GM Webex announcement - alternative viewing time for Westerners

[Jerry Schneider]

>Here is the alternative time...
>
>
>Greetings!
>
>We are glad that you will be able to attend the Technology
>conference call and internet presentation.
>
>Following the presentation, you will have the opportunity to ask
>questions of the presenters.
>
>Meeting Details:
>Date: Tuesday, April 7, 2009
>Time: 1:00 pm EST
>
>The conference call telephone number for the U.S. is (800) 288-8967
>Ask for the GM Technology Briefing. This will give you the audio
>portion of the program
>
>To view the presentation visuals on the internet:
>1. Please enter gm.webex.com in your internet browser
>2. At the sign-in screen, please enter meeting number 971 098 492
>3. The password is "technology" without the quotation marks
>
>If this is the first time you have used WebEx, you will be prompted
>to add WebEx or Active-X software. Select yes. This will just take a moment.
>
>
>
>Becky Bolin
>GM Communications
>Program Operations
>313.667.3446
>313.815.7716 cell
>becky...@gm.com
>
>Jerry Schneider <j...@peak.org>
>
>04/06/2009 04:40 PM
>To
>becky...@gm.com
>cc
>Subject
>Your Webex announcement
>Becky,
>
>Are there any alternatives for West Coasters to your 7 am EST meeting
>time? Can one access some or all of the materials after the meeting?
>4 am is pretty early, even for us energetic WCs.
>
>
>- Jerry Schneider -
> Innovative Transportation Technologies
> http://faculty.washington.edu/jbs/itrans
>
>

[Jerry Roane]

Jerry

Walt and I were on the teleconference this morning.  The announcement was that Segway was being sold by GM.  They sold it as no invention required.  The presentation was totally New York City centric and did not address the problem GM is in as a business concern.  This has been going for 18 months with Segway and the new idea is to make a two seater Segway and use GMs sales network to distribute them.  I tried to ask a question but my audio was cutting in and out and my voice in the middle of my night was scratchy the combination was they couldn't hear my questions.  Luckily Walt was able to come later in the questions and reinforce the efforts that are being made on this list. 

The goals of this dual Segway are to go 25mph with a 30 mile lithium ion battery range.  They were talking car to car network which may be my IP depending on date stamp between their submission and mine.  They are talking autoparking autonomously driving which may be in the 2getthere realm.  He did mention segregated paths (guideway) for these vehicles.  He errantly placed weight of the vehicle equal to drag in his descriptions which is sort of OK at these very slow expectations for speed. 

The intended market is the more dense urban centers of the future not the present ones.  The cities that we now think of that are populated are nothing compared to the cities where this is targeted in terms of population density. 

They seemed OK with the idea of dual mode and said they would look further into it in the meeting. 

I was expecting more both in invention and in scope of the plan.  There are lots of media events that come together in this announcement with the Segway showing up on Dancing with the Stars etc. and Hell's Kitchen using Segways.  In the show they crashed into the sand by the beach.  It made for more interesting video but showed that Segways crash falling over when they loose traction on sand.  It is clear that this 18 month program has these Segways showing up to build up to this announcement.  The list of participants was only a classroom's worth.  Having a teleconference at 7:00 AM EST is not prime time. 

Walt did a good job speaking for his question. 

Jerry Roane  

[Walter Brewer]

Gee Jerry we are removing the suspense for those late sleeping USA people and early to bed Europeans!!

 

To add a bit to impressions:

I don't think the presenter got the guideway point in Jerry's question, but I was able to get it across later. They considerd a fast guideway for distance and their machine for first/last mile a "bold idea". I got the impression they had never heard of PRT-like systems. I'm trying to get an address to send references such as Jerry S's website, The CEEIT report etc.

They were also asked if this Super Segway is central to the GM recovery plan. My impression was the answer was yes. Although at the beginning of the briefing there was a rundown of GM experience such as EV-1, Volt, (I guess CEObama is letting it continue), fuel cell research vehicles, and Boss which ran autonomusly 60 miles in an urban environment. Also On Star and interaction with ITS like "connectivity" as they call it. Pressed a bit about the limited workability, higher speed needs, safety, etc etc, they suggested deployment starts on campi, business parks, congested overseas cities, India, etc, etc.

