segway- whatever happened to it
Crescentius Vespasianus
the wheel. Saw all the hype, actually saw one in the bike lane moving
pretty fast. Then nothing, I haven't seen nor heard one since, in
years. And with these high gas prices, I see and hear about people
getting bikes, but I have yet to hear an utterance that the Segway can
be an option for commuting.
Art Harris
I've seen them being used at a local shopping mall.
http://www.autobloggreen.com/2008/05/14/expect-to-see-more-mall-security-on-the-segway/
They don't really seem practical for commuting. Are they allowed on
public roads? Sidewalks?
Art Harris
Kenneth
Howdy,
The technology in the Segway allows it to "stand" up on its
two wheels.
That is truly an amazing feat, but is appears irrelevant to
its intended purpose.
Dean Kamen's "real" invention (using this significant
advance in technology) is a wheelchair that can lift onto
its rear wheels putting the rider at eye contact with
others, and also allowing the chair to climb stairs.
That is a life changing advance for many folks, and it is to
Kamen's great credit that he made it happen.
Eliminating the wheel balancing technology from the Segway
would require that it run on four wheels, and that would
probably reduce the cost by 90%.
Such a device might well catch on, and, as far as I can see,
at no detriment whatever to its purpose.
All the best,
--
Kenneth
If you email... Please remove the "SPAMLESS."
Hank
> Crescentius Vespasianus wrote:
> > The Segway was suppose to replace the bicycle, it was a reinvention of
> > the wheel. Saw all the hype, actually saw one in the bike lane moving
> > pretty fast. Then nothing, I haven't seen nor heard one since, in
> > years. And with these high gas prices, I see and hear about people
> > getting bikes, but I have yet to hear an utterance that the Segway can
> > be an option for commuting.
>
> I've seen them being used at a local shopping mall.
>
>
> They don't really seem practical for commuting. Are they allowed on
> public roads? Sidewalks?
>
> Art Harris
I've seen at least one guy using one for commuting on the Burke-Gilman
& Sammammish River Trails between Seattle & Redmond. He has bike
panniers mounted to the outside of his fenders.
David White
Having lived in Seattle until recently, I believe that using a Segway on
these paths is illegal (at least in Seattle). In 2004, this story in the
local paper (http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/175558_scoot29.html)
indicated that rules against this were in progress. I seem to recall
hearing at some point that they had been banned. So if you see this
person, you may want to tell them.
Hank
Doing a quick search, it appears that the ban was loosened in 2005 to
allow low-speed electric scooters.
MoonsOfJupiter
Washington DC riding them.
--
:O:
Wesley Dowling
Callisto Solutions, LLC
1602 Belle View Blvd #585
Alexandria VA,. 22307
(703) 283 3497
wdow...@callistosolutions.com
"Crescentius Vespasianus" <jazz...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:woKdnZEfMubtfxjV...@earthlink.com...
nork
They sell them at Sam's Clubs. Maybe Costco too.
thef...@gmail.com
wrote:
> The Segway was suppose to replace the bicycle
Not until they get Assos onboard.
tf
DougC
Well, not quite /nothing/ ...
Every now and then some computer industry guys play polo up around
Redmond with them. ;)
----
The problem with the Segway is that (in the US) it does not meet the
technical qualifications for a bicycle. In most states it could only be
classified as a motorized vehicle--and an unregistered and often
unlicensed one at that.
The Chinese could have copied them for less than $4K, but the Chinese
were smart enough not to bother. IIRC Slashdot featured a story once
about a couple guys who had build a LEGO Mindstorms version of the same
two-wheel-balancing sort of thing, for under $100 or so.
Segways wouldn't be real useful for most people to commute on, as their
battery capacity is still rather small.
Me, I'm waiting to get one of them 4-leg walking military things:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UNGx2uLA2nc
~
Eric Vey
>> Having lived in Seattle until recently, I believe that using a Segway on
>> these paths is illegal (at least in Seattle). In 2004, this story in the
>> local paper (http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/175558_scoot29.html)
>> indicated that rules against this were in progress. I seem to recall
>> hearing at some point that they had been banned. So if you see this
>> person, you may want to tell them.
>
> Doing a quick search, it appears that the ban was loosened in 2005 to
> allow low-speed electric scooters.
Didn't almost all the states pass laws allowing them on the sidewalk?
Peter Cole
From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Segway_PT#Sales
"When it was launched in December 2001 the annual sales target was
40,000 units, [36] and the company expected to sell 50,000 to 100,000
units in the first 13 months[37]. Segway Inc's investors were
optimistic. Inventor Dean Kamen predicted that the Segway "will be to
the car what the car was to the horse and buggy"[38] and John Doerr, a
venture capitalist who invested in the company,[39] predicted that
Segway Inc would be the fastest company to reach $1 billion in
sales.[38] In fact only about 30,000 Segways were sold from 2001 to
2007.[39]
Critics point to Segway Inc's silence over its financial performance as
an indication that the company is still not profitable, as about $100
million was spent developing the Segway.[38]"
I think there are many reasons for the Segway's modest sales. It is
either banned outright, or effectively through restrictions, in most of
Europe and Japan and significant parts of the US. It is relatively
expensive ($5,350 to $6,400). The company has chosen to focus on
vertical channels: security, police, etc., rather than consumer mass
market. It has not been approved as a medical device for people with
disabilities in most jurisdictions.
The Segway may never become a mass market vehicle, but the overall specs
are pretty impressive and, if nothing else, it establishes a firm data
point for performance parameters for a single occupant, plug-in electric
vehicle using state of the art batteries motors and controllers.
The reality of introducing any vehicle with substantial innovations
include the inevitable inertia of the various bureaucracies as well as
the large investments required for distribution and support. There's a
large barrier to entry even if you attract consumer enthusiasm. The BMW
C1 is a typical example: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BMW_C1
"After selling 10,614 units in 2001, BMW only sold 2,000 units in 2002,
and ceased production of the C1 in October 2002. It was never made
available in the USA."
A friend of mine here in the US has one. He had to import it in as parts
and assemble it himself. The legal status of actually driving it is a
bit squishy.
I think it's inevitable that ultra light/efficient single passenger
vehicles will eventually become common, perhaps even the majority. We're
simply getting to the point where taking a ton or 2 of vehicle along on
your commute won't be affordable. I expect we'll (Westerners) imitate
the Easterners rather than the other way around. If materials and
associated technologies can provide comparable safety and comfort to our
current vehicles while dropping the curb weight by a factor of 4-10,
there'll be a huge drop in energy consumption with an improvement in
traffic and parking congestion. The C1 and Segway can be seen as
successful (despite sales) experiments in pushing the various envelopes
and establishing benchmarks. Neither was intended as a bicycle
replacement, but as alternatives to the automobile -- necessary attempts
to rethink a 100 year old idea.
Doug McLaren
| Eliminating the wheel balancing technology from the Segway
| would require that it run on four wheels, and that would
| probably reduce the cost by 90%.
... and would reduce it's cool factor by 90% as well.
Actually, making it balance on two tires probably doesn't add too much
to the cost by itself. People have duplicated that for a whole lot
less money.
In any event, I think the bike is safe for a while.
--
Doug McLaren, dou...@frenzied.us
"I can explain it for you, but I can't understand it for you." -Anon.
Clive George
news:slrng8ck83.b1h...@frenzied.us...
> On 2008-07-22, Kenneth <use...@soleSPAMLESSassociates.com> wrote:
>
> | Eliminating the wheel balancing technology from the Segway
> | would require that it run on four wheels, and that would
> | probably reduce the cost by 90%.
