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

61–70 of 198 posts

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

#61

Post by vladvasiliu »

ofrzeta wrote: post #33

There's also the Renault Twizy that is readily available and significantly cheaper (starting at 7000 Euro). Actually even the regular electric car by Seat (Mii) is much cheaper than the Electrameccanica.

I wonder why no one mentioned the Smart. Here in Europe they're quite popular in dense cities. One advantage is they can be parked sideways on most streets, which not only helps with finding a spot but is also easier.

According to Wikipedia[0], a Smart is actually shorter and it can also be electric.

This actually has quite a few shortcomings compared to a Smart:

* Cannot carry a passenger

* Requires a motorcycle license, which many people might not have

* Technically a motorcycle, so safety standards may not be up to par

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smart_Fortwo#Third_generation_...

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

#62

Post by gumby »

Until a few months ago I owned a Corbin sparrow, which looks almost identical. It was great; I could park it anywhere, drive it with a regular license, and go safely on 101 in the commuter lane (the vehicle has a monocoque design -- basically you're inside a huge motorcycle helmet). It was quite convenient until I had a kid and a very large dog.

At one point I was on a board which had (including me) three separate sparrow owners!

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

#63

Post by gumby »

nsl73 wrote: post #39

I’d rather have a motorcycle. Motorcycles are faster, cheaper, can carry about the same amount of cargo, and 100 miles on a charge is enough to give me range anxiety. I’d rather have a car. I often need to carry passengers, carry large or heavy things, and a new economy car is in the same ballpark price. Who is this really for? I don’t see many people buying this as their only personal transportation if it only trave…

> Who is this really for? I don’t see many people buying this as their only personal transportation if it only travels 100 miles on a charge and can’t take a passenger. It’s price too high and isn’t fun enough to be considered a recreational purchase.

I had a sparrow which was almost identical to this -- $13K, in Y2000 dollars, plus a bicycle and it was great. I could park it anywhere, get around town, commute to work, and pick up a few groceries on the way home.

True, my wife had a Mercedes wagon (T-Klasse) so we also had the ability to transport large objects when needed.

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

#65

Post by izacus »

Talanes wrote: post #20
J0_k3r wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Swiss somehow manage to use trains in massive numbers even if grandmothers need car assistance occasionally. You don't need to poison the atmosphere every day with a car on your commute just because your grandmother might need a pick her up for her doctors checkup (having a medical facility come to pick someone up is not an uncommon service either).

Why do some of you think that finding a wierd edge case is enough to invalidate a whole infrastructure? This isn't derivation of a mathematical proof where counter-example invalidates the hypothesis.

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

#66

Post by timcederman »

sien wrote: post #29
danans wrote: post #22

Reminds me of the car that the character Peter Gregory drove in the show Silicon Valley. https://www.thedrive.com/a-list/3171/5-times-silicon-valley-...

That's a Tango. Apparently Sergey Brin had one. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commuter_Cars_Tango

Not sure if Sergey had one, but I saw Eric Schmidt's Tango parked near building 41 sometime in 2007.

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

#67

Post by m463 »

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

What's always been amusing to me is that trains should be self-driving, but they always have a human in charge. I mean it's not like they have a steering wheel.

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

#68

Post by keenmaster »

gxon wrote: post #17
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.

There is a long tail of routes where single occupancy is not just more desirable, but also more efficient. Think of all the time and energy wasted idling and searching for the second or third car pooler. Self-driving cars also drive more efficiently, negating some of the benefits of carpooling. Another factor in cities is that tiny cars are more pedestrian friendly. Cities can and should tax vehicle size as a negative externality.

A single ride hailer should be sent a sedan when they are on a more conventional route with easy pickup and drop off points. That would make more sense from both a unit cost and quality perspective than pooling every time. Augmented reality could also highlight and fill open seats quickly, including when that second carpooler can’t be found.

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

#69

Post by m463 »

sien wrote: post #29
danans wrote: post #22

Reminds me of the car that the character Peter Gregory drove in the show Silicon Valley. https://www.thedrive.com/a-list/3171/5-times-silicon-valley-...

That's a Tango. Apparently Sergey Brin had one. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commuter_Cars_Tango

> 805 hp claimed.

!

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

#70

Post by keenmaster »

jmchuster wrote: post #54
J0_k3r wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

i think you mean taxis? To the end customer, the only difference would be cost, and if you are rich enough, or the service is subsidized enough by investor cash, or the cost of living in your area is low enough, then it all ends up roughly the same.

>subsidized enough by investor cash

Investors have no reason to subsidize costlier transportation modalities that customers may not even prefer half the time. As for the verbiage, I don’t think self-driving car subscription services will brand themselves as taxi fleets. They will replace the vehicle that you own and that sits on your driveway 97% of the time (that’s a general “you”). However, Americans like the feeling of ownership over their vehicle. The name of the service should take that into account.

Post reply on HN