Fwd: China Slows Down Its High-Speed Trains (press release from maglev advocate)

[Jerry Schneider]

>Press Release
>
>North American Maglev Transport Institute
>
>
>For Immediate Release
> Media Contact: Kate Rodrigues
>
>
>April 18, 2011
>
>202-280-7373
>
>in...@namti.org
>
>China Slows Down Its High-Speed Trains
>
>NAMTI Warnings Regarding Rail's Limitations Validated
>
>Washington, DC - On April 14th, the China Daily reported that the new
>minister for Chinese Ministry of Rails, Sheng Guangzu, who replaced former
>railways minister Liu Zhijun on Feb 25 amid corruption charges, is ordering
>all high-speed trains to lower top cruising speeds from 220 mph to 185 mph.
>Mr. Liu was removed from office and is being investigated for "severe
>violation of discipline," according to Chinese media reports. The official
>reasons cited in the new directive were "lower energy consumption" and
>"improved safety." However, there is more to this directive than meets the
>eye.
>
>Since its founding, the North American Maglev Transport Institute has
>attempted to inform the public and policy leaders about the not so obvious
>fact that mechanical steel-wheel-on-steel-rail trains are speed limited due
>to exponential increases in maintenance and maintenance costs at speeds
>above 175 mph.
>
>Contrary to the American high-speed rail lobby's claims of 220 or 250 mph
>trains for America, sustained operations at such high speeds simply wear out
>the rails and wheels too fast for such systems to be economically feasible.
>The HSR lobby's other claim that high-speed maglev is "not proven" and is
>"too expensive" is also contradicted by the Shanghai maglev line's 7 years
>of continual daily operations at speeds up to 267 mph, now with 115 daily
>trips. According to Shanghai Maglev Transport officials, there has been no
>wear to the maglev guideway and its 19-mile alignment has been adjusted only
>twice in a few locations in the last 7 years to correct for subsidence, for
>a grand total of only two weeks' worth of labor.
>
>If the goal is reliable, high-speed, electric-powered ground transportation,
>then maglev is the most efficient and cost effect way of accomplishing that
>goal. This is why the next Japanese high-speed rail line is using maglev
>technology for its new Tokyo to Nagoya Shinkansen.
>
>For more detailed information on this subject, visit the NAMTI website video
>section and the "Maglev: Safer Than Trains" section.
>
>About NAMTI
>
>The North American Maglev Transport Institute was founded and registered in
>2010 as a Washington, DC non-profit educational organization to increase the
>exposure and level of understanding of magnetically levitated (maglev)
>transport. NAMTI advocates for the deployment of fast, reliable, safe,
>clean, quiet & sustainable transport. Current maglev transport technology
>meets or exceeds that definition, while rail does not. NAMTI members and
>supporters are comprised of travelers who want highly reliable, all-weather
>transport at reasonable prices. Contributors to the site are a highly
>educated international cadre of scientists, engineers and academics who well
>understand the many advantages that maglev transport has over traditional
>mechanical transportation systems, whether fast or slow, due in part to
>maglev's dramatically lower annual maintenance needs and costs. Frequent and
>costly maintenance is the "Achilles' Heel" of fast HMR trains. The fact that
>maglev transport can travel safely at speeds in excess of 300 mph (500 km/h)
>without any "speed/maintenance penalty," gives it clear superiority to HMR
>in both economic and reliability terms. For more information, please visit
>the NAMTI website: www.namti.org.
>
>North American Maglev Transport Institute (NAMTI) - 1250 Connecticut Ave.,
>NW, Suite 200 Washington, DC 20036
>
>Tel.: 202-280-7373 e-mail: in...@namti.org
>
>
>
>

[Kirston Henderson]

on 4/18/11 12:58 PM, Jerry Schneider at j...@peak.org wrote:

>> China Slows Down Its High-Speed Trains
>>
>> NAMTI Warnings Regarding Rail's Limitations Validated
>>
>> Washington, DC - On April 14th, the China Daily reported that the new
>> minister for Chinese Ministry of Rails, Sheng Guangzu, who replaced former
>> railways minister Liu Zhijun on Feb 25 amid corruption charges, is ordering
>> all high-speed trains to lower top cruising speeds from 220 mph to 185 mph.
>> Mr. Liu was removed from office and is being investigated for "severe
>> violation of discipline," according to Chinese media reports. The official
>> reasons cited in the new directive were "lower energy consumption" and
>> "improved safety." However, there is more to this directive than meets the
>> eye.