>
> ... and would reduce it's cool factor by 90% as well.
>
> Actually, making it balance on two tires probably doesn't add too much
> to the cost by itself. People have duplicated that for a whole lot
> less money.
Agreed - the required components are all fairly cheap, since the clever bit
is only a bit of electronics.
cheers,
clive
smokey
wrote:
Remember when Bush crashed on a Segway? The pics were all over the
internet.
Smokey
Hank
> I think it's inevitable that ultra light/efficient single passenger
> vehicles will eventually become common, perhaps even the majority. We're
> simply getting to the point where taking a ton or 2 of vehicle along on
> your commute won't be affordable. I expect we'll (Westerners) imitate
> the Easterners rather than the other way around. If materials and
> associated technologies can provide comparable safety and comfort to our
> current vehicles while dropping the curb weight by a factor of 4-10,
> there'll be a huge drop in energy consumption with an improvement in
> traffic and parking congestion.
I think most importantly, by getting all those overbuilt vehicles off
the road, safety will improve because it's less a matter of the bigger
SUV winning in a crash. Large, heavy vehicles will only be driven by
those with CDL licenses, who know that their livelihood depends on not
getting in an accident.
Safety really became an unwinnable arms race with soccer moms wanting
to drive up-armored Humvees.
I mean, with SUVs going by the wayside, those $1000 econoboxes made in
India might not be a safety problem if they're the norm.
BobT
news:woKdnZEfMubtfxjV...@earthlink.com...
It has revolutionized the way we live.
See this news story to see how:
http://www.theonion.com/content/video/in_the_know_do_you_remember_life
BobT
A Muzi
Once long ago a future was predicted in which we'd flit about in our
personal autogyros. The technology is here, like Segway, but I don't see
those around much either. Personally, I prefer a bicycle.
--
Andrew Muzi
<www.yellowjersey.org/>
Open every day since 1 April, 1971
** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **
alan...@sbcglobal.net
> I think it's inevitable that ultra light/efficient single passenger
> vehicles will eventually become common, perhaps even the majority.
But around here, people are routinely making 50-mile commutes, ONE
WAY!!!
Think of all those customer service reps with their perfect hairdos
and pants suits.
They're going to survive a 100 mile round trip in wind, rain, and
blistering heat?
Nah, Americans aren't going to put up with that.
"The most spoiled brats on God's green earth...?"
ABS
peter
> The Segway may never become a mass market vehicle, but the overall specs
> are pretty impressive ...
Really? It's slower, several times as heavy, and over 20 times as
expensive as any of a variety of electric-powered scooters like the
Razor E300. Most people can balance just fine on conventional two-
wheel vehicles. The advantages I see to the Segway are 1) it's not
regarded as a child's toy, 2) there was a massive lobbying effort to
get it legalized in pedestrian areas where normal scooters aren't
allowed (although it presents similar hazards), and 3) although the
balancing technology doesn't really add much utility it is clearly
regarded as impressive and interesting.
Tom Sherman
I have seen a few places that rent SegwaysŽ by the hour to tourists.
Being on a SegwayŽ is so dorky that it makes the stereotypical recumbent
rider look like Fabrizio Mazzoleni.
--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
"People who had no mercy will find none." - Anon.
Tom Sherman
Here is an existing single passenger vehicle that would be fine for
urban commuting with a small fuel cell and a 750W motor:
<http://www.go-one.us/go-one_ultra-lightBike.html>. The price would be
reasonable with mass production.
Tom Sherman
> Crescentius Vespasianus wrote:
>> The Segway was suppose to replace the bicycle, it was a reinvention of
>> the wheel. Saw all the hype, actually saw one in the bike lane moving
>> pretty fast. Then nothing, I haven't seen nor heard one since, in
>> years. And with these high gas prices, I see and hear about people
>> getting bikes, but I have yet to hear an utterance that the Segway can
>> be an option for commuting.
>
> Once long ago a future was predicted in which we'd flit about in our
> personal autogyros. The technology is here, like Segway, but I don't see
> those around much either. Personally, I prefer a bicycle.
I have seen people on occasion riding SegwaysŽ on the Lake Monona
(Madison, WI) path. I think "Wonders On Wheels" that apparently used to
rent SegwaysŽ may have gone out of business, however.
bjwe...@gmail.com
People are going to have to think hard about
50-mile commutes. Anyway, when Peter said
ultra-light single person vehicles, he didn't
necessarily mean bikes or Segways. In Paris
last fall, I saw a sort of fully enclosed scooter
that would allow you to arrive with your hair
unmussed, very similar to the BMW C1 Peter
mentioned - it may have been a BMW C1, I
don't remember the make. That was a market
failure, but I expect the concept to return.
Personally, I want one of these, the most
awesome car ever made:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=patvUFyIa1I
People stopped riding Segways, or never
started, because I was following them around
holding a giant placard that said "DORK."
Their advantages, such as they are, are not
as commute vehicles, even if they were street
and sidewalk legal.
Ben
Ned Mantei
Crescentius Vespasianus <jazz...@hotmail.com> wrote:
The best use of a Segway I have ever seen: A disabled woman who needed
crutches to walk got off the train at a small Swiss town. Someone helped
her unload her Segway, and away she went. I suspect that for her it was
the ideal way to get around. For other people not so much...
Ned
Qui si parla Campagnolo
wrote:
What happened here is lack of a place to ride(drive?) them. Not
allowed on sidewalks or bike lanes nor on multiuse paths. They were
left with city/county streets going toe to toe with cars......
Kenneth
Howdy,
I would suggest that what actually happened is that it is a
solution in search of a problem.
The balancing trick is of no real value for its intended
function. And, the device costs many times more than others
that are functionally equivalent.
Peter Cole
I agree that the self-balancing act is probably more of a gimmick than
anything else, but I'd really have to reserve judgment until I actually
tried one.
The "performance envelope" (weight, speed, range, etc.) is interesting
in the Segway because it used(s) pretty high-end stuff Lion, 3kw motor,
and a lot of sophisticated software (tow behind assist, regenerative
braking, speed/acceleration control, etc.).
The e-Razors are also an interesting data point, probably setting the
rock bottom price for low-end technology (lead gel cells, cheap motors),
but that's really the same technology available for some time in kiddie
Hummers at Wallmart.
Even cheap, mass-produced, Chinese brushless hub motors cost several
times the e-Razor price at useful power levels. Using anything other
than lead-acid for batteries gets real expensive fast, too.
The scooter form factor is interesting. Add a seat to it and you've
essentially got the conventional (Vespa) layout. Add a rain canopy/roll
bar(s) and you've got the BMW C1. As a minimal, stand-up, open platform,
the e-scooter probably is pretty close to the Segway format in
practicality, but equipped with the same motors, batteries and
controllers, I doubt there'd be any significant cost/performance
difference. The self-balancing may be a gimmick, but an essentially free
one. The placement of the wheels to the sides rather than front/back
makes a more maneuverable and compact platform, especially with the more
practical larger wheel size.
Peter Cole
> I mean, with SUVs going by the wayside, those $1000 econoboxes made in
> India might not be a safety problem if they're the norm.
There has been a lot of progress/effort in using materials and
innovative designs to improve crash-worthiness without adding a lot of
weight (F1, for instance). That was one of the principal design goals of
the BMW C1, for instance, improving the crash-worthiness of a motor
scooter. I think the era of making vehicles out of stamped, spot welded,
generic steel alloys may be almost over. Fuel economy is really all
about weight.
