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

141–150 of 198 posts

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

#141

Post by globular-toast »

http-teapot wrote: post #135
m-ee wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I ride, and know a lot of people who do, and the amount of injuries from road debris or cars turning left without looking dwarf the crashes from just going too fast. This might be regional though, most places don’t have Bay Area traffic.

That’s how I got my first and last accident. Double parked car made a U-turn in a commercial street without signaling. My front tire got caught under his car, bringing me to a complete stop and flipping me over. I was only doing 15mph. That ended it for me, bike was totaled, wife decided I stopped and I had no intention in getting involved in a more serious accident. I miss riding, I miss the sensation of freedom.

> wife decided I stopped

> I miss the sensation of freedom

I'm not surprised.

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

#142

Post by mcv »

baybal2 wrote: post #133

The problem with tricycles is that they are less stable than both motorcycles and cars. Unlike motorcycles, tricycles can't bank on turns, or are very limited in that.

That's basically the idea behind the Carver. It's a tricycle that does bank on turns.

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

#143

Post by rootusrootus »

globular-toast wrote: post #100
Firadeoclus wrote: post #95

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…

> doesn't do much in cities

Incorrect. I drive a lot in the city and I use the friction brakes so little that they start malfunctioning after a week or so if I don't do some hard stops once a week or so to clean up the pad surface. I only use the 'regular' brakes if I am stopping from high speed, quickly, or at the bottom of a steep hill. Probably use regenerative breaking for >90% of all normal stops.

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

#144

Post by geddy »

These three-wheeled vehicles always make me think the same thing, "all the risk of a motorcycle, with none of the fun." They don't exactly have good cargo space, so storage isn't the focus - is the whole point space savings and fuel efficiency?

A novel idea, I guess it comes down to price in this case.

EDIT: I say "fuel efficiency" referring to the fact that there are gasoline-fueled versions of this same type of vehicle. I realize the Solo is battery powered.

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

#145

Post by leetcrew »

trothamel wrote: post #137
globular-toast wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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. It shouldn't be a mystery why motorcycle accidents are more common. A superbike like a Yamaha R1 is capable of 0-100mph in less than 6 seconds, all in first gear. Ownershi…

I don't know why you're downvoted - I might disagree with part of what you wrote, but it's a reasonable point. I will suggest that motorcycles are inherently more dangerous. A car has four points of contact, so like a table, there's some inherent stability to it. A motorcycle's two points of contact means that stability has to be in some sense active, which seems problematic.

motorcycles are very hard to tip over under normal circumstances. it's only when you start sliding that the vehicle becomes unstable. if you do this during a turn, it's much more difficult to recover than in a car.

still, unless you're driving at the limit, the main risk is probably hitting or getting hit by other vehicles. most of the "inherently more dangerous" comes from having essentially zero protection in a crash compared to a modern car.

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

#146

Post by mcv »

Theodores wrote: post #132
shawabawa3 wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> One advantage is they can be parked sideways on most streets They advertised this but in reality it's rarely possible. They are 2.5m long and most cars in Europe are E.g. in the UK standard parking is 2.4m wide so a smart sticks out

They have elongated. The first ones were shorter. The park sideways gimmick was part of the original marketing, now they are longer that aspect is not advertised as a feature.

Sideways parking would be a killer feature if it actually worked, but they're just a bit too long for that, and according to my memory, have always been.

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

#147

Post by grumple »

> Having three wheels, it is not subject to the sorts of crash-testing the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration requires for street-legal, four-wheeled vehicles, but it does have a seatbelt and an integrated roll bar.

If they want anybody to buy these, they better test them anyway.

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

#149

Post by geddy »

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…

> It’s price too high and isn’t fun enough to be considered a recreational purchase.

Basically my thoughts. Not nearly enough for the price. I think the same thing when I see those Crossbows ripping around. The (2) passengers both wearing helmets, probably unable to have a simple conversation due to the wind-blast (unless you put a Sena in there or something), and it just doesn't seem all that fun.

I also ride motorcycles and dirt bikes so I'm definitely pretty biased, but smaller and more fuel efficient vehicles make me happy either way, and I'd prefer for them to succeed. The (lack of) fun factor isn't a beef I have with them, but one that others might have who a) want a new vehicle, b) don't want a motorcycle, and c) want to save money on fuel and take up less space.

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

#150

Post by freeone3000 »

fab13n wrote: post #107
m463 wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

If there's between 100 and 1000 people in a train, getting rid of the driver saves between 1% and 0.1% of an hourly salary by ticket. The economic pressure to do so is very low, compared to the difficulty and legal liabilities. Automating out a taxi/Über driver saves 50× to 1000× more money per traveler. And the infrastructure for a car ride cost way less than train + track + catenary lines + stations + antiquated ti…

Roads cost $2 million per mile. Tracks are half that. Maybe we should make car users pay for their own roads, and see how the economics work out.
Post reply on HN