Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

News for nerds, stuff that matters

Slashdot Log In

Log In

Create Account  |  Retrieve Password

The Future of Cars According to Toyota

Posted by michael on Tue May 25, 2004 12:56 PM
from the parallel-parking-made-easy dept.
Paulrothrock writes "HowStuffWorks has an interesting story about Toyota's concept, um, car, the PM. In addition to seating only one person and having its hubless wheels driven by electric motors, it incorporates wireless networking so that drivers could surrender control to another human-driven PM and relax as someone else drives them to work. And it reclines!"
+ -
story
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More
Loading... please wait.
  • by ericspinder (146776) on Tuesday May 25 2004, @12:56PM (#9250236) Journal

    (man driving a vintage Excursion hits bump in road) "Damn, what was that!"
    (kid in the back seat) "Dad, I think that you just ran over the last two PMs in that row of 10 that just passed us.

    It looks neat, but I get the impression that it's a coffin with a glass top held up at an angle.

    Different colors display on the door tips, antennas, headlamps, side and rear panels, and rear wheels to indicate what activities are taking place in the PM.
    What's the color of ... (any ideas?)
  • by lukewarmfusion (726141) on Tuesday May 25 2004, @12:57PM (#9250242) Homepage Journal
    The last thing I need is for someone else in the car to tell me how to drive, and then demand that I "hand over" control.

    Sheesh.
  • by American AC in Paris (230456) * on Tuesday May 25 2004, @12:57PM (#9250244) Homepage
    1337dR1V3r: i h8 this commute
    70y074d00d: ya it sux0rz
    1337dR1V3r: too long
    1337dR1V3r: i got a big ppt prez to give to 54L3z in 30 min
    70y074d00d: haha 54L3z l4m3rz sux
    70y074d00d: 4cc0un71nG rulez
    1337dR1V3r: omfg lag
    70y074d00d: i no
    70y074d00d: im slow too
    70y074d00d: net sux 2day
    70y074d00d: dr1v3r
    70y074d00d: j00 there
    70y074d00d: hello
    *** 1337dR1V3r has left channel
    70y074d00d: oh fuX0r
    *** 70y074d00d has left channel
  • Joke (Score:5, Funny)

    by Mz6 (741941) * on Tuesday May 25 2004, @12:57PM (#9250247) Journal
    Anyone remember that old joke that was floating around the Internet, what would happen if the car industry followed the growth of computers? I think that fear has just been realized. Thanks Toyota!
  • A nightmare (Score:4, Funny)

    by The_Mystic_For_Real (766020) on Tuesday May 25 2004, @12:58PM (#9250255)
    Wireless networking and remote administration enabled? I think wardriving just gained a whole new meaning.
    • by Adriax (746043) on Tuesday May 25 2004, @01:04PM (#9250337)
      Laptops, wireless cards, steering wheel joysticks, and some friends.

      Screw those little RC toys. Snag control of cars as they drive past and have races around the block!
    • by madgeorge (632496) on Tuesday May 25 2004, @01:12PM (#9250444)
      Cut me off, and I'll hack your car and steer you into a ditch. But something tells me in Texas we'll still figure out how to mount a gun rack.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 25 2004, @12:58PM (#9250258)
    I had one of these when I was a kid! Except control wasn't wireless, it was manual. Oh yeah...and we called it a "stroller."
  • Two Words (Score:5, Funny)

    by mehaiku (754091) on Tuesday May 25 2004, @01:00PM (#9250281) Homepage
    Steve Urkel
  • by YankeeInExile (577704) * on Tuesday May 25 2004, @01:01PM (#9250292) Homepage Journal

    The fundamental problem with the car-centric society of my homeland is: Nearly pessimum resource utilization at every step of the way.

    First, I assume for the moment that we are not going to undo fifty years of urban planning overnight, and that private cars (or car-like transporters) are going to be a sine qua non for the time being.

    Every day, a commuter needs to get himself and his briefcase from domicile to place-of-employ. Once a week, the entire family unit wants to travel together to Funfunparkland. Once a month you need to carry a SUV-full of groceries home from the Megalomart.

    Having one least-common-denominator vehicle for all of these purposes (e.g. the Suburban Assault Vehicle), is a poor use of resources - to use some tortured computer analogy, it is as if you burn a DVD-R with three words on it, every time you want to use a post-it.

    I think something like the Toyota PM would be more readily accepted by commuters if there were in place a more economically feasible way to acquire a larger vehicle for ad-hoc short-term missions. Something like, but not exactly like, the current rental market.