Peter Cole
> Crescentius Vespasianus wrote:
>> The Segway was suppose to replace the bicycle, it was a reinvention of
>> the wheel. Saw all the hype, actually saw one in the bike lane moving
>> pretty fast. Then nothing, I haven't seen nor heard one since, in
>> years. And with these high gas prices, I see and hear about people
>> getting bikes, but I have yet to hear an utterance that the Segway can
>> be an option for commuting.
>
> Once long ago a future was predicted in which we'd flit about in our
> personal autogyros. The technology is here, like Segway, but I don't see
> those around much either. Personally, I prefer a bicycle.
Yeah, from the auto-gyro hype in the 30's to the Jetsons, everyone
always assumed the future would include personal air transport.
"Hovercars" are a staple of sci-fi (Blade Runner, Fifth Element, Star
Wars, etc.). The real obstacle to this is that pesky phenomenon called
wind. This transforms the problem from the equivalent of paddling on a
mill pond to shooting white water rapids. With modern materials it
was/is possible to build even a human-powered aircraft, and it worked
quite well, as long as the wind was essentially zero. As we all know,
this can be the major issue in cycling, too.
Years ago, a friend was getting an advanced degree in urban planning.
Since both of us were avid cyclists, we collaborated on an idea for
urban cycling corridors. The idea was to essentially enclose bikeways in
self-supporting, inflatable tubes, which provided shelter from both wind
and precipitation as well as lighting. The idea included the feature of
having a tube in each direction and generating an artificial breeze so
that the nominal air drag was zero or negative. As I recall, the idea
was (flatly) rejected as a thesis proposal.
There is a density threshold, after which it becomes more economical to
move the problem solution (motive power, lighting, climate protection)
from the vehicle to the infrastructure (road). I guess the point I'm
trying to make is that the design of transportation corridors and the
vehicles that use them go hand-in-hand. Ultra-efficient vehicles may
only become practical when the infrastructure supports them. Given that
we're already maxed out (or beyond) in the amount of space we can give
to transport, improving the density is the only option. There has been
considerable skepticism about this kind of investment (and sticker
shock), but in my backyard (literally), we just spent $20B to drop our
inner belt underground. It's been widely ridiculed as a boondoggle, but
there are many sharp-pencil types who claim it will prove cost effective
in the long run.
High speed rail has been the widely adopted solution to the density
problem around the world, but Americans, with their long love affair
with personal vehicles may adopt something different. My wife's thesis
(15 years ago) argued that the information economy and the Internet
would essentially eliminate at least the growth pressure (if not the
whole problem) via telecommuting/conferencing. Obviously this hasn't
happened. My guess is it's more of a social phenomenon than anything
else. Perhaps the upcoming generation, who seem more comfortable IM'ing,
even with people in the same room, will adopt a more virtual lifestyle.
That reminds me of an exchange I had with Sheldon Brown some years ago.
He was glowing about his new PDA, bragging that he even put his grocery
lists on it. My dry response was: you still go grocery shopping? He
looked a bit crestfallen and said: OK, you got me.
Peter Cole
It may be that ultra-efficient/light vehicles will be adopted that can
make that kind of commute. Perhaps, as I speculated in another post, it
will only be after the road infrastructure is significantly modified to
support them (power distribution, climate moderation).
Another aspect is the "intermodal" problem. You can build high density
routes with high-speed rail cost effectively today, but you have the
"last mile" problem. From what I gather, places like Japan have
continued to use the lowly bicycle as a common solution, with commuters
keeping bikes at the train station(s). Rental, or even "free" bike,
programs are being rolled out in some cities, as well as the increasing
appearance of bike racks on buses and compartments on trains.
Restricting or outright banning of automobiles in urban areas is on the
rise. This may create a niche for a powered personal conveyance of some
sort, maybe e-bikes, maybe e-scooters, maybe Segway-ish -- maybe just
plain old bikes -- assisted/enclosed, or not.
It's at least conceivable that, for a "no-sweat/no-weather" last mile(s)
solution, some kind of limited range/speed light electric personal
(enclosed) vehicle might be a viable option to shuttle the commuter from
the rail station to the suburban cul-de-sac or office (robo-cabs?).
One of the unfortunate realities that makers of things like the Segway
and the C1 run into is the maze of safety restrictions, categorizations
and licensing requirements, which can kill some ideas before they get
off the ground. To open things up for innovation, it might be wise to
selectively relax these, as is done for "experimental" aircraft -- at
least until new categories get established.
Peter Cole
> Personally, I want one of these, the most
> awesome car ever made:
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=patvUFyIa1I
Thanks for posting that. I had seen it before, but forgotten it, very
funny, but a little provocative. Made me wonder about the combo of
something like that with an electric drivetrain.
I recently built a trailer for my 10.5' skiff. I've been taking it to
the river (about a mile away), mostly via a bike path. It works well,
except for one narrow section (~200') where there's a guardrail on one
side and a ravine on the other, and I feel like the guy driving the
minicar through the office cubicles -- I apologize profusely for the
inconvenience to anyone I encounter and invariably get the same kind of
drop-jawed astonishment.
More recently I added an electric (boat) motor and battery. I've been
having my wife pull the (~70lb) battery on a separate trailer
(one-wheeled BOB). It's a bit sketchy. I mentioned that I'd really like
to carry 2 batteries to double our range (from 8 to 16 miles --
nautical), but she walked away muttering about spousal abuse. Then I had
another brain storm (fart?). I can make another 2-wheeled trailer,
holding 2 batteries, add a hub motor to her bike and make it all
self-powered. Although 2 batteries weigh 140lb, they'll drive a 500W
load for about 5 hrs -- could make an interesting vehicle in its own
right. Wouldn't need no stinking dynamo, neither.
Peter Cole
> "They see me roll on, my Segway , I know in my heart they think I’m
> white and nerdy"
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MAq4bgi13wo
Thanks, I hadn't seen that, forwarding links to my 2 w&n kids.
Rocky
during the Olympics. I saw a photo of them practicing with their assault
rifles while riding Segways.
"Kenneth" <use...@soleSPAMLESSassociates.com> wrote in message
news:tjbe84h43kq6u12bq...@4ax.com...
Ron Ruff
> The C1 and Segway can be seen as
> successful (despite sales) experiments in pushing the various envelopes
> and establishing benchmarks. Neither was intended as a bicycle
> replacement, but as alternatives to the automobile -- necessary attempts
> to rethink a 100 year old idea.
Something like this is more sensible IMO:
http://www.nappepin.com/LithiumEV.htm
It could use better suspension, car-type radials, and maybe an extra
seat (tandem). A large company could easily make these for less than a
Segway costs...
Andrew Price
wrote:
[---]
>Another aspect is the "intermodal" problem. You can build high density
>routes with high-speed rail cost effectively today, but you have the
>"last mile" problem. From what I gather, places like Japan have
>continued to use the lowly bicycle as a common solution, with commuters
>keeping bikes at the train station(s).
That's also common in Germany. The often quite large bike parks at
stations are always crammed full, even on Saturdays and Sundays -
because the commuters leave their "hack" bikes there over the weekend.
b...@mambo.ucolick.org
Too complicated - you're using the batteries to
drive the bike to tow the batteries, that then you have
to put in the boat, that you tow with the bike ...
