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

This Is the Gyro-Stabilized, Two-Wheeled Future of Transportation

wired.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

141–150 of 164 posts

Re: This Is the Gyro-Stabilized, Two-Wheeled Future of Transportation

#141

Post by heretohelp »

elviejo wrote: post #108
Yxven wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Personally, I've always wanted a vehicle with the speed and fuel efficiency approaching a motorcycle and a 5-star crash safety rating. Motorcycles are a death trap, and I refuse to ride one despite their many advantages.

And this is the value add.

No...it's not. This thing is just as dangerous as a motorcycle.

The danger is from not having the steel cage protecting you, not from tipping over in a parking lot. Motorcycles aren't even difficult to balance...at all.

They're easier than bicycles in that respect because they self-stabilize from the speed that operate at. You only need balance when puttering about in the parking lot, and even then, scarcely.

I have to stop reading this thread. I'm a keen motorcyclist and it's vividly apparent none of you know what you're talking about in the slightest.

This vehicle is useless.

Re: This Is the Gyro-Stabilized, Two-Wheeled Future of Transportation

#142

Post by excuse-me »

WiseWeasel wrote: post #117
excuse-me wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not quite so clear cut for a small car. A small common rail diesel engine in a car gets close to 40%, a coal power plant runs at about 45%. Add in transmission losses and charging/battery/electric motor and the diesel g CO2/km is probably better.

Coal is significantly cheaper than diesel, and coal power plants have filtration systems to reduce their emissions; diesel engines not so much.

Coal stations have flue gas sulfur filters, but still emit a lot of CO2 (and a lot of radioactivity), road diesel is ultra low sulfur in civilized countries.

Re: This Is the Gyro-Stabilized, Two-Wheeled Future of Transportation

#143

Post by jakejake »

CognitiveLens wrote: post #128
jakejake wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

One place I've seen them where I thought they really made sense were in large parks where security guards ride around on them, able to cover a lot of ground using the walking paths.

Covering more ground in a way that was more effective at stopping ne'er-do-wells than riding a bicycle? Electric-assisted bicycle if it is hilly? Segways are not off-road vehicles, nor are they fast or maneuverable enough to be an effective security vehicle.

I would actually like to see a high-speed segway chase!

Re: This Is the Gyro-Stabilized, Two-Wheeled Future of Transportation

#144

Post by barrkel »

jrockway wrote: post #134
sankyo wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I split lanes (San Francisco) to avoid being rear ended by an inattentive driver. The safest place to be is between 2 cars at a red light. Of course I like going faster than all the cars around me and I can get a block or two ahead of everyone by cruising up to the front of the queue. There is a safe way to split lanes - do not go more than 5-10 MPH faster than the cars, and watch for gaps because a car will change l…

I split lanes (San Francisco) to avoid being rear ended by an inattentive driver. Isn't that statistically the least likely way of getting hit on a two-wheeled vehicle? Drivers may be distracted, but even the most inattentive look in front of them.

It's more than that. Between myself and my girlfriend, both 100% powered two wheeler riders, the only times we've been hit by cars was rear-ending - my girlfriend twice, me only once. The typical situation is a junction; looking to make sure the way is clear, the car driver - for whatever reason - expects you to have already pulled away, and they pull away while not looking ahead, and instead looking for approaching traffic in the stream they're pulling out into.

When you're on two wheels, what you want is space. Space in front of you, space behind you, and ideally space on either side. Space gives you time to react to the unexpected. One of the most dangerous situations to be in is having a car tailgating you; in that case, if anything bad happens, you die. (I don't feel guilty about speeding, filtering at higher speeds, etc., to get away from a dangerous tailgater, and into a situation where they can overtake safely.)

The easiest way to make space for yourself in the urban environment - i.e. one with traffic lights - is to filter to the front and use your acceleration power to get a lead on the traffic when the lights turn green. The idea is that you can largely stay ahead of the cars until the next traffic light. If traffic starts to bunch up, you don't want to get caught in an ever-decreasing amount of space; ideally, you want to move, safely, towards increasing space, overtaking and filtering if necessary to do so.

