Live data from Hacker News

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

thesunbest.com

111–120 of 198 posts

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

#111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 lic…

"One advantage is they can be parked sideways on most streets" Caveat lector. I know this to be technically illegal in some European countries, even when the entire vehicle is parked within the lines .

Only anecdotal, but I live in one of those countries. While word-for-word you're correct, it isn't usually practiced because parking that way doesn't conflict with the spirit of the law (I'm not sure if there's a better term for it in English, I hope you understand what I mean). The core idea behind the parking arrangement is you shouldn't be in the way of others and your car is small enough to not be — no one at the time of the writing could foresee a square car. Much in the same way, bikes are allowed to park which ever way they like as long as they don't take up unnecessary space, usually the measure is to fit two in one slot. Needless to say, don't call me when you do happen to get a ticket.

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

#112
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 lic…

and it can also be electric

I think they are all electric now, at least in the UK.

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

#113
Can it whizz through traffic jams like a moped or motorcycle? The Twizzy, Smart et al have the exact same problem. I don't see any benefits of owning this versus a cheap Nissan Leaf or Renault Zoe, for example.

Also, the top speed is extremely high compared to the alleged security features. Can you survive a crash in it?

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

#114
post #113

Can it whizz through traffic jams like a moped or motorcycle? The Twizzy, Smart et al have the exact same problem. I don't see any benefits of owning this versus a cheap Nissan Leaf or Renault Zoe, for example. Also, the top speed is extremely high compared to the alleged security features. Can you survive a crash in it?

Why is #1 a problem?

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

#116
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…

I'd rather not have a motorcycle. I'd rather not have to suit up in special clothing to try and reduce the chances of injury from accidents which, from talking to motorcycle riding friends, seem to be strangely more common than accidents in cars. I'd rather not have a car for my daily commute. Driving my large family vehicle for my job is wasteful and inefficient. I almost never need to carry anything large or heavy…

A motorcycle on its own is a perfectly balanced machine. It takes a fairly large assemblage of human errors to wrestle one to the ground. It only happens more often with bikes than cars because bikes give you the freedom to write as big a check as you think you can cash.

There's an expansive gap in knowledge between one's M1 certificate and real-road proficiency. Few ever take it seriously, and would rather "send it" over the gap the hard way, but with the internet, the steep and often-painful learning curve is entirely optional. A couple cones, a parking lot, and a few drills from the right tutors on youTube can help unlock your machine's braking, accelerating and cornering capabilities, all while riding relatively slowly in a protected environment. Once you know what 100% of your ability is, being ready for the street simply takes having the common sense to leave half of it in reserve for bad weather and the dumbest thing someone else can do at any given moment--And knowing how to intuit all the potential stupidity around you.

The problem with these sorts of motorcycle-like cars is that you still need a regular car. You may not need cargo space or passenger seats all the time, but you do need them some of the time. Plus a motorcycle can fit in a parking space with another car. This thing can't. It's just a second car, but small. You also can't lane-split with this, or park it wherever you want. You'll look like a genius that one time you find parallel parking too small for a normal car, big enough for you, but you could've had your pick of any space between any vehicles with a motorbike. And you're just as relegated to traffic jams as you would be in a much bigger, more comfortable vehicle.

Okay, sure, on a motorcycle you can get yourself into trouble, but only because you're free to do whatever you want. You can split lanes at a hundred miles an hour, or pull wheelies through intersections. Or fly around that corner and gas it hard on greasy painted crosswalk lines. There's rarely ever traffic physically blocking your bike, or lights blinking on your dashboard electronically rescinding your input to "absolutely send it" like you would find while driving your car, but if you didn't have those limitations while driving, don't you think you would figure out how not to crash?

Just putting this out there: you can find an older Honda CB750 or whatever for a few grand--much cheaper than a smart car or something similar. Not enough power to get you into trouble, just enough power to get you out of it. Good looks for days, doesn't take up too much space in the garage and you'll never walk by it and regret owning it. Or if you'd rather not deal with the accompanying protective outfit, there's lots of mopeds and ebikes that may fit the bill too.

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

#117

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…

You're banking on full autonomy from a vehicle you can just plonk into any old city with no alteration to infrastructure, that would be served entirely by commercialized hail services for people who can afford it.

We should be hoping for ubiquitous public transport infrastructure that everyone can utilize and afford.

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

#119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yep, that's what I post every single time. Taxis are already self driving cars, so any argument for a self driving car should apply to them as well, yet people still prefer owning their own car than being "automatically" driven everywhere. It would already be cheaper for me to take a taxi to work every day than pay for my own car, yet.....I would rather pay a bit more and have a car that is mine and that I can do wha…

I think most Americans will choose the subscription service over ownership. Subscribers will have instant access to any type of vehicle at any time. The subscription cost will be lower than the cost of ownership. The whole fleet will always be new and incorporate the latest technology. Robotocized cleaning centers and user ratings will mitigate “tragedy of the commons.” I think even at the high end people will use lu…

I don't believe that for a second. Free market will always do what it does best, which means that whoever can get away with running their robo taxis cheapest will win. So the most common ones will rarely if ever be cleaned inside(cleaning costs money after all, even if it's automatic). Once the technology is common, they will run the cheapest version of it, just like regular taxis today don't all drive Mercedes S class cars, they drive 15 year old priuses because those are the cheapest cars that do the job. Yes, there will be market for higher end, clean and high tech cars. But the most common service will be nothing like this. A good example is something like Ryanair - yes, the planes are shit, they are dirty, the service is poor, but they are immune to ratings because.....what else are you going to pick? On several European routes that I travel on, they are the only choice.

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

#120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> and they are worse than internal combustion engine cars in that regard. Regenerative braking means less wear on the brakes, and there's no particulate matter from the exhaust pipe. In what way are electric cars worse?

Regenerative braking does not replace traditional brakes. In particular it is only really efficient at high speeds and doesn't do much in cities. EVs have no tailpipe emissions, but particulate emissions from the tailpipe of modern ICEs is very low anyway. But EVs do produce significantly more emissions from the tyres and brakes compared with ICE vehicles because they are heavier. https://www.emissionsanalytics.com/n…

It doesn't have to be 100% regenerative and an electric motor in generator mode it's very efficient at braking even at high speeds. One just needs to redirect the excess energy that cannot be absorbed by the battery to a controlled resistive load and trigger both mechanisms if the brake pedal is pushed more than 30% in which case you definitely need regular brakes. Trains already use these mechanisms.

The figures in the linked article are overblown: 5,8 g/km means one throws away a pair of used tires every 1000 km, which is not the case since the average tire lifecycle is 20k to 30k km.

Post reply on HN