The maglev sales force has a long history of claiming speeds for their
trains that are economically impractical at speed much above 150-mph because
the energy costs required to overcome drag at the higher speeds. In our own
case, we selected 120-mph as our top speed for the reasons of affordable
energy cost and super-conservatative considerations of rubber tire
performance.

Kirston Henderson

[Larry Blow]

Kirston, you certainly are consistent in your argument, but nobody in Shanghai cares when you say, "...[maglev] speeds...are economically impractical...much above 150-mph because the energy costs required to overcome drag..."  The operator, SMTDC, has been running its maglev in daily service at 267-mph top speed/152-mph average speed for more than seven years now.  Such speeds are more suitable for intercity operations and reflect the practicalities of using magnets in place of wheels, whether rubber-tired or steel.

Larry Blow
MaglevTransport, Inc.

[Jerry Roane]

Jerry

Compliments of Larry Blow if you read the site for maglev "education"  Non-profits dedicated to "education" are a fake sales arm of Siemens.  It seems Siemens is helping Iran's president make advances into nuclear power.  

This hit the news today about the computer virus the Iran experts found screwing up the refining of nuclear raw materials for Iran's peaceful use of nuclear yellow cake.   The virus was running on Siemens computer software.  Siemens also was hammered by being caught for international bribery and got a ceremonial slap on the wrist for doing business in an illegal way according to international law.  

http://preview.bloomberg.com/news/2011-01-20/first-ex-siemens-executive-to-stand-trial-in-munich-in-corruption-scandal.html

But what do I know?

I love the use of mathematics for dummies to explain these walls of technology.  Exponential is my favorite expression because to the public it means impossible to those who Larry Blow (AKA used to work at the evil empire guy) is trying to dupe.  

Apparently 175 mph is the new wall or is it 185 mph?  Larry was unclear on where the wall of exponentiality is.  (yes, I made up that word)

Jerry Roane 

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "transport-innovators" group.
To post to this group, send email to transport-...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to transport-innova...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/transport-innovators?hl=en.

[Richard Gronning]

After reading both posts, I'm not sure that we don't have an, "apples and oranges" thing going on.

• Are, "High Speed trains," ALL high speed trains, including their maglev? Or, are they separate items?
• From Kirston's take, it seems to me reasonable that the wear-and-tear on tracks, wheels, plus the extra energy would call for a reduction in speed.
• Of course, there would be an increase in energy in the maglev too, but is it comparable?

The info on Siemens needs to get around. It's not good. Thanks for bringing that info to light.
Dick

[Larry Blow]

Jerry, I'm usually flattered when you mention me in your posts, since I get so many compliments, but I think you've got me confused with Kevin Coates, who put out the press release you seem to be referencing.

And for the record, I've never worked for Siemens.

Larry Blow
MaglevTransport, Inc.

[eph]

This article explains that the ties used on the railroad were not up to spec (allegations of fraud) and that if China trains sustain current (design) speeds, the ties would need replacing in a few years!

This is differs from a blanket statement that high speeds for rail (in general) are not sustainable.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/18/world/asia/18rail.html?_r=2&scp=1&sq=China%20Rail%20Chief%20fired&st=cse

F.

[Kirston Henderson]

   It is interesting to note that (1) the projections of the Chinese were that the high speed lines would lose money for the first 20 years and (2) that the fares being charged were considered to be excessive by the passengers.  Those two factors alone pretty well tell the dim economic story of high-speed rail system operations, even in China where the true costs could be easily hidden from public view.