Leave the batteries in the boat. Make an underframe
with wheels for the boat that turns it into a powered
tadpole trike. When you get to the launch, lift it
off of the underframe, or hell, make the underframe
seaworthy and you'll be the only family in Massachusetts
with an electric-powered amphibious assault skiff.
Anyhow, the look on people's faces as you zipped
down the bike path in an electric land skiff would
surely be worth it all.
Ben
Tom Sherman
> A Muzi wrote:
>> Crescentius Vespasianus wrote:
>>> The Segway was suppose to replace the bicycle, it was a reinvention
>>> of the wheel. Saw all the hype, actually saw one in the bike lane
>>> moving pretty fast. Then nothing, I haven't seen nor heard one
>>> since, in years. And with these high gas prices, I see and hear
>>> about people getting bikes, but I have yet to hear an utterance that
>>> the Segway can be an option for commuting.
>>
>> Once long ago a future was predicted in which we'd flit about in our
>> personal autogyros. The technology is here, like Segway, but I don't
>> see those around much either. Personally, I prefer a bicycle.
>
> Yeah, from the auto-gyro hype in the 30's to the Jetsons, everyone
> always assumed the future would include personal air transport.
> "Hovercars" are a staple of sci-fi (Blade Runner, Fifth Element, Star
> Wars, etc.). The real obstacle to this is that pesky phenomenon called
> wind. This transforms the problem from the equivalent of paddling on a
Let your average moron cager pilot aircraft, and there would be massive
carnage.
Ryan Cousineau
Peter Cole <peter...@verizon.net> wrote:
Except when it's about aerodynamics.
I recognize that acceleration from a stop is a major factor in city
economy, but I dare to argue that in terms of raw vehicular efficiency,
comparing electric cars to internal combustion cars is comparing apples
to beef.
Electric vehicles still face major energy-storage problems that amount
to "batteries suck," though with considerable hope that the battery
packs available in the next few years will be affordable, durable, and
energy-dense.
Durability of the battery packs is a big deal, because electricity is
way cheaper per joule than the common fuels (gas, diesel, propane, CNG).
The downside of electrics, operating-cost-wise, tends to be tied up in
the initial and replacement costs of the battery pack.
And also because they are mostly slow, short-ranged or both, except the
Tesla, which is fast, reasonably-ranged, and expensive, battery-wise.
--
Ryan Cousineau rcou...@gmail.com http://www.wiredcola.com/
"In other newsgroups, they killfile trolls."
"In rec.bicycles.racing, we coach them."
Ryan Cousineau
Kenneth <use...@soleSPAMLESSassociates.com> wrote:
The balancing trick came out of Dean Kamen's iBOT project, a very clever
electric wheelchair that costs several times what a Segway does.
The Segway suffers greatly when compared to bicycles. I suspect the
theory of the Segway was either that there were a lot of places people
wanted to go that were too far to walk that could be reached by
sidewalks but not roads, or that bicycles didn't exist.
A Muzi
>>> I mean, with SUVs going by the wayside, those $1000 econoboxes made in
>>> India might not be a safety problem if they're the norm.
> Peter Cole <peter...@verizon.net> wrote:
>> There has been a lot of progress/effort in using materials and
>> innovative designs to improve crash-worthiness without adding a lot of
>> weight (F1, for instance). That was one of the principal design goals of
>> the BMW C1, for instance, improving the crash-worthiness of a motor
>> scooter. I think the era of making vehicles out of stamped, spot welded,
>> generic steel alloys may be almost over. Fuel economy is really all
>> about weight.
Ryan Cousineau wrote:
> Except when it's about aerodynamics.
>
> I recognize that acceleration from a stop is a major factor in city
> economy, but I dare to argue that in terms of raw vehicular efficiency,
> comparing electric cars to internal combustion cars is comparing apples
> to beef.
>
> Electric vehicles still face major energy-storage problems that amount
> to "batteries suck," though with considerable hope that the battery
> packs available in the next few years will be affordable, durable, and
> energy-dense.
>
> Durability of the battery packs is a big deal, because electricity is
> way cheaper per joule than the common fuels (gas, diesel, propane, CNG).
> The downside of electrics, operating-cost-wise, tends to be tied up in
> the initial and replacement costs of the battery pack.
>
> And also because they are mostly slow, short-ranged or both, except the
> Tesla, which is fast, reasonably-ranged, and expensive, battery-wise.
Electric, feh.
Waiting for a hydrogen IC setup. Maybe with NO2 boost?
Ron Ruff
>
> Electric vehicles still face major energy-storage problems that amount
> to "batteries suck," though with considerable hope that the battery
> packs available in the next few years will be affordable, durable, and
> energy-dense.
The LiFePO4 batteries look promising (used in the BugE I linked to),
but they are still quite expensive.
Like Tom Sherman, I think electric velomobiles (very light enclosed 3-
wheelers) would provide reasonably comfortable and extremely efficient
transportation in urban environments in any climate. Much better than
public transit IMO. The problem is that our roads are basically
hostile to them...
David L. Johnson
> Durability of the battery packs is a big deal, because electricity is
> way cheaper per joule than the common fuels (gas, diesel, propane, CNG).
I don't get this. How can that be? Seeing as how electricity is often
generated by burning common fuels. In the US, that fuel is often coal
or natural gas, While it might be that coal is much cheaper per joule
than gasoline in an internal combustion engine, it's hard to see why
natural gas would be. And in the US, there is precious little
electricity generated by wind, direct solar, or nukes.
With most of the energy coming from the same process, and a lot more
inefficiency in battery-powered cars, how does it end up "way cheaper"?
--
David L. Johnson
What is objectionable, and what is dangerous about extremists is not
that they are extreme, but that they are intolerant.
--Robert F. Kennedy
Hank
David L. Johnson
> Like Tom Sherman, I think electric velomobiles (very light enclosed 3-
> wheelers) would provide reasonably comfortable and extremely efficient
> transportation in urban environments in any climate. Much better than
> public transit IMO. The problem is that our roads are basically
> hostile to them...
Our drivers are hostile. There was a time when wagon-drivers were
hostile to people driving cars, but that no longer matters. If driver
hostility is the worst problem, and that keeps us from adopting a
clearly better form of transportation, then we deserve what we get.
David L. Johnson
> In article <tjbe84h43kq6u12bq...@4ax.com>,
> Kenneth <use...@soleSPAMLESSassociates.com> wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 23 Jul 2008 05:15:05 -0700 (PDT), Qui si parla
>> Campagnolo <pe...@vecchios.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On Jul 22, 7:36 am, Crescentius Vespasianus <jazzyb...@hotmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>> The Segway was suppose to replace the bicycle, it was a reinvention of
>>>> the wheel. Saw all the hype, actually saw one in the bike lane moving
>>>> pretty fast.
I never heard that the Segwey was supposed to replace the bike, or
anything else. Yes, "this changes everything" kind of nonsense was
spouted, but nothing that specific. It was supposed to be an
alternative for short trips. Of course, it was dreamed up in
California, where considerations of the weather and operator exposure to
rain, snow, ice, heat, and cold, were not considered significant.
> The Segway suffers greatly when compared to bicycles. I suspect the
> theory of the Segway was either that there were a lot of places people
> wanted to go that were too far to walk that could be reached by
> sidewalks but not roads, or that bicycles didn't exist.
I have seen exactly one Segway being used reasonably. A woman with an
artificial leg was using it to help her get around while shopping (in
New Hope, PA, which has a sort of old-fashioned downtown shopping area
requiring quite a bit of walking). She loved the thing; it enabled her
to get around.