Much was made of the maneuverability, ease of parking, less use of land etc for the Segway approach. It was pointed out some cities ban Segways; (caller from Montreal), and safety for increasing senior composition of society. No good answers. That such vehicles defeat the TOD smart growth promotion of walking, and healthy exercise did not come up.

As Jerry notes air drag is not a big factor for the side by side seatig at 25 mph. And I suppose there is a human "togetherness" preference against fore and aft seating. But I still have trouble with the clever but complex automated longitudinal stabilization for Segway. Just putting wheels fore and aft is a huge simplification and cost savings. Lateral stabilization can come most simply with a third wheel. (Jay is listening I assume). Or lateral stabilization is simpler, and more tolerent of failure. But I suppose the GM/Segway argument will continue to stress the maneuverability of just two lateral wheels.

Feasibility in snow, ice, aka Detroit driving, did not come up. (Buffalo has 2 new inches this morning.)

Let the game begin between Monomobile and GM/Segway!

 

Walt Brewer

[Richard Gronning]

As I viewed this vehicle, the thought came to me that it was the perfect
vehicle for dual-mode. Instead of the usual road-type vehicle, why not
have something that travels on sidewalks?
http://wheels.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/04/06/gm-conjures-up-a-people-moving-pod/

[gary13]

That's it?! Presumably billions in research and it comes down to a
merge with Segway? Is this possibly just a late April fools joke?

gary

On Apr 6, 4:52 pm, Jerry Schneider <j...@peak.org> wrote:
> >Here is the alternative time...
>
> >Greetings!
>
> >We are glad that you will be able to attend the Technology
> >conference call and internet presentation.
>
> >Following the presentation, you will have the opportunity to ask
> >questions of the presenters.
>
> >Meeting Details:
> >Date:               Tuesday, April 7, 2009
> >Time:               1:00 pm EST
>
> >The conference call telephone number for the U.S. is (800) 288-8967
> >Ask for the GM Technology Briefing.  This will give you the audio
> >portion of the program
>
> >To view the presentation visuals on the internet:
> >1.        Please enter gm.webex.com in your internet browser
> >2.        At the sign-in screen, please enter meeting number 971 098 492
> >3.        The password is "technology" without the quotation marks
>
> >If this is the first time you have used WebEx, you will be prompted
> >to add WebEx or Active-X software.  Select yes.  This will just take a moment.
>
> >Becky Bolin
> >GM Communications
> >Program Operations
> >313.667.3446
> >313.815.7716 cell

> >becky.bo...@gm.com

>
> >Jerry Schneider <j...@peak.org>
>
> >04/06/2009 04:40 PM
> >To

> >becky.bo...@gm.com

> >cc
> >Subject
> >Your Webex announcement
> >Becky,
>
> >Are there any alternatives for West Coasters to your 7 am EST meeting
> >time? Can one access some or all of the materials after the meeting?
> >4 am is pretty early, even for us energetic WCs.
>
> >- Jerry Schneider -
> >     Innovative Transportation Technologies

> >      http://faculty.washington.edu/jbs/itrans- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

[Walter Brewer]

BTW: The address is http://gm.webex.com www produces a bounce.

It took me nearly 10 minutes to get registered. I was able to get the video,
but audio only by calling the phone number simultaniously. To get on the
question list press "star 1".

Walt Brewer
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jerry Schneider" <j...@peak.org>
To: <transport-...@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Monday, April 06, 2009 7:52 PM
Subject: [t-i] GM Webex announcement - alternative viewing time for
Westerners


>
>
>
>

[Luca Guala]

Interestingly,
further down the page the Toyota IQ mini-city-car is mentioned. Further info
here:
http://wheels.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/01/30/toyota-gets-72-mpg-in-hypermile-s
tunt/

It is said a version will be presented soon for the North American market
and it will carry 3 adults and a child. In Italy, this car is sold as a 4
seater. Are North Americans bigger bodied, or simply more spoiled? (My guess
is: both)
cheers
Luca



-----Messaggio originale-----
Da: transport-...@googlegroups.com
[mailto:transport-...@googlegroups.com] Per conto di Richard Gronning
Inviato: martedì 7 aprile 2009 15.38
A: transport-...@googlegroups.com
Oggetto: [t-i] GM Webex announcement - alternative viewing time for
Westerners

[Luca Guala]

Walt

The great advantage of the “proper” segway over bicycles and other vehicles that can mix with pedestrians is that it is only marginally bigger than a standing person, and it will stay upright even at a standstill. A bicycle, or any vehicle that must rely on its shape for safe stability at any speed it can achieve, will be significantly larger than a standing person. Moreover bicycles lose stability as speed is reduced and don’t stay upright when still. This requires that the cyclist put a foot down if stopped by pedestrians, and this makes travel very uncomfortable in an environment dominated by pedestrians (or else, an aggressive behaviour by the cyclists). A segway can mix with pedestrians without too many problems. I don’t know about this 2 seater though but I guess a three-wheeler that is not unsafe at 25 MPH would have to be significantly longer.