   Note also that the article is silent on the matter of energy cost at the top speeds vs the energy cost at the lower speeds.  That is likely to have also become a significant factor.  In case you have any doubts with regard to the matter of energy use rate (power), there are some generally acceptable charts published and available on line that show the amount of motor power (I believe stated in terms of horsepower) required as a function of speed.  These charts are very revealing.  I'm sorry that I can't provide a url, but they are pretty easy to find.


Kirston Henderson
MegaRail® Transportation Systems

[Jerry Roane]

F.

The wheel replacement story is weak.  Train wheels are either welded back up to diameter or they are melted and recast.  Since no particular raw material is used up then the cost of these wheels is labor and energy.  Since the cost of energy is lower in China and the cost of labor is cheaper a broad statement about the cost of a wheel refurbish or recycle seems like the author is grasping.  Tires are good for 50,000 miles or so on a regular sedan.  Using this technique of unsupported costs of wheel maintenance costs cars would never be.  The tire treads wear out way too fast.  I am not supporting high speed trains for other reasons but wearing out wheels would not be one of them.  

As a comparison the coal that is shipped from Wyoming to Texas to power the electric plant operation refurbishes 6 train cars a day if I remember right.  The coal in Wyoming has less sulfur content and less other heavy metals so they use diesel to get that coal to south Texas to burn.  Apparently wheels wear out at slow speed in the process and at approximately this rate.  This does not stop the coal from being moved across the continent.  

Customer experience is the problem with collective transport.  It is not natural for 500 people to decide to go the exact same place at the exact same time.  Passengers weigh a couple hundred pounds and coal is measured in tons so the two loads are not comparable or compatible.  Trains are great for coal if we are not smart enough to use the coal where it is and ship energy instead of coal.  

To be an accountant on this project of wheel cost I need to see cost details.  How much does a steel wheel cost would be a start.  How many welding supplies are used up to refurbish the wheels etc.  "It costs too much" as a declaration is insufficient and akin to a political slogan or a bumper sticker.  It is not a good debate point at all.  

Jerry Roane   

  

[eph]

I agree, the economics of operation aren't there, though "externalities" might make sense in some way.  300 km/h is still pretty fast.

The cost of maintenance might pale in comparison to extra debt load if comparing maglev to regular trains.  Regular trains have the ability to use existing infrastructure (like city approaches and stations) which maglev would need to provide.

The concrete tie problem reminds me that substandard concrete seems to creep up on many projects.  Might be another argument in favour of steel in that consideration.

F.

[Jerry Roane]

F.

Concrete has always been an issue because for a while there the mafia ran some of that industry.  I know the DFW airport had some concrete issues back when it was poured.  Human corruption is always something to watch for and from my security training in the credit card industry collusion can break any security scheme.  All you need to make a few dishonest bucks with concrete is to load more sand and less of the expensive components.  No one can tell the difference.  It all looks grey the day it is poured.  Once down in the bottom of a foundation it is near impossible to dig down to measure the quality.  This is very tempting to dishonest men knowing their theft will be covered up forever and go undetected.  The concrete samples that are made can also easily be counterfeited so testing sample strength still does not protect us from greed and crime.  All the mafia has to do is own the concrete plant and buy off the inspector or fake the sample parts.  Robbing a bank or printing your own money is a cleaner way to steal but it is pretty common for concrete to be done wrong.  

I think the nuclear containment dome west of Fort Worth had a concrete scam that was luckily caught but very costly to the cost-effectiveness of nuclear power in the region.  The material we plan to use in the beam is very exotic and will be tested like crazy.  If it is cheated by lower thinking folks the beam will fail under our tests before any load is allowed on it.  The concrete in the foundation of our steel pipe can be pretty poor and still work.  That is where we might see more fraud from the concrete truck drivers wishing to skim a little beer money while selling junk.  