Re: This Is the Gyro-Stabilized, Two-Wheeled Future of Transportation

#145

Post by barrkel »

jack-r-abbit wrote: post #122
UnFleshedOne wrote: post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Aside from safety reasons (on which I can't comment) there is no reason not to let bikes go faster in between the lines -- car drivers aren't losing anything. Maybe there are some hurt feelings because it feels unfair and perception that they should stand in line like everybody else, but that is unjustified as they don't slow down your kind of traffic (well, maybe marginally). So double standard here is perfectly jus…

well... "no reason not to" is not quite the same as "perfectly justified" but I kind of see your point. By that same logic though, there really isn't any reason not to let other vehicles lane split if it can be done safely.

There are substantial benefits in terms of reducing congestion - e.g. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/motoring/motorbikes/9272532/Why-c...

Re: This Is the Gyro-Stabilized, Two-Wheeled Future of Transportation

#146

Post by DeepDuh »

heretohelp wrote: post #141
elviejo wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And this is the value add.

No...it's not. This thing is just as dangerous as a motorcycle. The danger is from not having the steel cage protecting you, not from tipping over in a parking lot. Motorcycles aren't even difficult to balance...at all. They're easier than bicycles in that respect because they self-stabilize from the speed that operate at. You only need balance when puttering about in the parking lot, and even then, scarcely. I have…

Sorry, but aren't you contradicting yourself? If the danger of a motorcycle lies in the lack of a cage, why is this useless?

Re: This Is the Gyro-Stabilized, Two-Wheeled Future of Transportation

#147

Post by ktizo »

tmuir wrote: post #138
ktizo wrote: post #3

To be honest, I wasn't sure about the whole gyros thing and thought that it was unneeded complexity, until I realised they were also using them for regenerative braking/power. Then I went ooooo... If they are really smart with this, and if the gyros are up to the task, they could use them for ultra fast charging as well.

The gyroscope keeps the vehicle from falling over when stopped. Even without regenerative braking, thats pretty necessary complexity when you can't stick your foot out to add a third point of contact.

A lever attached to a hinged stand is all the necessary complexity required to stop it falling over when stopped.

Re: This Is the Gyro-Stabilized, Two-Wheeled Future of Transportation

#148

Post by dchest »

epaik wrote: post #137
dchest wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not sure what you're trying to say. Can you please explain?

I think he's referring to the 100 year anniversary of the initial commission.

Thanks! Sorry for the confusion.

Re: This Is the Gyro-Stabilized, Two-Wheeled Future of Transportation

#149

Post by nl »

ricardobeat wrote: post #119
InclinedPlane wrote: post #83

This is a non-starter. This fills the same niche as an electric moped at 6% or less of the cost. And people can drive electric mopeds on city streets legally today . For less than half the price someone could buy a used, low-mileage sedan (such as a Civic, Corolla, or Accent), with a trunk, seating for 5, seatbelts and airbags. And then use the other $8k to pay for gas at $5 a gallon for the next 48,000 miles. Or, th…

There are a few things going for it: - handling is supposed to be better than anything - performance of a bike + safety of a car - higher mileage than electric cars + faster charge You are comparing the launch price of a completely new vehicle to market prices of commodity ones. This could be cheaper than a car in the future, and maybe even safer since it won't roll/tip as easily in an accident.

The whole "won't tip as easily" thing is misleading.

They say it would take "a small elephant" to knock it over. You know what is the size & weight of a small elephant? A car...

Rolling isn't the major cause of crash injuries anyway, it's crush and impact injuries. While this is an improvement over motorbikes in these areas (as well as the critical one of weather protection!) it is nothing like as safe as a car.

Re: This Is the Gyro-Stabilized, Two-Wheeled Future of Transportation

#150

Post by amalag »

learc83 wrote: post #38
amalag wrote: post #8

Will this need redundant gyros? Otherwise isn't it too risky if one blows out while you are driving?

The article says it has 2 gyros. In the test run one wasn't working so they had to test it on just one, and it seemed to work.

I thought it needed both to stay upright, like one on each side that would cancel each other out, my mistake.
Post reply on HN