I would assume that many people with limited mobility, but with the
ability to stand, would find it to be a real asset. Putting such people
in wheelchairs or scooters makes them more sedentary than they have to
be, and negatively influences their health. Scooters are not really
equivalent. Besides, a scooter is much harder to maneuver on sidewalks
than a Segway would be.
I fail to see why the Segway should be the enemy here. The marketing,
as being "it", was stupid, but the product has a use.
Frank Krygowski
wrote:
>
>
> I never heard that the Segwey was supposed to replace the bike, or
> anything else. Yes, "this changes everything" kind of nonsense was
> spouted, but nothing that specific. It was supposed to be an
> alternative for short trips. Of course, it was dreamed up in
> California, where considerations of the weather and operator exposure to
> rain, snow, ice, heat, and cold, were not considered significant.
Really? I thought Kamen lived in New England. Is his company based
elsewhere?
- Frank Krygowski
Twitchell
Hank says...
>
>On Jul 23, 7:55=A0pm, Ron Ruff <rruffrr...@yahoo.com> wrote:
So what are you waiting for? It's yours for just $30,000.
In 1995, I bought a '94 Geo Metro demo for a drive-away price of $6300. I've
been driving it ever since, getting 48MPG. It's not fancy, holds four
passengers if you really want to crowd yourself, and it's engine has only three,
not four, cylinders.
When you get your Sparrow price down to about the price of a Metro-like-car, you
might get more buyers. Until that happens, only those with a conscience and a
large wallet will buy the Myers NmG.
twitch
Bruce
Ryan Cousineau
A Muzi <a...@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
> > And also because they are mostly slow, short-ranged or both, except the
> > Tesla, which is fast, reasonably-ranged, and expensive, battery-wise.
>
> Electric, feh.
> Waiting for a hydrogen IC setup. Maybe with NO2 boost?
It's a nice idea. I see a niche for hydrogen IC in the performance
market, but only the performance market.
Ryan Cousineau
"David L. Johnson" <david....@lehigh.edu> wrote:
> Ryan Cousineau wrote:
>
> > Durability of the battery packs is a big deal, because electricity is
> > way cheaper per joule than the common fuels (gas, diesel, propane, CNG).
>
> I don't get this. How can that be? Seeing as how electricity is often
> generated by burning common fuels. In the US, that fuel is often coal
> or natural gas, While it might be that coal is much cheaper per joule
> than gasoline in an internal combustion engine, it's hard to see why
> natural gas would be. And in the US, there is precious little
> electricity generated by wind, direct solar, or nukes.
>
> With most of the energy coming from the same process, and a lot more
> inefficiency in battery-powered cars, how does it end up "way cheaper"?
There are a few reasons:
-internal combustion engines are not 100% efficient, and a fair amount
of your fuel's energy goes to heating the engine, at which point a bit
more energy goes to pumping the water that cools the engine. Electric
motors are much more efficient at turning electrical inputs into power
on the ground. (conversely, the energy density of gasoline or diesel is
better than any battery technology, and refuelling is more convenient).
-coal (and to a lesser extent, natural gas) costs less per joule than
gasoline, and is conveniently burnable in large stationary plants. There
are transmission losses, but there are efficiency gains from the large
stationary plants.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energies_per_unit_mass
Fascinating tables and data. In comparing energy densities, it does
include batteries (an energy storage device) alongside stuff like coal
and gasoline (actual sources of energy), but the numbers are useful for
comparing stuff like the space or weight of batteries you'd need to
match the energy capacity of your gas tank. The energy density of
gasoline is listed as 46.9 MJ/kg on that table, or 34.6 MJ/l.
By comparison, the energy density of current LiIon batteries comes in at
about .72 MJ/kg, or 2 MJ/l. EEStor capacitors, with specs exceeding
those of any battery in production, are targeting numbers like 2.5 and
5.5. On the other hand, EEStor capacitors may not actually exist. There
appear to have been no outside tests of the technology, which puts it
close to Moller Skycar territory.
In fairness to electric cars, Gas cars give up much of their energy
density advantage by needing big engines. By comparison, the motor part
of a Tesla Motors Roadster is 115 pounds and looks about the size of a
car transmission. On the other hand, the battery system is huge.
http://www.teslamotors.com/design/under_the_skin.php
Getting back to your question...
http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electricity/epm/tablees1a.html
Last year the US generated about half its power using coal, and about
1/5 its power using nuclear sources, just a bit more than was generated
by natural gas. But nonetheless, your electric company can deliver
joules to you surprisingly cheaply, and gas cars throw away much of
their energy density advantage by burning the fuel in such a way that
only about 20% of gasoline's energy goes to turning the rear wheels.
Electric cars are much better at turning stored joules into motion, so
you don't need to take on as many joules in the first place.
Despite all these inherent advantages, current electric cars still suck.
Instead of buying one, I bought a new bike frame today, which brings me
up to something like 10 bikes that are either rideable or in the process
of being built up into rideable bikes. The maintenance time alone makes
this fleet size unsustainable.
Chalo
>
> Ryan Cousineau wrote:
> >
> > Durability of the battery packs is a big deal, because electricity is
> > way cheaper per joule than the common fuels (gas, diesel, propane, CNG).
>
> I don't get this. How can that be? Seeing as how electricity is often
> generated by burning common fuels. In the US, that fuel is often coal
> or natural gas, While it might be that coal is much cheaper per joule
> than gasoline in an internal combustion engine, it's hard to see why
> natural gas would be.
Maybe he means cost per joule developed _at the wheel_ rather than
cost per gross energy content of the medium. Fossil fuels, even at
their currently bloated prices, are still an amazing bargain in terms
of calories per dollar.
Gasoline engines are not nearly as efficient as electric motors. Nor
are they nearly as efficient as electrical generation plants. The
efficiency cost of power transmission varies greatly according to the
distances involved, probably even more than the variable cost of
"transmitting" crude oil and gasoline. So the real bottom line is
whether the all-inclusive cost of gasoline, per joule applied to the
road, is more or less than the all-inclusive cost of electric power,
per joule applied to the road.
> And in the US, there is precious little
> electricity generated by wind, direct solar, or nukes.
Don't forget hydro. It's very cheap and very plentiful.
Chalo
Tom Sherman
Huh? Those are not a recumbent version.
Pikachu
> Ryan Cousineau wrote:
>
> > Durability of the battery packs is a big deal, because electricity is
> > way cheaper per joule than the common fuels (gas, diesel, propane, CNG).
>
> I don't get this. How can that be? Seeing as how electricity is often
> generated by burning common fuels. In the US, that fuel is often coal
> or natural gas, While it might be that coal is much cheaper per joule
> than gasoline in an internal combustion engine, it's hard to see why
> natural gas would be. And in the US, there is precious little
> electricity generated by wind, direct solar, or nukes.
>
> With most of the energy coming from the same process, and a lot more
> inefficiency in battery-powered cars, how does it end up "way cheaper"?
1 gallon of gasoline has about 131 MJ of energy. This is equivalent to
36.4 kWh. Assuming the rate of electricity is $0.15* per kWh for the
end consumer, the energy equivalent of 1 gallon of gasoline is $5.50.
To achieve equivalence to the national average price of $4 per gallon of
gasoline, electricity need to cost $0.11 per kWh.
* This figure was used for convenience. It may be significantly lower
than peak rates in CA, but it also may be significantly higher than
off-peak rates.