Back to fuel burned for high speed Choo Choos the money they are blowing on this HSR stuff is far beyond the tiny fuel bill.  If they go 10X on fuel it won't be noticed.  The 1970s Siemens train that floats does not get good fuel mileage, period.  Its goal back then was not energy at all.  The marketing narrative has been modified to lie about the fuel usage and distort the truth about how fake green it is.  There is nothing green about bulldozing thousands of miles of nature to build one of these things no one will be riding because they are too slow through the stations.  The speed between frequent stops is inconsequential on the trip speed for a customer.  They will just be blowing through fuel for no net gain.  The believers do not care and the public is still being lied to on energy.  Kirston is right about sending your living room sized couch and stand up isle through the air at high speed.  It is insane given our energy perch we are on to move that many tons with that much bulk at those speeds only to load grandma every 2 miles of the journey.  The believers don't care about any of Kirston's concerns for energy waste.

Jerry Roane 

F.

--

[Kirston Henderson]

on 4/20/11 1:18 PM, Jerry Roane at jerry...@gmail.com wrote:

Kirston is right about sending your living room sized couch and stand up isle through the air at high speed.  It is insane given our energy perch we are on to move that many tons with that much bulk at those speeds only to load grandma every 2 miles of the journey.  The believers don't care about any of Kirston's concerns for energy waste.

Jerry,

   I often think that you and I are the only two who are really trying to minimize energy use in our systems.  However, as the cost of generating electrical power and the cost of oil continues to increase, our attention should pay of to the end user.

Kirston

[Jerry Roane]

Kirston

It is this foresight that will cause the transition away from the inefficient stuff we have now.  When gasoline gets to $3.00 a gallon ... oops we are already there.  

I had a friend who teaches Chrysler salesmen how to sell cars at the national level.  He sat me down and explained to me how my Prius that gets 50 mpg (with AC on full blast on a Texas highway) was stupid because gasoline would need to be over $3.00 for my purchase to ever be worth it.  Boy was he right!  Even at 50 mpg I feel a little pinch filling that car up.  I cannot imagine filling up his Jeep Grand whatever that was the factory loaned him.  Of course being the cheap skate I am (fundamental for not wanting expensive fuel) I never pay retail for anything so my Prius was not at list further eroding the simple math to economic break even.  Heading even further down this logical path the price of gasoline is far more than the price of gasoline.  Even if we ignore three simultaneous wars over "our interests"  (whatever the hell that means) and just look at wealth leaving our shores never to return as profit only misery, the price of oil is extremely high.  It is like a leach sucking the life's blood from our economy.  

We would be derelict in our duty as innovators not to put energy at the top of the priority list.  For those who had hoped that we would not be here again (sleeping through history) and only were enamored with how the PC can do cool stuff to control the automation high gas prices must be a bummer for sure.  Imagine how Siemens feels spending billions on development and bribes (D&B) world wide to find that their energy hog maglev is a power disaster.  Spin was in during the Clinton/Carville years but it is going to be very hard to spin away the final energy use of many of our competitors.  As you mention the higher speed claims of HSR are now downgraded.  To me energy and reductions in air pollution are style points.  The task of transportation is to perform the function of transporting increasing our quality of life if done well at a good value.  Your system takes on all these issues at the same time as any good design should do.  HSR takes on fast movement in a straight line at an unaffordable price ignoring air pollution and thumbing their nose at energy.  I say thumbing their nose because in their spinning they avoid the fact of high speed does use more energy increasingly with higher and higher speeds.  Their differentiation is they can operate above the practical speed of steel wheel Choo Choos but at that speed they are polluting and burning fuel with abandon.  The advocate for Siemens is stuck.  If he says we can run at slower speeds then old-school rail wins.  If he says we must run at super high speed just because the 1970s design can (maybe) then energy bites him in the butt.  I enjoyed the speed double speak as I enjoy all people who think they are fooling every living creature by double speak.  It is like watching snakehead boy talk about his former object of suck up.  I guess God did create two sides to the human mouth.  We can speak with one voice of we can try (not succeed) to double speak to defraud the weak minded.  Problem is double speak always just makes you look like a fool if you try it.  