    When I lived in Mountain View, CA - there was "Rent A Heap, Cheap" that had - well - cheap heaps of car ... They would rent you a mid-80s station wagon for something like 25 bucks a day, unlimited mileage (or nearly unlimited) including tax and insurance. Commuting via motorcycle, I was easily able to save enough in operating-cost, fixed cost, and depreciation to rent the wagon for those once-in-a-while times when having something bigger than a motorcycle was needed.

    The saddest part with Toyota's gadget: It appears too much a toy, and they will have terrible image problems. The /. collective-consciousnless will call it 'gay'. (Not to mention the risks involved with someone 0wn3ring your car and driving you off a cliff!)

    • by Anonymous Coward
      The main problem I have with this car is the same reason I don't ride my motorcycle any more: 3000+ lb vehicles.

      It would be fine if every single person on the road had a bike or one of these things, but with 99% of vehicles on the road today being 3000+ lb monsters, I don't want to be anywhere near them.
    • by einer (459199) on Tuesday May 25 2004, @01:18PM (#9250519) Journal
      The /. collective-consciousnless will call it 'gay'. (Not to mention the risks involved with someone 0wn3ring your car and driving you off a cliff!)

      Automotive sexual orientation aside, I'd really like to know how they plan on preventing someone from making your car do something you don't want it to. I'm sure a manual override is a part of the plan, but if a passenger in my car were to serve my wheel on I-80, I imagine it would be a fairly terminal action, one which I couldn't recover from.

      Without additional ifrastructure (collision detection, road orientation and speed monitoring, etc), I don't see how this will work. It's a neat problem.

      The post it note analogy was pretty spot on explanation of a problem most people never think about (assuming I'm most people).
  • ....Right.... (Score:3, Insightful)

    by DiscordOfFive (778099) on Tuesday May 25 2004, @01:01PM (#9250296) Journal
    Pardon me, but that's bullshit. No one I know would want a one-passenger car. I mean, yeah, that might be nice for the commute to and from work. But what about the weekends? How are you gonna go to a rave and take 10 people with you in that thing? I think caravans were a little 19th century.

    And what about people with kids? Are they gonna come out with a "follower" model? And how exactly is one gonna haul groceries home?

    This will be great for those guys who only go to the office, then home to surf the net till it's time to go to work again. But people with lives and friends are gonna keep driving multi-passenger vehicles. Especially in rural areas, where we don't have great things like cabs and subways.
    • Re:....Right.... (Score:5, Insightful)

      by fiannaFailMan (702447) on Tuesday May 25 2004, @01:13PM (#9250462) Journal
      I dunno about you, but I get the distinct impression that this thing isn't designed for hauling a boatload of kids to soccer practice. What you're saying is a bit like complaining that a dinghy isn't much use for shipping 40,000 tonnes of containerised freight from Okaland to Taipai.
              • Re:....Right.... (Score:5, Insightful)

                by Grishnakh (216268) on Tuesday May 25 2004, @03:05PM (#9251970)
                Ever hear of only one parent working? Put yourself in someone else's shoes before you try to make them look stupid. It just ends up coming back at you.
                Now, if you are a one parent family, this obviously doesn't hold, and this car isn't for you. For me, it'd be great.


                Exactly. What is with all these people complaining about this car because it doesn't fit their particular situation? This vehicle wasn't meant to satisfy everyone or be usuable in every conceivable situation. It's only meant for one person to get around in. If you have different needs, then get a different vehicle, and stop complaining.

                Personally, I think something like this would be useful as a second vehicle just for going to work in. Since it's so small and simple, it might be inexpensive as well, both for initial cost and for maintenance. If it costs the same as a normal car, however, then forget it.
    • Re:....Right.... (Score:4, Insightful)

      by gnu-generation-one (717590) on Tuesday May 25 2004, @01:20PM (#9250543) Homepage
      "No one I know would want a one-passenger car. And how exactly is one gonna haul groceries home?"

      Well, I've just got back from the supermarket on a bicycle with groceries. Of course, shopping more frequently than once per month helps (means you get fresh food too), and living 100 yds away from the supermarket (and 5 miles from work) is probably something worth considering when you get your next job and/or house.

      Or you could just get a big car. Fuck it, who needs to live in the same city as your office anyway?
    • Re:....Right.... (Score:5, Insightful)

      by YrWrstNtmr (564987) on Tuesday May 25 2004, @01:28PM (#9250621)
      If you look, in most 2 car families, one car is used solely to transport one person to work and back. That's all. It gets used 1-2 hours a day commuting, and the rest of the time it sits in the driveway or the parking lot at work.

