UTC

briandear wrote: post #79

npunt wrote: post #42

These don't look safe, even assuming perfect mechanical reliability, because humans will be piloting them over major population centers. Humans are generally dumb and inattentive, and this particular vehicle looks like it would attract especially dumb humans who'd use them to try dumb things. Since they won't need any piloting certification, this is basically offloading risk onto everyone on the streets below. I'd fe…

> then the only real issue is the noise pollution I live on Moffett Field next to the 101 -- the vehicles from the 101 are far more annoying than the airplanes. Just listen to traffic noise pretty much in any urban or suburban environment. The Caltrain sounds like -- well, a freight train. My point is that if we cared about noise pollution, we'd be paying more attention to the everyday noise all around us and develop…

True cars and trains are loud. However, we're on the verge of both Caltrain and car electrification, which will significantly reduce ambient noise.

I can't believe we haven't cut & covered the Caltrain line yet. I imagine that's a project even the plentiful peninsula NIMBYs could get behind.

As sibling points out, airplanes at moffett are rather far away, whereas these flying bikes are meant to be point-to-point in dense environments. Also note that there's lots of regs & techs that help reduce noise for larger planes, and I'm not sure the same is going to be true for these smaller vehicles, similar to how all those two-stroke lawnmower and leaf blower engines are horrible both environmentally and noise-wise because they're optimized for size.

Re: YC's latest moonshot bet is a startup building a $380K “flying motorcycle”

#144

Post by maehwasu » Fri, Mar 08, 2019, 7:51 AM UTC

JimboOmega wrote: post #136

Judgmentality wrote: post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I can't speak for the person you're responding to, but as someone who also started (and failed) a moonshot company I can chime in. To grossly oversimplify, failure (especially when you put everything into something) can make people jaded. The breaking point for everyone is different, but eventually you just don't want to try the pie-in-the-sky idea because you remember how painful the failure is, how many years of yo…

But I've been wondering, why not make the shitload of money first, and once you've got many years saved, then go off and do a moonshot? The usual explanation is something about lifestyle and mortgages and children and so on, but whether you earn the money in your 20s and do a moonshot in your 30s, or do the moonshot in your 20s and earn money in your 30s, don't you wind up at the same place either way?

The answer is that you’re right. I did the money first, and since then working on moonshot stuff has been a lot more enjoyable that what I typically see here.

The challenge and stress of the moonshot never goes away, but the stress is more “intense trek through the mountains” and less “my family is going to starve and my friends hate me. “

Re: YC's latest moonshot bet is a startup building a $380K “flying motorcycle”

#145

Post by orky56 » Fri, Mar 08, 2019, 7:52 AM UTC

Thanks for keeping us inspired and trying to bring the future to now. Few thoughts & questions after reading the article & comments here...

Some of the reasons Tesla has succeeded that may be relevant for Speeder: -Safety: Tesla's construction has allowed their vehicles to have the highest crash ratings. Removing an engine & simplifying the frame have helped. -Driverless: Tesla has popularized & legitimized much of the technology that is trending towards driverless cars. -Performance: The Tesla Roadster was the moonshot (no pun intended) since it kicked off the brand while being sexy both design wise and by its performance. When electric car was associated with the nerdy, economical Prius, Tesla flipped that stereotype on its head. -Infrastructure: Tesla created the ecosystem to maximize the customer experience. From purchase/service/charging, Tesla independently set up the touch points to minimize friction.

My advice would be to go the SpaceX route instead of the Tesla route. You can go both and I'm sure you already are. Just remember that the regulatory environment will stall major headway for consumers. For military/government applications, this can be fast tracked and see applications right away. Those learnings can satisfy regulatory concerns and be the beta test needed.