Ron Ruff
> 1 gallon of gasoline has about 131 MJ of energy. This is equivalent to
> 36.4 kWh. Assuming the rate of electricity is $0.15* per kWh for the
> end consumer, the energy equivalent of 1 gallon of gasoline is $5.50.
> To achieve equivalence to the national average price of $4 per gallon of
> gasoline, electricity need to cost $0.11 per kWh.
8 cents per KW-Hr here... and I think that is closer to the national
avg. So electricity is currently cheaper than gas... then consider
that an electric car is ~3 times as efficient at turning that energy
into propulsive force.
Ron Ruff
> Despite all these inherent advantages, current electric cars still suck.
IMO the niche for electrics is very small light (and cheap!) urban
transportation... enclosed 3 wheel recumbant bicycle-like. Very little
energy use... and a long range isn't necessary. They'll work well
enough on lead-acid batteries, and LiFePO4 batteries are not so
expensive when you don't need many of them.
Peter Cole
> In article <SxHhk.399$_l.160@trnddc04>,
> Peter Cole <peter...@verizon.net> wrote:
>> Fuel economy is really all
>> about weight.
>
> Except when it's about aerodynamics.
Aerodynamics is pretty well understood, and it's a fairly simple matter
to design a vehicle body these days to the diminishing returns point.
Weight is the big challenge. Especially battery weight in the case of EV's.
If you consider the Tesla, by using essentially lots of laptop batteries
(~7,000 cells), they get 120Wh/kg. This results in a (with CF body
panels, etc.) a vehicle with 1/3 of its curb weight in batteries. If
they used lead-acid, they would double the vehicle weight and be
batteries would be 70% of that weight.
> I recognize that acceleration from a stop is a major factor in city
> economy, but I dare to argue that in terms of raw vehicular efficiency,
> comparing electric cars to internal combustion cars is comparing apples
> to beef.
>
> Electric vehicles still face major energy-storage problems that amount
> to "batteries suck," though with considerable hope that the battery
> packs available in the next few years will be affordable, durable, and
> energy-dense.
Lithium-Sulfur batteries have been made in the 400Wh/kg range
(3,500Wh/kg theoretical max). Imagine a Tesla with that technology. At
400Wh/kg, the battery weight would be under 300lb, and the curb weight
would be down 25%.
Lithium battery technology is still pretty young, but there's a large
existing market (laptops) driving R&D, so things seem to be moving
along. Vehicles that are somewhat marginal today will probably be solid
in 10 years.
> Durability of the battery packs is a big deal, because electricity is
> way cheaper per joule than the common fuels (gas, diesel, propane, CNG).
> The downside of electrics, operating-cost-wise, tends to be tied up in
> the initial and replacement costs of the battery pack.
Computing the actual costs and efficiencies is complex and relies on
lots of assumptions, which taken one way or the other can skew the results.
This is one analysis for the Tesla:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tesla_Roadster#.22Apples-to-Apples.22_Efficiency_Comparison
> And also because they are mostly slow, short-ranged or both, except the
> Tesla, which is fast, reasonably-ranged, and expensive, battery-wise.
Getting to 200HP and 250mi range seems do-able with some variant of
lithium electro-chemistry. This implies (like the Tesla) about 50kwh of
storage, It won't be free, that's about $10 at today's electricity
rates, but lowering the weight of the battery pack from the current
1,000lb to 250 will help overall efficiency considerably.
As far as initial cost goes, the materials in lithium chemistry
(particularly lithium-sulfur) aren't than expensive, the challenge is
getting the manufacturing costs down, something (given the newness of
the basic technology) that's reasonable to be optimistic about.
A lot of people have argued that we (the West) should be developing high
efficiency vehicles, not only for our own use, but also to export to the
huge populations in the East. Given the current base of CF composite and
lithium battery manufacturing, it seems likely that we'll all (East &
West) be driving Chinese plug-in EV's in 10-15 years.
Ron Ruff
wrote:
> Our drivers are hostile. There was a time when wagon-drivers were
> hostile to people driving cars, but that no longer matters. If driver
> hostility is the worst problem, and that keeps us from adopting a
> clearly better form of transportation, then we deserve what we get.
The big difference is that a SUV/pickup could run right over a small
vehicle and not even know it was there. IMO the default urban
transportation would very small 1-2 passenger vehicles and bicycles,
and things like SUVs would be made prohibitavely expensive and
inconvenient. I don't see much point in public buses either. If this
were to happen the capacity of our roads and parking areas would at
least double and possibly triple or quadruple. There needs to be some
collective will in this direction though, and I don't see any sign of
it.
(PeteCresswell)
>Here is an existing single passenger vehicle that would be fine for
>urban commuting with a small fuel cell and a 750W motor:
A loooong time ago I lived near Honolulu.
The Honolulu Star-Bulletin had an article about a lady who
couldn't walk without crutches, but was in sales - as in
traveling from customer-to-customer.
Her vehicle of choice for getting around Honolulu
day-in-and-day-out was basically a very fast golf cart, whose
batteries got her around town for a full day on a night's charge.
IIRC, it's top speed was 35 mph.
Her only complaint was that drivers of other vehicles would
become abusive bc she wasn't going fast enough.
Other than that, technology available 40 years ago seemed tb
doing the job 100%.
--
PeteCresswell
Peter Cole
> Here is an existing single passenger vehicle that would be fine for
> urban commuting with a small fuel cell and a 750W motor:
> <http://www.go-one.us/go-one_ultra-lightBike.html>. The price would be
> reasonable with mass production.
I don't know, I think fuel cells are not going to happen for that kind
of application. With lithium battery technology approaching 400Wh/kg,
you could handily power that vehicle with a 10lb battery pack. Probably
the biggest advantage batteries have over fuel cells is that the energy
distribution infrastructure is already in place.
(PeteCresswell)
>I mean, with SUVs going by the wayside, those $1000 econoboxes made in
>India might not be a safety problem if they're the norm.
I think there's a body-size issue and nobody's addressing it.
Few years ago they had some guy on public radio who was a big
player in the crash dummy tests - and, of course, he was also
going on about crash survivability in large SUVs being lower bco
the lack of a crumple zone.
I called in to the show to ask him how tall the crash dummies
that his people used were and what data they had collected on
survivability by dummies of different sizes.
He didn't have a clue. I got the impression he'd never even
considered body size.
In retrospect, I wish I'd asked him to move the seat on his car
up until his shins were pressed against the dashboard, up until
his hair left a grease spot on the head liner, drive around for a
week or two like that; and report back on how safe he felt.
--
PeteCresswell
Ron Ruff
> I think there's a body-size issue and nobody's addressing it.
The size of SUVs and such has practically nothing to do with providing
adequate leg and headroom. A 200lb vehicle could give you plenty of
room if it is designed for someone your size.
Dave Lehnen
This comparison is not valid. The energy content of fuel is not
converted to mechanical work at anywhere near 100% efficiency in an
internal combustion engine in a car, 25% is more typical. The electrical
energy can be converted to mechanical work at much higher efficiency,
around 90% if used directly in an induction motor, and less if it must
be converted to DC, stored in batteries, and then used in DC motors. The
electrical power plant may burn fuel such as natural gas or coal, but
efficiency of the plant may be well over 50%.
When you buy energy from a power company, you're buying it after the
thermal efficiency losses have already been taken. When you buy fuel,
you have yet to take the thermal efficiency losses.
Dave Lehnen
A Muzi
>>> And also because they are mostly slow, short-ranged or both, except the
>>> Tesla, which is fast, reasonably-ranged, and expensive, battery-wise.