      Replace THAT car with something else.
      Bike, bus, carpool, this Toyota thingie. Why a family needs/wants TWO Canyonero's is beyond me.
    • It's an "and" car. (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Colin Smith (2679) on Tuesday May 25 2004, @01:42PM (#9250808)
      The idea is that you have a normal car *and* one of these. Much like the Smart cars we have in Europe. I have to say I don't see the advantage. You're still going to get stuck in traffic. I do think they should install short range radio in all cars as standard though so that you can shout at the twats in front of you.

      Rather than a big car and a small car I have a car and a motorcycle. Use the bike to commute, swish through traffic and use the car for carrying stuff and longer ranges.

      A Solectria Sunrise would be a much better vehicle to be aiming at:

      http://www.evuk.co.uk/hotwires/rawstuff/art24.ht ml

      Yeah... 1997... It can actually do 375 miles on a single charge.

    • Re:....Right.... (Score:5, Insightful)

      by kirkjobsluder (520465) <kirk@nosPAM.jobsluder.net> on Tuesday May 25 2004, @01:49PM (#9250900) Homepage
      Um, who the heck mods this up insightful?

      It's a concept car!

      The only reason anybody created this thing is to attract the media magpies who go "ohh, shiny, ohh, innovative, ohh nifty". They grab the press packet, plagarize, rewriwe, and publish the press release (along with the included press photo) with "look at what Toyota is doing thinking outside of the box!"

      Then after the season the concept is put to the scrap heap while they go back to making 2-door compacts and sedans.

      This happens over and over again. Someone posts a link to an article about a concept car, and then everyone here takes it too seriously, "ohh, that would never work, because..."

      It's a concept car! It is only eye candy to create buzz and you just bought it, hook line and sinker.
  • by sphealey (2855) on Tuesday May 25 2004, @01:01PM (#9250305)
    > it incorporates wireless networking so that
    > drivers could surrender control to another
    > human-driven PM and relax as someone else drives
    > them to work. And it reclines!

    All that remains is to hook these units together and run them on fixed guideways. Let's see - need a new word for that - how about..... "Train". Yeah, that sounds funky and new!

    sPh
  • Neat... (Score:5, Funny)

    by hookedup (630460) on Tuesday May 25 2004, @01:01PM (#9250306)
    Another job that can be done from home, taxi driver.

    Never thought i'd see the day...

    At least cabbies can stop showeri.... wait a minute..
  • Uh... (Score:4, Funny)

    by Speare (84249) on Tuesday May 25 2004, @01:02PM (#9250316) Homepage

    So how do I get my two toddlers to the grocery store?

    What breakfast food does this most resemble: Hummer IV meets PM?

    What about poor wireless reception or active radio jamming?

    To start it, do you pull it back in your driveway until the spring catches?

    • Re:Uh... (Score:5, Insightful)

      by gfxguy (98788) on Tuesday May 25 2004, @01:58PM (#9251011)
      Well, sorry I picked on you to start debating, but I've seen so many of these shortsighted posts I needed to answer.

      Obviously this car is not to bring your two kids anywhere.

      From the Georgia DOT [state.ga.us]:
      Every year, Atlanta-area traffic grows by 20 to 40 percent over the previous year. And, according to figures from the Georgia DOT, at least 88 percent of metro commuters are alone in their cars.


      Metro Atlanta commuters collectively travel an estimated 112 million miles daily, with (AFAIR) a 50 mile round trip average. That's a guestimated 2.4 million commuters. 88% alone in their cars... that's over 2.1 million solo commuters.

      That's hundreds of thousands of vehicles daily on each of the major interstates.

      Imagine you replace 2 of the four to 7 lanes (depending on which of the interstates and at which part) with lanes for this vehicle... each current lane would be wide enough to handle more than one of these vehicles in width, so you could replace, for example, 2 lanes with three for this kind of vehicle.

      Sound ridiculous? People use motorcycles, some places have motorcycle lanes. We have HOV lanes. Why would something like this be so far fetched?

      And while I realize it might be funny to talk about being hacked or having bad reception, just because a car could be remotely controled doesn't mean is has to be.

      By separating these vehicles from the rest of traffic, you are minimizing the danger.

