Wearable Motorcycle Design

A motorcycle design student recently came up with a wearable motorcycle design that, while cool, is unlikely to see public adoption. The bike would be capable of doing 0 to 60 is just 3 seconds with a top speed of 75 miles-per-hour and would theoretically be controlled by 36 pneumatic muscles and 2 linear actuators. I would imagine the results of a crash would be much like being strapped to the hood of your car during a collision — bonus points for form, however.

Why wearable?

[stoolpigeon (454276)]

What defines wearable? I would have thought wearable means - it goes where I go and can go anywhere I go. This vehicle appears to me not to do that. It looks like the rider goes where the trike goes - and the trike cannot go anywher the rider can go. But maybe I'm missing some key factor or my definition is insufficient.

Re:

[damn_registrars (1103043)]

I was wondering the same thing. It looks like the rider is just sitting on a really tall tricycle. I don't see anything about it that supports the concept of "wearable" by any definition I'm familiar with. I don't even see any reason to suspect it to be any lighter than a traditional motorcycle.

Though it may deserve kudos for likely trumping the motorcycle in sheer danger factor.

Re:Why wearable?

[stoofa (524247)]

'Wearable' (adj.) description of any garment that allows the wearer to wander through a crowded London pub without starting a fight on a Friday night.

This isn't wearable.

Re:Why wearable?

[damn_registrars (1103043)]

'Wearable' (adj.) description of any garment that allows the wearer to wander through a crowded London pub without starting a fight on a Friday night.

Well now I'm not so sure. I figure if you can wander through a crowd at 75mph, you shouldn't have to worry much about anyone starting a fight with you.

Though the "garment" part of the definition might not fit this item well...

Re:

[Culture20 (968837)]

Perhaps the middle wheel curls back into the backpack, and the outer wheel struts fold back like angel wings? It still looks terribly cumbersome that way, but you might be able to clear an obstacle in the road or climb some short stairs.

Re:Why wearable?

[Drooling Iguana (61479)]

But would someone wearing it be an Autobot or a Decepticon?

Re:

[monkeyboythom (796957)]

This is not the Tron I am looking for. There should be a glowing stick somewhere in the design...

Re:Why wearable?

[Culture20 (968837)]

They'd be a Cyclone [wikipedia.org] pilot.

Wheelbase issues

[Harmonious Botch (921977)]

As shown, there is no way that it is going to do 0-60 in three seconds. If power is on the front wheels, they can't get enough traction because the rider's weight is over the rear wheel. They will spin. If power is on the read wheel, it will do a wheelie and dump him on his ass.
I therefore conclude that it has one of two undocumented features: either there is a ultra-high speed gyro concealed behind the wearer ( which I regard as very unlikely ), or the frame bends so as to lean the rider forward thus lengthening the wheelbase and moving the center of gravity forward.

Re:Wheelbase issues

[adonoman (624929)]

I would expect that the acceleration could be linked to how much you lean forward (a la segway) - and with in-wheel electric motors, all three could be powered.

That's the "parking" configuration

[mbessey (304651)]

It's obviously intended to change shape when in motion, hence the pneumatic actuators, etc. While you're racing down the street, it's change into a more-streamlined shape.

More pictures.

[pavon (30274)]

Yeah, that was my first though. It does say "vertically parking", so maybe that is what the image is depicting. Ah here are some more pictures [hellforlea...gazine.com]. That said, it looks scary as hell to ride - when the two wheels move forward, you would also tilt forward, but there is nothing underneath you! You are being help up by the straps around your chest, while the road rushes beneath you. Plus having the helmet attached to the bike seems like a bad idea.

Re:

[Amouth (879122)]

i agree the helmet attacked to the bike does sound like asking for trouble.. but that thing would be fun as hell to drive.. atleast in short sperts..

trying to do a road trip with that would kill yourneck

Re:

[MalleusEBHC (597600)]

Even assuming that the rider leans forward to lengthen the wheelbase and move the center of gravity, I have serious doubts that you could do 0-60 in 3 seconds. That's literbike territory, and those machines are putting out 160-180hp. Even if you consider that the weight of the rider with the wearable motorcycle could be as little as half of the weight of a rider on a traditional sportbike, that's still a lot of power that you would need to put out to reach those speeds.

Re:

[esampson (223745)]

It's not all that unbelievable. I recall seeing something on TV recently where an electric motorcycle was raced against an internal combustion motorcycle and it turned out the electric one was quicker. Both bikes were drag race style bikes.

The electric motorcycle was quicker (crossing the finish line first) but not faster (had a lower top speed). I believe it had something to do with the power range of the electric motor in relation to the power range of the IC engine. It also possibly had to do with the el

Re:Art Student "engineering"

[NMerriam (15122)]

Artists seem to have a reality-distortion field similar to Steve Jobs, only more introverted. "I'll use chromium-doped litho-phosphate batteries ..." and all the real-world issues become moot. Ugh. I don't mind folks pushing the envelope, but this is just mental masturbation. Don't print a pile of technical specifications in an attempt to rationalize the "art." If it's art, just say so. Don't pretend it's an engineered product that actually exists.

Just to clarify, Art Center is where many of the world's best professional transportation designers get their training. It's not unheard of for a car company to pay for a promising new designer to take off a couple years and study there. These aren't bunch of computer graphics nerds sitting around scribbling cool motorcycles in their notebooks, these are folks with money and advisers from every major auto company on Earth. They use the same engineering software and tools that GM or Ducati would use to develop a new product.