I appreciate that you are mindful of energy in your design.  You get that style point.  

Jerry Roane 

[Kirston Henderson]

On Apr 20, 2011, at 11:38 PM, Jerry Roane wrote:

> I appreciate that you are mindful of energy in your design. You get
> that style point.
>

Jerry,

I hope that it more than just more than a style point.

In a perfect world, our MegaWay™ vehicles and SuperWays™ would be
much smaller and much lighter in weight, but we are convinced that we
must have a system that is compatible with a significant number of
existent vehicles in order to avoid the killer chicken and egg problem
that would surely stall any prospect of success for our systems.
Please note that we do not provide service for such vehicles as pickup
trucks and overly heavy automobiles because to do so would drive our
SuperWay cost beyond the range of practical economics that would
permit investors to receive an acceptable ROI. Unfortunately, most
everything in engineering involves some level of compromise. We could
have selected a higher operating speed, but belied that we had to
select a point where balanced energy use with what we considered speed
of travel that would attract a large number of users and thus generate
added revenue. It's a different word where you are striving to
install a profit making system instead of a publicly subsidized
system! Unfortunately, we live in a world were compromise is
essential to success.

[Jerry Roane]

Kirston

You are a true engineer.  Compromise between all the criteria is the heart of design engineering.  I always say it is all in the assumptions.  What that means is good design engineers will usually come to very close decisions if they start with the same starting assumptions.  It can easily be read in the outcome what the starting assumptions are.  The difference between your design being more accommodating of the present construct and mine is you assume that the car companies are impenetrable and I am wild eyed enough to think I can take them on as they falter in the transition to electric power from burning liquids.  Nissan is the only big boy to bite on a real electric car so already the competition for  the new automotive market is tiny.  Nissan stayed with their roots and kept the Leaf very conventional as what I call a pooter car.  Not particularly luxurious and kind of dinky to fit the stereotype of the golf cart/electric car.  What is brewing big time is the Chinese electric car manufacturers are poised to dominate the all-electric car industry and again wild eyed as I am I think I can jump in the middle of the clash between China's one government/car company and American union protectionism and find all the lower level suppliers to the electric car in the unrecognized free enterprise system that organically formed in China.  My latest purchase blew me away how low priced the parts were.  I know a lot of this advantage is a messed up money system so it is not that different from speculating in the monetary markets but today there is a gaping hole in both economies and if I am blessed (or just lucky) I may hit this window of opportunity and pull off building a new paradigm in automotive design pushing the form of the car much closer to airplanes than tanks in their construction and much closer to a bicycle than a tank for energy.  Unlike the Scheeb I did not get all the way to bicycle power but I do actually get near that range at PRT speeds.  It is all about compromises and I am choosing a tough road but with noble final outcomes.  Your approach is able to attract investors and I hope you are successful.  My investor string is thinner but I do have people helping me along who are pure of heart on this subject.  

Back to energy, neither of us have fully optimized for just energy as that would be foolish to only consider one dimension.  We do better by far from the present car.  How it all plays out time will tell.  I do feel like we are the verge but the world is resisting this change more than it should in my opinion.  I do not see why we are so stuck on gasoline and imported oil from an engineering position.  Sure for $99.21 I can buy a Chinese gasoline engine that will move the TriTrack 75 mph (top speed) on the guideway with wheels retracted but that $99.21 (Harbor Freight) still would pollute the sky and I want no part of that.  So instead of my drive train costing under $100 it is 10 times that much.  Also with the PV solar electricity coming from the first few panels will be ten times the cost of power grid power but the goal and beginning assumption of clean air for my grandchild is worth every penny of transitional chump-change that paying too much for drive train/battery and paying too much for initial electric power will do.  By revolutionizing the configuration and form of the American/Chinese automobile I can get all of the extravagant losses back I incur with my approach to use the deluxe drive train and the deluxe energy source.  All as a deluxe gift to my grandson and any other child in the next generations.  