      And you would still have your precious SUV, big enough to carry eight passengers while towing a house, so that you could take your two toddlers to the supermarket.
  • Fark (Score:3, Funny)

    by OglinTatas (710589) on Tuesday May 25 2004, @01:03PM (#9250318)
    Photoshop this Toyota PM. Difficulty: no baby strollers.
  • This looks like another concept car that will never see the light of day to me. It's more like a motorcycle than a car actually, and has many of the same drawbacks:
    1. The drivers legs are used as the front bumper
    2. Virtually no cargo room
    3. Can't bring the kids along, since they won't be allowed to even sit in your PM until they get a drivers license
    4. I'm not about to let some other jerk drive for me. What if he cuts someone off and doesn't leave enough room for me?
    5. It's top heavy (although it can recline, alleviating this problem somewhat)
    This is just another concept car that will never see the light of day, at least not in it's current form.
  • by IvyMike (178408) on Tuesday May 25 2004, @01:03PM (#9250325)
    When people start driving cars that look like a giant cellphone.
  • great... (Score:3, Funny)

    by nanojath (265940) on Tuesday May 25 2004, @01:06PM (#9250364) Homepage Journal
    Another indignity to be heaped on the Administrative Assistant... "Nanojath, I really need to work on this report, so you better log in and drive me to work..." Then again, the trust might not extend that far... to quote Homer Simpson, "Kill my boss? Do I dare live out the American Dream?"


    So, if I crash someone's car driving it remotely, am I liable? Does my insurance go up? Will hackers be the wireless car thieves of the future?

  • And what do you do when people mistake you for a giant Aibo?

    Have you PM mount their car and give the chassis a little dry-hump?
  • Neat toy (Score:4, Interesting)

    by CrimsonAvenger (580665) on Tuesday May 25 2004, @01:07PM (#9250376)
    Neat idea, but I'd hate to even consider driving one of these on the highways. A normal car loses when it has an arguement with an 18-wheeler. I imagine this thing would lose just as badly if it encountered a normal car.

    That said, the autopilot mode I like. Though it would be better if it could drive autonomously, rather than surrendering control to someone else (who's as likely to fall asleep at the wheel as I am). Course, the networking would have to be designed so that it was proof against some random attack. Giving up control of my car to someone else is one thing, having him TAKE control against my will is "right out".

    And it changes colours to indicate what is going on inside! I wonder what colour it turns if you're making out?

  • In addition to seating only one person and having its hubless wheels driven by electric motors, it incorporates wireless networking so that drivers could surrender control to another human-driven PM and relax as someone else drives them to work. And it reclines!

    And what else seats only one person, reclines, and is driven by someone else? Why, you guessed it... it's the new joint venture between Toyota and Apple... the iStroller [howstuffworks.com].
  • by stinkyfingers (588428) on Tuesday May 25 2004, @01:10PM (#9250414)
    Old-School [bmwworld.com]
  • by 1010011010 (53039) on Tuesday May 25 2004, @01:14PM (#9250475) Homepage
    The Lohner-Porsche Electric Car [porsche.com], unveiled in 1900 at the Paris Expo, was an electric car with a motors-in-the-hubs design. 1900!
  • by Prince Vegeta SSJ4 (718736) on Tuesday May 25 2004, @01:19PM (#9250532)
    for Post Mortem, cuz this thing will be dead on arrival
  • A great idea (Score:5, Insightful)

    by jmichaelg (148257) on Tuesday May 25 2004, @01:48PM (#9250886)
    Toyota has taken Berkeley's PATH [berkeley.edu] idea and done it one better. PATH requires that highways be modified to accomodate the computer controlled lead car. Toyota's idea does away with needing special highways and leaves the lead driver with the driving chore. It's not a bad tradeoff in that you just need two cars with the technology for the idea to work which will make adoption that much faster. No need to wait for cash-strapped governmental agencies to realize this is a good idea - you just do it. I don't know how many times I've been stuck in traffic thinking that I've wanted my car just to do what the car ahead of me is doing so I can do something else. As for the lead driver, whenever he's had enough, he can peel off and let someone else take on the chore - just like geese dynamically choose who will lead the formation.

    Some key benefits to the idea of letting one person drive a gaggle of cars are

    1. You can design the cars to densely tailgate each other to take advantage of slipstreaming. That buys you significant gains in gas mileage since most of a car's power at highway speeds is spent just moving air out of the way.
    2. Cars can move at much higher speeds since human reaction times are removed from the chain. Right now, if you're in a line 100 cars long, it takes at least 50 seconds from the time the first car in line moves before the 100th car gets moving. With this technology, when the first car moves, all the cars move. When the first car stops, all the cars stop.
    3. It allows for self-assembling trains. Fixed rail is well, fixed. Cars go wherever anyone wants to go when they want to go. By allowing one person to drive, and everyone else to follow, you'll have long strings of cars (just like you have train cars) that can peel off when they wish and can join when they wish. You get most of the efficiency of trains without having to coerce people into living in certain areas or travel to certain destinations.
    This incarnation of Toyota's may not make it to market but, with tort reform, some variation of this tech is going to happen. The advantages are just too great for it not to happen.
  • by cosmo99 (157757) on Tuesday May 25 2004, @02:07PM (#9251131)
    The worse thing about cars is not the pollution, the noise, the fossil fuel dilemna, not even the horrific fatal operator error rate. Its the space they take up. The space required for everyone to park, drive, and park again works against all other modes of transportation by making things farther apart and covers everything in between with asphalt.