> A Muzi <a...@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
>> Electric, feh.
>> Waiting for a hydrogen IC setup. Maybe with NO2 boost?
Ryan Cousineau wrote:
> It's a nice idea. I see a niche for hydrogen IC in the performance
> market, but only the performance market.
in the not-performance market, I prefer my bicycle.
(PeteCresswell)
>The size of SUVs and such has practically nothing to do with providing
>adequate leg and headroom. A 200lb vehicle could give you plenty of
>room if it is designed for someone your size.
I'll buy that - in spades.
And it makes me absolutely *crazy* to sit in my wife's Lumina
(which seems to me tb a pretty big vehicle) and have my shins
sore from pressing on the dashboard and my head rubbing the
headliner.
OTOH the owner of a restaurant I used to park cars at a long time
ago owned an Alfa-Romeo sports car that was considerably smaller
than the Lumina. Sitting in that thing was pure pleasure -
plenty room in every direction.
Ditto some of the rather small cars I've rented in Germany - not
exactly like laying in a double bed... but noticeably more room
than that damn Lumina.
--
PeteCresswell
David L. Johnson
> Like Tom Sherman, I think electric velomobiles (very light enclosed 3-
> wheelers) would provide reasonably comfortable and extremely efficient
> transportation in urban environments in any climate. Much better than
> public transit IMO. The problem is that our roads are basically
> hostile to them...
Why do you assume that personal transit would be superior to public
transit? We as a culture have to decide between cheap, efficient, and
public transit versus more expensive, and more dangerous, individual
transport. We either face a cadre of professional transit drivers, or
your average teenage driver (of whatever). Don't start from the
assumption that personal transport has to be better than public
transport, and we might find a way around the 45,000 highway deaths
every year that we currently accept as a cost of doing business.
Ron Ruff
wrote:
> Why do you assume that personal transit would be superior to public
> transit?
Better mobility and freedom with less energy use and less cost...
provided of course that very small and light vehicles are used
(including bicycles). I'd much rather travel on roads where the
vehicles weigh 200 lbs rather than 6,000 lbs. It would be a lot safer.
To be fair I haven't lived anywhere with good public transport...
A Muzi
>> Like Tom Sherman, I think electric velomobiles (very light enclosed 3-
>> wheelers) would provide reasonably comfortable and extremely efficient
>> transportation in urban environments in any climate. Much better than
>> public transit IMO. The problem is that our roads are basically
>> hostile to them...
David L. Johnson wrote:
> Why do you assume that personal transit would be superior to public
> transit? We as a culture have to decide between cheap, efficient, and
> public transit versus more expensive, and more dangerous, individual
> transport. We either face a cadre of professional transit drivers, or
> your average teenage driver (of whatever). Don't start from the
> assumption that personal transport has to be better than public
> transport, and we might find a way around the 45,000 highway deaths
> every year that we currently accept as a cost of doing business.
>
heh heh If you could get 300 million of us all in little cans shoulder
to shoulder every morning, a mere 45K might be quite small compared to
that bloodbath.
Tom Sherman
> Ron Ruff wrote:
>
>> Like Tom Sherman, I think electric velomobiles (very light enclosed 3-
>> wheelers) would provide reasonably comfortable and extremely efficient
>> transportation in urban environments in any climate. Much better than
>> public transit IMO. The problem is that our roads are basically
>> hostile to them...
>
> Why do you assume that personal transit would be superior to public
> transit? We as a culture have to decide between cheap, efficient, and
> public transit versus more expensive, and more dangerous, individual
> transport. We either face a cadre of professional transit drivers,
Like the bus driver who hit my mother while she was in the crosswalk
(with a "Walk" light)? Of course, maybe Wisconsin has the worst transit
bus drivers in the world (the school bus drivers are even more cretinous).
> or
> your average teenage driver (of whatever). Don't start from the
> assumption that personal transport has to be better than public
> transport, and we might find a way around the 45,000 highway deaths
> every year that we currently accept as a cost of doing business.
>
I do not believe that a 50-kgf velomobile [1] traveling at 40 kph is
that deadly.
[1] E.g. <http://www.go-one.us/Pictures_of_go-one3.html>.
Tom Sherman
> On Jul 24, 2:46 am, Ryan Cousineau <rcous...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Despite all these inherent advantages, current electric cars still suck.
>
> IMO the niche for electrics is very small light (and cheap!) urban
> energy use... and a long range isn't necessary. They'll work well
> enough on lead-acid batteries, and LiFePO4 batteries are not so
> expensive when you don't need many of them.
Considering that an average rider can maintain 40 kph for long distances
on the flat in a 30 kgf velomobile, a 1000W motor (since the velomobile
would weight twice as much with motor and batteries) would be plenty
powerful, even in a hilly area.
Tom Sherman
The lack of protective mass might change the behavior of some. Of
course, as certain motorcycle riders prove, idiocy in this matter would
still exist.
Tom Sherman
> Ryan Cousineau wrote:
>> In article <SxHhk.399$_l.160@trnddc04>,
>> Peter Cole <peter...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
>>> Fuel economy is really all about weight.
>>
>> Except when it's about aerodynamics.
>
> Aerodynamics is pretty well understood, and it's a fairly simple matter
> to design a vehicle body these days to the diminishing returns point.
>
> Weight is the big challenge. Especially battery weight in the case of EV's.
>
> If you consider the Tesla, by using essentially lots of laptop batteries
> (~7,000 cells), they get 120Wh/kg. This results in a (with CF body
> panels, etc.) a vehicle with 1/3 of its curb weight in batteries. If
> they used lead-acid, they would double the vehicle weight and be
> batteries would be 70% of that weight.
>
being packs of 200 flat alkaline cells (used in some 9-volt batteries)
in series. :)
>> I recognize that acceleration from a stop is a major factor in city
>> economy, but I dare to argue that in terms of raw vehicular
>> efficiency, comparing electric cars to internal combustion cars is
>> comparing apples to beef.
>>
>> Electric vehicles still face major energy-storage problems that amount
>> to "batteries suck," though with considerable hope that the battery
>> packs available in the next few years will be affordable, durable, and
>> energy-dense.
>
>
> Lithium-Sulfur batteries have been made in the 400Wh/kg range
> (3,500Wh/kg theoretical max). Imagine a Tesla with that technology. At
> 400Wh/kg, the battery weight would be under 300lb, and the curb weight
> would be down 25%.
>
> Lithium battery technology is still pretty young, but there's a large
> existing market (laptops) driving R&D, so things seem to be moving
> along. Vehicles that are somewhat marginal today will probably be solid
> in 10 years.
>
Even the theoretical limits of battery performance are not good compared
to the potential of fuel cells.
>> Durability of the battery packs is a big deal, because electricity is
>> way cheaper per joule than the common fuels (gas, diesel, propane,
>> CNG). The downside of electrics, operating-cost-wise, tends to be tied
>> up in the initial and replacement costs of the battery pack.
>
> Computing the actual costs and efficiencies is complex and relies on
> lots of assumptions, which taken one way or the other can skew the results.
>
> This is one analysis for the Tesla:
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tesla_Roadster#.22Apples-to-Apples.22_Efficiency_Comparison
>
>
>> And also because they are mostly slow, short-ranged or both, except
>> the Tesla, which is fast, reasonably-ranged, and expensive, battery-wise.
>
> Getting to 200HP and 250mi range seems do-able with some variant of
> lithium electro-chemistry. This implies (like the Tesla) about 50kwh of
> storage, It won't be free, that's about $10 at today's electricity
> rates, but lowering the weight of the battery pack from the current
> 1,000lb to 250 will help overall efficiency considerably.