Your approach may work and end on the same note. 

Jerry Roane 

--

[Kirston Henderson]

On Apr 21, 2011, at 9:29 AM, Jerry Roane wrote:

Kirston

You are a true engineer.  Compromise between all the criteria is the heart of design engineering.  I always say it is all in the assumptions.  What that means is good design engineers will usually come to very close decisions if they start with the same starting assumptions.  It can easily be read in the outcome what the starting assumptions are.  The difference between your design being more accommodating of the present construct and mine is you assume that the car companies are impenetrable and I am wild eyed enough to think I can take them on as they falter in the transition to electric power from burning liquids.  

Thanks for the compliment.  However, I believe that the hurdle is more than getting the car companies to change, but it also getting the people to change and getting both of them to  change quickly enough to enable the company that builds the costly guideway system to avoid going broke before that happens.  That is the fundamental reason why we designed our system to accommodate most of the current cars that people own and will own for several years.  Furthermore, I am convinced that the public would be reluctant to accept cars that varied dramatically from current cars either in entry and exit or mode of propulsion on the road.  I really don't believe that a lot of drivers are going to be willing to switch to battery-powered cars.  I wouldn't. 

In regard to this, it has never been clear to me how passengers get into and our of your car.  It looks more like climbing into the cockpit of an F-16 than into a car.  If it is like it appears to me, I think that I might have trouble getting into and out of it.  I believe that some clarification of your car design entry and exit approach might be helpful to you in selling your concept.

[Jerry Roane]

Kirston

Thanks for the opening on getting into this car.  If you freeze-frame the video of the girl getting out of the car you will see she does get out like it was a fighter jet.  My historical perspective for this choice was only a short (geological) time ago if Jesus wanted to go somewhere or enter the capitol city he rode in on a donkey.  (Easter buildup reference)  Many people rode horses and carts each of which took some athletics to ride.  My wife's father is presently dying in a nursing home here and in his one lifespan he went from riding horses to the transportation we have today with all the electronic conveniences and soft rides.  

The TriTrack Street requires that you step on the front suspension strut as a step then to step on the edge of the body shell on a textured non-slip pad before stepping down into the seat location.  Even more athletic is the entry onto the two rear seats as they require you to step on the strut and then step on the edge of the body shell but then to fold the back of the front seat down and step on the foot pad bonded to the back of the front seat back before rotating and sitting on the rear seats.  This move is intended for the more agile riders of the car.  

You must be thinking why would he (me) design a car that takes a gymnast to enter?  The answer is hidden in your comment about electric cars.  They are not going to be fully successful if they try to just replace the drive train and energy storage with expensive replacements.  The transition to all electric cars I believe is a bigger move that requires a light weight car and a guideway to be fully better than gasoline.  I admire Nissan for bringing out the Leaf for people to drive for real, but in that effort they did do exactly what you are saying about my car versus an electric.  It has a short range as sold and the battery pack does not roll out from underneath the car for swapping painlessly.  It has wide opening doors and the same open crash cage arrangement with door cuts.  The weight of the Leaf using all the weight lowering techniques used in the automobile industry gives a car that weighs in at 3354 pounds.  The TriTrack guideway weight target is 300 pounds so clearly some of the 3354 pounds have to be thrown overboard to hit the goal weight.  One huge weight disadvantage the Leaf has is traditional doors locking into the traditional open cage structure.  Although I would open up the car to a less agile demographic to double or triple the weight just to add a traditional door it will not impress the traditionalist one tiny bit so why should my starting assumption be that I am selling to stiff jointed folks when I am not.  Just to poke you in the eye your federal tax dollars are being blown by the ship load on bicycle markings using up valuable road surface trying to get people riding at bicycle or walking/bicycle speeds inches from car traffic at deadly speeds.  (deadly for the bike guy not so much the car guy)  The fed thinks we need to be more athletic and I contend that getting into a car is easier than riding a bicycle in traffic.  Most people who want to go water skiing get into the boat from over the gunnel.  I have seen a few yachts that have a door in the transom but it is above the water line.  Climbing in saves weight and without a guideway launch to get the car up to speed if the car weighs more it takes 4 times the horsepower to get the thing rolling at any acceleration the public will buy.  You and I know about the horsepower used for passing (the Volt configuration) or just a jack rabbit start the Leaf.  The public just does a test drive and they figure out that an electric that is energy appropriate for the world as we run out of oil that the all electric is slow on takeoff if they weigh 3354 pounds.  What the Leaf does is puts too big of a motor in the car and that requires the discharge rate from the batteries be high that impacts the plate thickness and geometry on through the entire design.  Point being a little weight gain causes more weight gain and this is called weight compounding.  The same reason a fight jet does not have a side door with built in stairs is the reason we don't either.  The very life of the fighter pilot depends on being able to out power the enemy fighter jet in a dog fight so the first thing to be tossed from the design is a side door with a partial jetway staircase.  

