Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Not quite a car, not quite a motorcycle: a vehicle built for one

thesunbest.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 198 posts

Re: Not quite a car, not quite a motorcycle: a vehicle built for one

#11

Post by cortesoft »

taneq wrote: post #4
melling wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Plenty of people ride motorcycles. Protection from the weather means year round use. Throw in some specialized parking for small vehicles, and you have a winning product

From experience, the main issues, aside from weather, with using a motorcycle as your sole means of transport are: - You can't take an arbitrary person as passenger (they need gear and pillion experience) - You can't take more than a backpack's worth of cargo (slightly expandable with panniers) This can't take a passenger at all, and looks like it has the same cargo restrictions. It looks fun but I can't see it repla…

There is also the danger factor... you are 27 times more likely to die driving the same distance on a motorcycle as in a car. I don’t think I would want to take that risk.

Re: Not quite a car, not quite a motorcycle: a vehicle built for one

#12

Post by pengaru »

cptskippy wrote: post #10
melling wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Plenty of people ride motorcycles. Protection from the weather means year round use. Throw in some specialized parking for small vehicles, and you have a winning product

Except the people who ride motorcycles do it for the open air freedom. The high ride and lack of an enclosure also give them superb visibility. This literally none of the merits of a motorcycle and all the detriments, plus all the detriments of a sub compact car. It's like they distilled bad down into a concentrated form.

> This literally none of the merits of a motorcycle and all the detriments

Oh please; it doesn't fall over, keeps its occupant dry, protects its occupant more in general, it obviously doesn't have all the detriments of a motorcycle.

Re: Not quite a car, not quite a motorcycle: a vehicle built for one

#13

Post by dahfizz »

gshdg wrote: post #2

This is awesome. But nobody’s going to buy it if they have to drive it sharing the road with hulking SUVs. It’s nearly as dangerous as a motorcycle simply because it is so small and light. The only advantage is protection from the weather.

That's quite a silly argument, since millions of people buy motorcycles.

The key difference is that motorcycles are cool and fun to drive. Unless this thing accelerates like a Tesla, nobody will want it.

Re: Not quite a car, not quite a motorcycle: a vehicle built for one

#14

Post by pengaru »

stonogo wrote: post #9
taneq wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

From experience, the main issues, aside from weather, with using a motorcycle as your sole means of transport are: - You can't take an arbitrary person as passenger (they need gear and pillion experience) - You can't take more than a backpack's worth of cargo (slightly expandable with panniers) This can't take a passenger at all, and looks like it has the same cargo restrictions. It looks fun but I can't see it repla…

I thought this was the appeal of the 'full touring' bikes from Harley and Honda? Do you still need pinion experience when you're basically in a recliner?

Pillion experience has more to do with not panicking and not upsetting the balance especially when cornering.

Re: Not quite a car, not quite a motorcycle: a vehicle built for one

#15

Post by keenmaster »

A single occupancy car will be more commercially lucrative once we have full self-driving technology. If you hail a self-driving cab for yourself, the fleet will send a single-occupancy car. If you’re with a few others, it’ll send a sedan. Etc...all under a tiered subscription model. Not sending a sedan every time saves on hardware, electricity, and maintenance costs. Some of the savings would in turn be passed onto the consumer. The single occupancy car will also be more safe at that point, because it’ll only drive on lanes dedicated to self-driving vehicles.

Re: Not quite a car, not quite a motorcycle: a vehicle built for one

#16

Post by J0_k3r »

keenmaster wrote: post #15

A single occupancy car will be more commercially lucrative once we have full self-driving technology. If you hail a self-driving cab for yourself, the fleet will send a single-occupancy car. If you’re with a few others, it’ll send a sedan. Etc...all under a tiered subscription model. Not sending a sedan every time saves on hardware, electricity, and maintenance costs. Some of the savings would in turn be passed onto…

we have self-driving cars already, they're called trains

Re: Not quite a car, not quite a motorcycle: a vehicle built for one

#17

Post by gxon »

keenmaster wrote: post #15

A single occupancy car will be more commercially lucrative once we have full self-driving technology. If you hail a self-driving cab for yourself, the fleet will send a single-occupancy car. If you’re with a few others, it’ll send a sedan. Etc...all under a tiered subscription model. Not sending a sedan every time saves on hardware, electricity, and maintenance costs. Some of the savings would in turn be passed onto…

Depends on whether you want the non shared experience or not. Shared rides in a dense area are probably more efficient.

Our new post-pandemic reality might make shared rides less desirable. Or more desirable as a marginally safer alternative to public transit.

Re: Not quite a car, not quite a motorcycle: a vehicle built for one

#18

Post by falcolas »

It looks like a more boring version of a Polaris slingshot. Which isn’t bad, but it’s not exactly novel either.

Nor does it exist in a legislative wasteland, like the article implies. It’s considered to be a motorcycle in most US states, with all attendant licensing requirements.

Re: Not quite a car, not quite a motorcycle: a vehicle built for one

#19

Post by gxon »

gshdg wrote: post #2

This is awesome. But nobody’s going to buy it if they have to drive it sharing the road with hulking SUVs. It’s nearly as dangerous as a motorcycle simply because it is so small and light. The only advantage is protection from the weather.

This should be drastically safer than a motorcycle. It presumably has a seatbelt and airbags, and no chance of being flung 50 feet in the air or sanded down by asphalt.

Parking would be a huge advantage in a dense city. Limited parking can create a psychology barrier that impacts your realized mobility even if you own a car. I regularly decide to not go somewhere because I know how much of a pain it will be to park. I've been tempted by motorcycles for this reason alone.

Re: Not quite a car, not quite a motorcycle: a vehicle built for one

#20

Post by Talanes »

J0_k3r wrote: post #16
keenmaster wrote: post #15

A single occupancy car will be more commercially lucrative once we have full self-driving technology. If you hail a self-driving cab for yourself, the fleet will send a single-occupancy car. If you’re with a few others, it’ll send a sedan. Etc...all under a tiered subscription model. Not sending a sedan every time saves on hardware, electricity, and maintenance costs. Some of the savings would in turn be passed onto…

we have self-driving cars already, they're called trains

Show me a train that can show up at my grandmother's door and drop her at the doctor's.
Post reply on HN