Regards

Luca

 

 

---

Da: transport-...@googlegroups.com [mailto:transport-...@googlegroups.com] Per conto di Walter Brewer
Inviato: martedì 7 aprile 2009 15.33
A: transport-...@googlegroups.com
Oggetto: [t-i] Re: GM Webex announcement - alternative viewing time for Westerners

<BR

[Jerry Roane]

Walt

I figured out why my technology here in my office was giving skipping audio from my phone for the conference call.  It is a long string of events coming together.  My current Internet provider has limited bandwidth because they chose long ago to not install fiber to the door.  The phone system was too greedy so I switched to voice over IP as my phone service.  The conference was called at 7:00 AM Eastern-centric (or European) time so that is the unused hour when my automated file backups go out over the Internet connection at the same instant the slides and audio for the presentation were coming in.  What was being transmitted as I was trying to use my phone was a parallel hybrid Peterbilt Truck CAD design as it turns out I had done yesterday.  How poetic that my reduced pollution truck design was the data sending to my backup service while I was trying to talk on the phone to this transportation teleconference.  Just an odd string of events to get my question effectively cancelled with poor audio that apparently was skipping.

Long story short-- complexity has more chances of screwing up the more complicated it gets.  Imagine 1 million Jakartans all falling off their two seated segways with my string of system failures operating this announced transportation mode.  The car to car and car to guideway patent we submitted may be of use to this project.  I was unable to get that mention as it was next on my list after aerodynamics.  They did bring up platooning, which at 35 mph is pretty useless.  

I did find it odd that they showed the EV1 in their introduction since they buried it later.  I had to turn away when they then showed the fuel cell million dollar Equinox and the DARPA challenge autonomous driving SUV named Boss.  My guess is their involvement in the Carnegie Mellon vehicle was they gave them a loaner SUV as the platform. 

The presentation was very parking-problem oriented for the first half.  Obviously a New York City problem but not that big of a deal in most American cities outside the CBD.  TriTrack's auto park was mentioned and I could not tell it it was intelligible on the other end of the call.  Walt- did autoparking come out on your computer? 

Maneuverability has to include the swept volume and time multiplexing of space for these dual Segways.  Once you consider the swept path making them very short doesn't have as much value as they may be thinking.  If the tail section is narrow you can turn a very sharp corner and not snag anything on the inside of the turn with the rear wheel.  If the tail deflates or telescopes then it can be there for aerodynamics but gone for parking volume or for fitting into a car carrier or vacuum tube car.  Static stability comes cheap and the value dynamic stability adds to me seems limited if it comes with complexity and required ground traction as its baggage.  Their market is certainly New York City but beyond that it is hard to say how well it will do.  In the lands they mentioned as their target with high population density this complex design will cost more than the customer base makes.  This is especially true if this device is to provide the billions to bail out the financial situation.  It is a mixed signal to say these will be cheap and we will sell millions of them and say we should build them to get rich.  Aiming for the huddled masses for a business may not be a good idea.  Time will tell. 

Lithium Ion is their energy storage choice. 

They said the Volt was still coming in this presentation so I appologize for repeating the Volt is cancelled thing I heard on the radio.  The Obama staff recommended it be cancelled and they shut down the Volt engine factory but the engines will be built at a different engine factory now.  That is all I could find on the subject of the Volt. 

Jerry Roane

[Ian Ford]

This discussion of the GM wheelchair (let's call a spade a spade, shall
we?) ties in with the eternal discussion of "standards". What we have
today in infrastructure is surface streets that allow ALL vehicles from
bikes on up to huge trucks, and a few trails that only allow bikes, and
highways that only allow motorized vehicles.