    That said, an enclosed scooter like the BMW C1 [bmw-c1.com] makes much more sense than the four-wheeled PM because you can operate it in a narrow vehicle lane and park in a motorcycle space. With anti-lock brakes, roll cage, and harness, and a superfluous helmet required in some jurisdictions, its no rolling coffin. And you can buy it now.

    • by ericspinder (146776) on Tuesday May 25 2004, @01:13PM (#9250453) Journal
      seats only one person... that is insain, could you imagine traffic if all cars were like that??
      Look around at the other cars during rush hour. Most, if not practially all, cars have only the driver. However, for a number of other reasons, I doubt if this kind of car would catch on in this century
      • However, for a number of other reasons, I doubt if this kind of car would catch on in this century.

        In 1904, cars weren't practical, horses were the norm, and very few people had ever seen the aircraft that had flown less than a year ago. Steamships were the fast way to cross the ocean. I'd be careful about what you predict for this century. For life in 2100, a mix between a motorcycle and car seems pretty mundane.

        --
        Evan

        • by Behrooz (302401) on Tuesday May 25 2004, @02:47PM (#9251712)
          Electric motors = continuously variable transmission = continuous maximum torque at any speed.

          Drive by wire + separately-powered wheels = computer-controlled stability-control on acceleration, braking, turning, etc.

          Maximum control under all conditions, incredible ridiculous electric acceleration, and handling that's as impressive as hell.

          The only advantage gasoline engines have is a fuel with much higher energy density (range) than batteries provide-- if you want pure performance, electric will own internal combustion every time.
        • by the_mad_poster (640772) <shattoc@adelphia.com> on Tuesday May 25 2004, @01:32PM (#9250667) Homepage Journal

          To them it's like game over on a console.

          That's EXACTLY what came to mind when I read that. Imagine - you're steering this car through a little 3d raceway. The ability for abuse is mind boggling, but, what's worse, is it sort of removes the element of threat and leaves the "driver" in a more detached position. When you drive your own vehicle, your skin is on the line. When someone else drives your vehicle, they don't have that issue.

          I could see some idiot putting the car on cruise control remotely (either through poor design or as a hack to the vehicle/controller) and getting up to go get a pepsi or a beer or something.... just not a good situation.

    • Re:Motorcycles (Score:4, Interesting)

      by YrWrstNtmr (564987) on Tuesday May 25 2004, @01:36PM (#9250719)
      - Leave you exposed to the elements
      - Limited carrying capacity
      - In town, anything I can do on a motorcycle, I can do on a bicycle, cheaper, and usually just as fast.
      • by Colin Smith (2679) on Tuesday May 25 2004, @02:22PM (#9251344)
        Motorcycles.

        All the clothing is completely waterproof these days, thank you Gore.

        Backpacks, tank bags, tail packs, panniers, top boxes. You might be surprised just how much crap you can lug around on a motorbike.

        They occasionally run a "Commuter Race", a man vs car vs tube vs bicycle vs motorcyle race between 2 points in London. The motorcycle wins every time and it's not just marginally quicker, it's 50% -> 100+% faster than all of the rest.

        • by Grishnakh (216268) on Tuesday May 25 2004, @03:24PM (#9252195)
          I liked Manhattan the couple of times I visited it. Traffic wasn't a huge problem because no one drives there; you take the subway or a taxi. There are loads of people on many sidewalks, yes, but you get used to it. The air quality isn't any worse than the suburban sprawl I currently live in (Phoenix). And it isn't known for terribly high crime either, at least in Manhattan itself.

          The main problem with the place, however, is that the cost of living is astronomical. Every time some anti-sprawl person talks about how we need to live in a high-density city with public transit, I immediately think of Manhattan and Boston, and remember how there's no way I could afford to live in one of those places. There's a reason sprawl occurs: land is much cheaper in the suburbs, and people can afford to own their homes instead of just being renters.

          The living space in high-density cities is also a problem. Unless you're a millionnaire, there's no way you could afford 2000+ s.f. of living space in a dense city. But in the suburbs anyone can afford a decent-sized house. Personally, I like having a garage with power tools, an extra room for my computer and electronics projects, and a back yard with a couple of trees. Dense urban living is only realistic for people who are single and don't spend much time at home.