>
> As far as initial cost goes, the materials in lithium chemistry
> (particularly lithium-sulfur) aren't than expensive, the challenge is
> getting the manufacturing costs down, something (given the newness of
> the basic technology) that's reasonable to be optimistic about.
>
> A lot of people have argued that we (the West) should be developing high
> efficiency vehicles, not only for our own use, but also to export to the
> huge populations in the East. Given the current base of CF composite and
> lithium battery manufacturing, it seems likely that we'll all (East &
> West) be driving Chinese plug-in EV's in 10-15 years.
Unless we get a lot smarter and stop letting corporatists drive down the
standard of living by their moving production to the country that
encourages exploitation of its workers the most.
Tom Sherman
The 1994-2004 Chevy S-10 pick-ups hardly fit a normal size adult male.
Jay Beattie
wrote:
European-like public transportation (or NYC public transportation) can
be very efficient. Few cities, though, have the kind of
transportation infrastructure or the amount of surface traffic that
makes taking a subway (for example) faster or "better" than driving.
I just got back from a trip to NYC --- the subway isn't that cheap
anymore ($2 a pop) but it is a lot cheaper than a cab or parking a
car, and it is faster than walking. Waiting for the subway also gives
you a chance to view the urban wildlife -- the rats look surprisingly
healthy considering they frolic in that oily crap between the rails.
I think they should put some owls or cats down there to give the rats
a run for their money.
In Portland, public transit routes are limited and the time between
busses, trains or trolleys can be long. I am better off riding my
bike, walking or driving and rarely every take public transportation.
For me, riding to work is the fastest, and the greatest safety hazards
-- no kidding -- are the busses and the trolley tracks (which run
parallel to the traffic lane and can be real wheel catchers). -- Jay
Beattie.
-- Jay Beattie.
It's Chris
>Dean Kamen's "real" invention (using
>this significant advance in technology) is
>a wheelchair that can lift onto its rear
>wheels putting the rider at eye contact
>with others, and also allowing the chair
>to climb stairs.
I've seen this. It stuck with me because I'm living with a woman who is
paralized on her right side, do you have a link to a website for this
chair?
- -
Compliments of:
"Your Friendly Neighborhood Wheelman"
If you want to E-mail me use:
ChrisZCorner "at" webtv "dot" net
My website:
http://geocities.com/czcorner
Kenneth
Howdy,
Here you go:
It's called an iBot...
All the best,
--
Kenneth
If you email... Please remove the "SPAMLESS."
It's Chris
>Howdy,
>Here you go:
>It's called an iBot...
>All the best,
>--
>Kenneth
Thanks! :-3)
David L. Johnson
I did, for the past 5 months (Valencia, Spain). It is a revelation. I
don't buy the energy use claim. I'd be willing to bet that, even with
modest ridership, a tram or metro would be far more efficient than the
number of cars required. Besides, you don't have to park the thing.
--
David L. Johnson
Become MicroSoft-free forever. Ask me how.
ma...@drumbent.com
My cargo trike (http://drumbent.com/trike.html) is sort of like that,
but no weather protection. I think it costs me about 5 cents to
recharge the 48V SLA pack for its electric assist. I move around 200
lbs. of gear at times and it's just about perfect (and appropriate)
for the task.
A month ago I was getting a new battery pack put together, and while
my friend was wiring it up he handed me a nice lightweight pouch and
said "hook this up and try it out while you wait". It was 36V, not
48V, but still, it was a LOT lighter than mine, and was one of the
newest lithium-polymer packs.
Also about three times the price, but damn, it was light. Not such an
issue on a heavy cargo trike, but on a lighter machine it could make
quite a difference.
And speaking of weight, my current fave thing to ask folks is "why
does your transportation need to weigh more than you do?"
Mark
peter
> peter wrote:
> > On Jul 22, 1:32 pm, Peter Cole <peter_c...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
> >> The Segway may never become a mass market vehicle, but the overall specs
> >> are pretty impressive ...
>
> > Really? It's slower, several times as heavy, and over 20 times as
> > expensive as any of a variety of electric-powered scooters like the
> > Razor E300. Most people can balance just fine on conventional two-
> > wheel vehicles. The advantages I see to the Segway are 1) it's not
> > regarded as a child's toy, 2) there was a massive lobbying effort to
> > get it legalized in pedestrian areas where normal scooters aren't
> > allowed (although it presents similar hazards), and 3) although the
> > balancing technology doesn't really add much utility it is clearly
> > regarded as impressive and interesting.
>
> I agree that the self-balancing act is probably more of a gimmick than
> anything else, but I'd really have to reserve judgment until I actually
> tried one.
>
> The "performance envelope" (weight, speed, range, etc.) is interesting
> in the Segway because it used(s) pretty high-end stuff Lion, 3kw motor,
> and a lot of sophisticated software (tow behind assist, regenerative
> braking, speed/acceleration control, etc.).
...
> As a minimal, stand-up, open platform,
> the e-scooter probably is pretty close to the Segway format in
> practicality, but equipped with the same motors, batteries and
> controllers, I doubt there'd be any significant cost/performance
> difference. The self-balancing may be a gimmick, but an essentially free
> one.
I disagree. The self-balancing platform requires those expensive high
performance motors to be viable. If the user of an e-scooter
encounters an uphill that's beyond the capacity of the motor he can
easily give an assist with his foot. In fact, even if the batteries
go dead altogether the e-scooter can still be propelled by foot like a
manual scooter - albeit an excessively heavy one. But the Segway
needs to operate solely on battery/e-motor power and if the power ever
fails it becomes an unwieldy hunk of dead weight.
> The placement of the wheels to the sides rather than front/back
> makes a more maneuverable and compact platform
I disagree with this as well unless the maneuvering that's wanted is
to spin in circles. Observing Segways and both bicycles and scooters
on crowded multi-use paths my experience has been that the Segways get
stuck behind groups of pedestrians far more often than the narrower
conveyances that have the wheels in tandem. Extra width is a major
impediment when maneuvering through groups.
Peter Cole
> European-like public transportation (or NYC public transportation) can
> be very efficient. Few cities, though, have the kind of
> transportation infrastructure or the amount of surface traffic that
> makes taking a subway (for example) faster or "better" than driving.
> I just got back from a trip to NYC --- the subway isn't that cheap
> anymore ($2 a pop) but it is a lot cheaper than a cab or parking a
> car, and it is faster than walking.
In the old days, real estate development followed the streetcar lines.
People mostly lived where they were served by PT -- they more or less
had to. Since the 50's, people have moved to where ever the land was
cheap, it's pretty difficult to service such sprawl with PT. It looks
like, if an alternative to automobiles is needed, that America may have
to come up with a different solution, I don't think we'll ever
depopulate the 'burbs. In recent decades, the problem has become even
more acute with many employers moving out of the city to suburban office
parks. I'm sure this isn't a uniquely American problem, but we've
probably gone further down this road than most.
Mister2u
wrote:
> The Segway was suppose to replace the bicycle, it was a reinvention of
> the wheel. Saw all the hype, actually saw one in the bike lane moving
> pretty fast. Then nothing, I haven't seen nor heard one since, in
> years. And with these high gas prices, I see and hear about people
> getting bikes, but I have yet to hear an utterance that the Segway can
> be an option for commuting.
http://www.kk.org/streetuse/archives/bikestrikes/
Segways and more!!!