It's something like this... (use a monospace font to see this aligned)

A is a 5 mph footpath or sidewalk
B is a 15 mph bike trail
C is a 25 mph street
D is a 35 mph collector
E is a 45 mph arterial
F is a 55 mph limited access arterial
G is a 65 mph segregated highway

The allowed vehicles are:

infrastructure A B C D E F G
walking : : : : : includes wheelchairs
bikes : : : : includes scooters
NEVs : :
cars : : : : :
trucks : : : : :

Because of the system, walking/biking can be dangerous, NEVs are
useless, and there is no realm that is really good for the
segway/wheelchair niche.

What we SHOULD have is a more distinct separation between criss-cross
low speed transportation at the ground level and segregated high speed
transport. I would say the categories should be more like this:

A is a 5 mph footpath or sidewalk
B is a 15 mph recreational trail (uncommon)
C is a 25 mph one-way narrow path (or slower)
D is a 25 mph wide road for freight delivery
E is specialized and segregated

And the vehicles would be:

infrastructure A B C D E
walking : :
mobility devices* : : :
NEVs : :
cars & trucks :
specialized** :

*mobility devices include wheelchairs, bikes, scooters, whether
motorized or not
**specialized includes all fixed guideway

So the basic way of connecting up urban destinations is a grid of
delivery roads (D), a finer mesh of paths (C), and a superstructure of
elevated fixed guideways (E), leaving plenty of room for plants and
animals at the ground level.

On the delivery roads you would see mainly trucks and some cars plodding
along handling the inevitable big things that need to get places. The
demand would not be huge so it would be reasonable to have no signals
and most would be one 12' lane. They could even be gravel where car
demand got very low. The paths would be a sort of competitive
unsignalized free-for-all where bikes, scooters, fast wheelchairs, and
NEVs flow on 5' lanes with a strict electronic speed limit and a mix of
electronic and human negotiation. Pedestrians could cross the paths.
Paths could wind around flower pots and trees in a human-scale way. The
occasional collision would not be so dangerous because of the light
weights and speed limit. The paths could also handle cyber-NEVs and
dual-mode vehicles. Above it all the fixed guideway provides PRT and
dual mode service for a majority of trips over a mile in length. And to
top it off, many of the personal vehicles can fit inside the guideway
cars so you can reasonably take your ebike/chair on a long trip.

Richard Gronning wrote:
> As I viewed this vehicle, the thought came to me that it was the perfect
> vehicle for dual-mode. Instead of the usual road-type vehicle, why not
> have something that travels on sidewalks?
> http://wheels.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/04/06/gm-conjures-up-a-people-moving-pod/

--
Ian Ford i...@ianford.com 505.246.8490

[Jerry Roane]

Ian

Pretty good.  My father-in-law does dual mode when he goes to the doctor.  I drive my carrier vehicle down to his old folks home and he drives his powered wheel chair down the hall to the first dual mode vehicle (an elevator) where he picks his destination the first floor and that vehicle and central control system takes him to the ground floor.  Then he disengages from the dual mode carrier elevator car and drives himself with expired (6 years) drivers license to the next carrier car where he gets out of his car (powered wheel chair) and sits in the carrier car (my HHR Chevy) and his vehicle fits nicely in the back through the rear hatch.  When we get to the doctor parking lot the wheel chair is lowered to the ground from the rear hatch and an attendant (me) drives his wheelchair to the door of the carrier vehicle where he transfers to the wheelchair from the transport vehicle.  Then he drives again with no skill level or license required to the doctor's waiting room. 

Point is we already have dual mode we just don't call it that and the laws lag this arrangement as wheel chair laws are vague and misunderstood by the police.  My brother used to get so upset when a policeman would hassle him driving his electric wheel chair in town.  Usually the police look the other way for wheel chairs but occasionally there would be one trying to follow the letter of the law and there is no good provision for wheel chairs on roadways.  The Segway dual or single has this problem of not being well defined in law.  "Motor" vehicle is a vague term and the laws written are very old.  I would suggest if we are to have segways rolling loose in the city they be grade separated.  This makes more layers in the  city infrastructure but it would be much safer and provide less vehicle interactions with much higher throughput.  A Segway on a pathway is not that much different from a dual mode car on a guideway. 