Re: YC's latest moonshot bet is a startup building a $380K “flying motorcycle”

#146

Post by onetimemanytime » Fri, Mar 08, 2019, 7:53 AM UTC

estsauver wrote: post #104

One of the excellent things about YC is how they are completely unphased by moonshots. I don't know of any other organization that is nearly as supportive of ideas that would literally be called crazy other places. 3.5 years ago my cofounder were working on what was actually becoming an okay telecom referral business at the YC Fellowship, but my cofounder and I weren't happy. Pretty much every partner there enthusias…

>>One of the excellent things about YC is how they are completely unphased by moonshots.

On the other hand, it's not like they're betting the farm on a moonshot. They've funded over 1400 companies so they can afford to take chances, $150K for 7%. Who knows...after all they make their money of very few companies.

Re: YC's latest moonshot bet is a startup building a $380K “flying motorcycle”

#147

Post by hughrlomas » Fri, Mar 08, 2019, 7:56 AM UTC

WA wrote: post #113

ehnto wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's why I don't think we would ever have flying cars either. We can barely handle driving on flat surfaces and I suspect most people on the road only get by idly emulating simple line following machines rather than actually engaging the whole situation. It takes a third party to orchestrate busy sections of our current flying vehicles, planes, so I can't see any alternative to full automation of a mass of flying c…

Agree on the flying part, not so much on the line following machine. If you think about it: think about the vast amount of cars and miles driven every day. Think of the sheer number of decisions every driver has to make all the time. I think it’s a wonder that the traffic accident rate is rather low.

About 40,000 people died last year in the US. That's over 100 people dead every single day. Millions are injured on a scale from minor bruising to permanent disability every year. It's the number one cause of accidental death if you ignore overdoses. This is not a low rate.

Re: YC's latest moonshot bet is a startup building a $380K “flying motorcycle”

#148

Post by npunt » Fri, Mar 08, 2019, 7:57 AM UTC

dmayman wrote: post #81

npunt wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ya it seems like risk profile isn't very clear, nor do major risks have sufficient mitigations. I feel like the easier place to start is a low-speed automated cargo delivery system that runs on pre-defined flight paths and only in certain weather conditions. Even then you're dealing with pretty decent risk profile given the failure mode of anything flying is rather dangerous. I'm not against flying things in cities p…

The safety system has to be integral with initial design and it is. Before these are used in urban environments the machine must be able to set itself down safely regardless of the failure. That is possible.

Cool, I'd love to see the specifics. I imagine it'd be impressive and worthy of showing off.

Re: YC's latest moonshot bet is a startup building a $380K “flying motorcycle”

#149

Post by IshKebab » Fri, Mar 08, 2019, 7:58 AM UTC

estsauver wrote: post #104

One of the excellent things about YC is how they are completely unphased by moonshots. I don't know of any other organization that is nearly as supportive of ideas that would literally be called crazy other places. 3.5 years ago my cofounder were working on what was actually becoming an okay telecom referral business at the YC Fellowship, but my cofounder and I weren't happy. Pretty much every partner there enthusias…

I'm not sure I'd call that a moonshot. Difficult and maybe crazy, but modern agriculture clearly already exists and works, unlike driverless cars for example.

Re: YC's latest moonshot bet is a startup building a $380K “flying motorcycle”

#150

Post by estsauver » Fri, Mar 08, 2019, 7:59 AM UTC

bredren wrote: post #106

estsauver wrote: post #104

One of the excellent things about YC is how they are completely unphased by moonshots. I don't know of any other organization that is nearly as supportive of ideas that would literally be called crazy other places. 3.5 years ago my cofounder were working on what was actually becoming an okay telecom referral business at the YC Fellowship, but my cofounder and I weren't happy. Pretty much every partner there enthusias…

I’ve raised for and run two moonshot concepts that failed. Now I work on an enterprise saa. Much happier with the saas, but maybe it is a life stage thing.

Totally, I can't imagine having started this business and moving to Nairobi with a couple kids and a mortgage. I think moonshot businesses are in many ways the privilege of the young and at least modestly financially stable.