In the TriTrack I kept the structure complete to both protect the passengers in a crash and to keep the structure uncompromised by a door cut.  For wheelchair customers we have the Jimmy version that is like a suck-up truck for a wheelchair and in that version the person with disabilities does not have to leave his/her chair.  The entire car opens up in the middle and the chair rolls up inside.  The remote controlled powered hinge has some weight so instead of being a four passenger car it is a three passenger version.  That gives me a spare 180 pounds to use for door hardware and bolstering the strength of the body cut in the car just behind the passenger compartment.  The cut is almost a circle but is technically an ellipse but the bulkhead on the door and the bulkhead on the car body make up for the strength lost by the cut.  

I agree one version of my car is not for everybody.  That is a key element of the design philosophy.  Intentionally not being all things to all people.  One size never fits all so why design the entire automobile fleet as if it did?  All my shirts have sleeves that are too short.  Shirts imported from wherever WalMart gets them are intended for everyone but in that scheme it really means that the product is for no one.  Our intention is to include a lot more customization in the car purchase.  This will be made possible with modular construction with the final configuration at the point of sale.  Example we offer 120 colors for the same price as the big three and Japan's five colors.  (black white champagne/tan red)  Just in time assembly with batch mode production of the modules.  In the customization process we will surely offer a door but the cost will be payload.  I am pretty rigid about the weight limit so a two seater with regular doors is possible but probably not a good choice for most people.  I would rather have more capacity and hop in like a ski boat or a fighter jet.  

If the city pf Lubbock TX had used their federal money allocated for individuals with disabilities to get TriTrack fast service, I would have paid my buddy to do an animation of the para-transit wheelchair entry.  In that video which I could still do I could show the driver roll his wheel chair into the car unassisted and drive himself off down the road.  Even if the driver had no driver's license it is still legal to go 180 mph across the city to a real job.  What Lubbock decided to do was pay two more bus drivers to drive short buses for two years with the money that would have transformed the lives of those stuck in wheelchairs in Lubbock.  I have all the CAD assets to do this video complete with a fully detailed wheelchair model and person to ride it that is not as cartoon as my current videos.  My present videos use my teenage video game characters as the actors in the video so may are insulted by the actors and their git up.  All I can do is apologize for being under funded.  I also need to do a full animation of the actor stepping on the right places of the car to get into the seat.  

Yesterday I was blessed with enough friends to place the order for the front wheel assemblies out of China.  In 5 weeks I will have a real car I can step up on the right places of the real deal and get in so the animation would not be needed at that point.  The paratransit animation is still worth doing because no one has bought the tooling for the extended height section of this model.  Getting a movie of the wheelchair will be easier to use computer animation for now. 

Jerry Roane