One suggestion for your letter system for speed.  To keep the progression you could add letter S for 180 mph.  ;-) 

Jerry Roane

[Luca Guala]

Jerry,

Maybe GM’s next shower will be an electric car that you can drive into while in your dual-seat-segway? The segway would become the car’s cabin (place for a second one at the back, three rows for the Suburban Van version) and hook into the car’s controls. Mobility impaired persons and able persons would scoot around in the same fashion.

Regards

Luca

 

 

Ing. Luca Guala Area Manager via Marengo 34 09123 - Cagliari tel +39 070 27 59 39 fax +39 070 20 82 381 mob. Italy +39 320 450 6731 mob. UAE +971 (0)56 612 7436 www.systematica.net  Questo messaggio viene spedito in via confidenziale solo al destinatario. Potrebbe contenere informazioni legalmente privilegiate. I contenuti devono essere rivelati solo al destinatario. Qualunque destinatario non autorizzato viene pregato di rispettare questa confidenzialità e di avvisare immediatamente il mittente dell'errore di trasmissione. qPensate al nostro pianeta prima di stampare questa mail. Grazie. This message is sent in confidence for the addressee only. It may contain legally privileged information. The contents are not to be disclosed to anyone other than the addressee. Unauthorised recipients are requested to preserve this confidentiality and to advise the sender immediately of any error in transmission. qPlease consider the environment before printing this e-mail.

 

---

Da: transport-...@googlegroups.com [mailto:transport-...@googlegroups.com] Per conto di Jerry Roane
Inviato: martedì 7 aprile 2009 18.24
A: transport-...@googlegroups.com
Oggetto: [t-i] Re: the GM wheelchair

[gary13]

Obviously others here are taking this announcement more seriously than
I did. How large is GM's research division? Does the depth of the
proposal seem in line with the resources that GM could bring to bear
on advanced transportation research?

gary



On Apr 6, 4:52 pm, Jerry Schneider <j...@peak.org> wrote:

> >Here is the alternative time...
>
> >Greetings!
>
> >We are glad that you will be able to attend the Technology
> >conference call and internet presentation.
>
> >Following the presentation, you will have the opportunity to ask
> >questions of the presenters.
>
> >Meeting Details:
> >Date:               Tuesday, April 7, 2009
> >Time:               1:00 pm EST
>
> >The conference call telephone number for the U.S. is (800) 288-8967
> >Ask for the GM Technology Briefing.  This will give you the audio
> >portion of the program
>
> >To view the presentation visuals on the internet:
> >1.        Please enter gm.webex.com in your internet browser
> >2.        At the sign-in screen, please enter meeting number 971 098 492
> >3.        The password is "technology" without the quotation marks
>
> >If this is the first time you have used WebEx, you will be prompted
> >to add WebEx or Active-X software.  Select yes.  This will just take a moment.
>
> >Becky Bolin
> >GM Communications
> >Program Operations
> >313.667.3446
> >313.815.7716 cell

> >becky.bo...@gm.com

>
> >Jerry Schneider <j...@peak.org>
>
> >04/06/2009 04:40 PM
> >To

> >becky.bo...@gm.com

> >cc
> >Subject
> >Your Webex announcement
> >Becky,
>
> >Are there any alternatives for West Coasters to your 7 am EST meeting
> >time? Can one access some or all of the materials after the meeting?
> >4 am is pretty early, even for us energetic WCs.
>
> >- Jerry Schneider -
> >     Innovative Transportation Technologies

[Jerry Schneider]

At 06:37 AM 4/7/2009, you wrote:

>As I viewed this vehicle, the thought came to me that it was the perfect
>vehicle for dual-mode. Instead of the usual road-type vehicle, why not
>have something that travels on sidewalks?
>http://wheels.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/04/06/gm-conjures-up-a-people-moving-pod/
>

I had the same thought - IF it had an exclusive 2-way guideway
network that was fairly extensive,
it seems like it could easily solve the first/last mile problem (with
sufficient access/egress ramps)
as well as parking problems in high density areas. Or, it could be
transported on a carrier like
those envision by MegaRail and others.

One questioner in the 2nd session asked if it could be driven to the
subway (or surface
rail station) and enter a vehicle to be carried to a destination.
Yes, maybe, was the response.

Lots of issues to be resolved but if they get really serious about
it could become a really big
deal for dealing with intraurban transport problems. The market is
really huge in megacities
around the world - if they can get the costs of ownership and upkeep
down. And, there is the
possibility of operating publically-owned versions of it, similar to
the MIT CityCar concept.

It will be interesting to see what the media do with it - mags like
Popular Mechanics, etc.

[Jack Slade]

Yesterday I saw a news item here in St Perersburg that said the Police here are using Segways to patrol some of the parks where they are having problems. It was only a matter of time when the crooks would get faster segways.   Jack Slade --- On Tue, 4/7/09, gary13 <garyd...@gmail.com> wrote:

From: gary13 <garyd...@gmail.com> Subject: [t-i] Re: GM Webex announcement - alternative viewing time for Westerners

[Luca Guala]

Italian Police uses Segways to patrol pedestrian streets. The policeman on a segway stands above the heads of the pedestrians and has a good view. Rumor has it that they have the 25 mph key which is not provided with commercial Segways. I would really like to see a chase of a pick-pockets by a policeman on a 25 mph segway, in a thick flow of pedestrians!

Cheers

Luca

 

---

Da: transport-...@googlegroups.com [mailto:transport-...@googlegroups.com] Per conto di Jack Slade
Inviato: martedì 7 aprile 2009 20.09
A: transport-...@googlegroups.com
Oggetto: [t-i] Re: GM Webex announcement - alternative viewing time for Westerners

 

</table

 

[Kirston Henderson]

on 4/7/09 12:08 PM, Jerry Schneider at j...@peak.org wrote:

> At 06:37 AM 4/7/2009, you wrote:
>
>> As I viewed this vehicle, the thought came to me that it was the perfect
>> vehicle for dual-mode. Instead of the usual road-type vehicle, why not
>> have something that travels on sidewalks?
>> http://wheels.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/04/06/gm-conjures-up-a-people-moving-pod
>> /
>
> I had the same thought - IF it had an exclusive 2-way guideway
> network that was fairly extensive,
> it seems like it could easily solve the first/last mile problem (with
> sufficient access/egress ramps)
> as well as parking problems in high density areas. Or, it could be
> transported on a carrier like
> those envision by MegaRail and others.

Unless the track width is too narrow, it could probably be carried on a
in-city MicroRail CarFerry . However, the passengers might not want to be
carried into 65-mph headwind. I think that the better solution would be
small, enclosed electric cars that could have their batteries recharged
during CarFerry transport
Kirston Henderson
MegaRail®

[Dennis Manning]

Here's an early media article from USA Today:

 

http://www.usatoday.com/money/autos/2009-04-06-puma-segway-gm_N.htm?csp=usat.me

 

Dennis

[Jerry Roane]

Dennis

My memory of the stats were different than this account.  I also count 6 wheels in the photograph not two.  I thought he said 300 mpg before discounts. 

They did not quote the direct quote correctly either.  I tried to write it down exactly because it had a British flair to the actual quote.  Bottom line they can't sell a new invention just old ones expanding the quote.   

Jerry Roane

[Jerry Schneider]

Perhaps you could find a way to accommodate these vehicles on your car
ferry. There are conceptual designs for PUMA that appear to have
enclosures that
might keep the wind off the passengers - and I would think that a way could
be found to charge them while on the carrier?

[eph]

Interesting. If this thing had doors, A/C and heating would make it a
comfortable ride. With an enclosed cabin, higher speed on a guideway
would work so It might be the basis of a DM system. Hope it works in
snow and reduced traction situations. The narrow and short profile
means high throughput on a corridor is possible (by guideway
aggregation) and storage of vehicles would take up less space. On the
down side, couples and families would not be well served but maybe
other modes are more suited to groups anyway - energy use per
passenger distance is higher when groups travel in a single vehicle
anyway.

F.

On Apr 7, 3:41 pm, "Dennis Manning" <john.manni...@comcast.net> wrote:
> Here's an early media article from USA Today:
>

> http://www.usatoday.com/money/autos/2009-04-06-puma-segway-gm_N.htm?c...
>
> Dennis

[Kirston Henderson]

on 4/7/09 4:15 PM, Jerry Schneider at j...@peak.org wrote:

> Perhaps you could find a way to accommodate these vehicles on your car
> ferry. There are conceptual designs for PUMA that appear to have
> enclosures that
> might keep the wind off the passengers - and I would think that a way could
> be found to charge them while on the carrier?

Sorry, but I don't think that either is practical. CarFerries will
eventually go non-stop to the station designated by the car driver and hence
trying to make them carry multiple cars is a bit impractical.

Kirston Henderson
MegaRail®

[eph]

Maybe a track-based linear-motor drive (regenerative charging) with
low-speed magnetic/wire guidance based switches would work? All the
steering components are already computer controlled.

F.

On Apr 7, 6:36 pm, Kirston Henderson <kirston.hender...@megarail.com>
wrote:

[Walter Brewer]

I suggest the debate is far from over regarding an optimum vehicle for dual
more. Simplistic issue might be; sidewalk capable or not? GM has apparently
decided there is a market for a very small light vehicle w/o regard to the
DM first/last mile need. Perhaps on a multivehicle car ferry PUMA would
work. Perhaps ski chairlift fashion it could ride on an overhead cable or
equivalent, and then provide one vehicle transport doorstep to doorstep.
Also as short range replacement for walking around town/malls short
distances.
This would minimize parking space, and provide max maneuverability, although
limited range and undesirable weather, etc capability. Would it reduce
household auto numbers by one?
My gut feeling is most would want a somewhat more robust compromise, and be
willing to give up sidewalk and minimum parking advantages. e.g. enclosed
three to four place with some room for carrying light things. Still a
considerable saving from a 3,000+ pound car, and more rugged doorstep to
doorstep single vehicle transport on whatever guideway. Slant or verticle
parking would help save space. One example: MonoMobile with the overhead
guideway attachment. I doubt such a vehicle can, or should be "Segwayed".
There are simpler cheaper all weather ways to stabilize, control, and
deliver power.
It can be made small enough for car ferry use.
Comments?

Walt Brewer
----- Original Message -----
From: "Kirston Henderson" <kirston....@megarail.com>
To: <transport-...@googlegroups.com>

[Jerry Roane]

Walt

In my opinion the Segway did not get to be cool because it was priced too high.  Had they approached the market with a loss leader approach selling the first few at just over cost they would have been able to ramp up volume production then driven down manufactured cost and then they would not have to go begging to GM to manufacture Segways for them and giving up control in the process.  This is a lesson to us on this list to have a business strategy that gets to the goal we pick.  Maybe the Segway goal was to cash out to GM and they met their goal.  Hard to say.  GM has a need to look cool and hip so the Segway offers them this opportunity.  They can throw some body panels on this dual Segway and go after the extreme sports customer after they run it past the art department. 

The legal side of their quest is similar to others on this list.  As a minimum this needs to have a pass with the police.  If a few zillion Segways keep running over people's toes there may be laws added for the public nuisance.  These are motor vehicles so driving them on the sidewalk is illegal already in most places.  In the presentation they mentioned more than once how you got out of the Segway and exited onto the sidewalk.  That implies the dual Segway is to stay on the street pavement.  That implies that they intend for this balanced dynamically stabilized vehicle to share the street with Peterbilt Trucks weighing up to 80,000 pounds of truck and freight.  Sharing the road with open wheeled truck trailers would need to have side "cattle" guards installed on all trucks and trailers on the road so a fallen down dual Segway is pushed away rather than rolled over in a slow speed touch of a big rig.  The big rigs now do not require that they exclude this small of a vehicle.  GM does have the political clout to get such a safety device bolted to the current fleet for this one example of an obvious problem pitting neighborhood vehicles against the open bottomed big rigs.  Not only can you fit a dual Segway under these trailers but many present sports cars fit as well with bad results.  This is just one thought of changes the PUMA may need.  Others suggest away.

Jerry Roane

[eph]

There have been incidents recently in Montreal where pedestrians were
caught under snow removal (semi dump-trucks) "cattle" guards as you
describe them were suggested to protect pedestrians, so PUMA could
push for this as a public good.

Combining this sort of small vehicle with a guideway seems like a
really interesting idea. 2 wheels mean low weight, short vehicles and
an unmatched turn radius. It also makes backing up as simple as going
forward (I'm guessing) which might come in handy.

Using a collective vehicle might not be much of an issue if the
vehicle can navigate the system hands-free. The ability to spin in
place solves some of the travel-direction issues that come up with
some loading schemes.

F.

[Walter Brewer]

A vertical post with a cable clamp like a detachable chairlift is all that's
needed for the guideway connection. A bit more complicated is suppying power
for battery charge.
But good wind/rain/snow protection/heat/cool is needed if speed is (say), 70
mph.