Their designs are no different from any concept car you'd see at an auto show -- sure, it may cost $20 million to make, but they aren't inventing critical materials and demanding that the whole frame is made out of Unobtanium. It may well be made entirely out of stuff that is still impractical for mass production, and that seems to be the case with a lot of these designs, but it all exists. If they say it'll do 0-60 in however many seconds, you can bet that under ideal conditions and with a couple million dollars to actually build it, that the claim is only a bit less accurate (due to more exotic materials) than the specs for any new vehicle design that hasn't yet had the first production run.

Re:

[lazlo (15906)]

From the article that the article links to [greencardesign.co.uk]:

"With seven artificial vertebrae behind the helmet that support the rider's head you could control the 'Deus Ex Machina' via 36 pneumatic muscles and 2 linear actuators with your body. Leaning forward the rider extends into the more traditional riding position but there is nothing traditional about this machine."

So, I believe you are entirely correct. My guess is that the rear wheel is powered, and the two arms allow you to lean forward for acceleration, and that

brilliant

[nguy (1207026)]

the frame bends so as to lean the rider forward thus lengthening the wheelbase and moving the center of gravity forward.

This means riders crash head-forward into things. That eliminates disability and pain. Great design!

Thanks slashdot

[sw155kn1f3 (600118)]

Image of Cowboy Neal wearing this and driving to the work in the traffic will haunt me forever from now

Just make sure to have a camera rolling

[iminplaya (723125)]

when this thing hits a pothole.

Aerodynamics?

[lobiusmoop (305328)]

Given that this keeps the 'driver' standing upright, similar to the Segway, I dread to think what the aerodynamics of this thing are like at speed, it must be very inefficient.

Wait...

[Oxy the moron (770724)]

Does this mean I can now be one of those robot overlords that everyone is so eager to welcome?

Re:Wait...

[geekoid (135745)]

A Libertarian Robot Overlord? I think not.

Dangerous, huh?

[WK2 (1072560)]

I would imagine the results of a crash would be much like being strapped to the hood of your car during a collision

Welcome to the world of motorcycles, where safety is not our primary concern. Motorcycles don't offer any protection in a crash, and never have, with few exceptions. The best you can hope for in a crash is that you get thrown one way, and your bike another so that it doesn't crush you. And wear a helmet. If safety is your primary concern, cars and buses are much safer.

Re:

[pha7boy (1242512)]

tanks are even better then that. Safety First [youtube.com]

Re:Dangerous, huh?

[phpmysqldev (1224624)]

As a long time rider, and as most riders would tell you, you don't want to be thrown from the motorcycle. This can throw you into traffic or into a tree at high speeds, or a myriad of horrific deaths (i remember reading an article about a guy who was thrown from a bike while racing doing 100+ mph and hit one of those steel cables that hold power line poles up, as you can imagine the outcome was pretty gruesome).

the ideal way to wreck a bike (oxymoron i know) is to lay it down. This way you have some control over which way the bike slides, you can keep most of your head of the ground, and it does less damage to the bike. That is one flaw I see with this bike's design, there is no effective way to lay it down in the event you need to.

Re:Dangerous, huh?

[Yold (473518)]

To clarify parent, the "safest" way to crash is a low-sider, which is sort-of falling behind the motorcycle when you lay it down. A "high-sider" is the opposite, laying it down and being in-front of the motorcycle can get you crushed pretty bad.

Re:Dangerous, huh?

[speleo (61031)]

You never want a lay a bike down. All bikes stop better sticky side down.

Once you lay a bike down you have no control and you're just sliding along dragging your axle nuts into the pavement (usually with your leg trapped under the bike, too).

Ideally, you do everything possible to avoid a collision. But if you can't, the best thing you can do is lay on the brakes with proper (and practiced) technique and decrease your speed as much as possible before hitting the object.

This is also the recommendation of the Motorcycle Safety Foundation.

Don't listen to this guy

[hassanchop (1261914)]

The best you can hope for in a crash is that you get thrown one way, and your bike another so that it doesn't crush you. And wear a helmet.

No. The best you can hope for is that when you low side, you slide along on your back armor, while your leathers are soaking up the damage. Afterward, you get up and brush yourself off. With only a helmet, you slide along on your ass until you have no ass left, then it starts in on the bones underneath.

A helmet isn't enough. There are plenty of synthetic, breathable

Re:

[uniquename72 (1169497)]

If we're thinking of the same guy (some politician in the Pacific Northwest IIRC), he was being facetious about requiring seatbelts on motorcycles. His comment was something like, "I'll support ending helmet laws when motorcycles are equipped with seatbelts."

Re:

[ColdWetDog (752185)]

I always though an ejector seat and a small, rapidly deploying parachute might help. :-)

Safety sticker for same:

WARNING: Do Not Crash or Otherwise Eject in Tunnel or Underpass! WARNING!

Races

[Fearless Freep (94727)]

reminds me of the races in Battle Angel Alita...

Re:

[pokerdad (1124121)]

Not the actual picture of it, but the headline "wearable motorcycle" had me thinking of Robotech.

Is there a reason...

[geminidomino (614729)]

that we were meta-linked through the equally content-free endgadget blurb instead of right to the page?

http://www.greencardesign.co.uk/site/item.php?id=1210936143&category=news&subcat= [greencardesign.co.uk]

Cool!

[TrebleJunkie (208060)]

It's like a Segway with training wheels!

can't wait to see

[butterflysrage (1066514)]

what will happen the first time a truck going the other way tosses a pebble up to about crotch height.

Knight Sabers!

[argent (18001)]

Which one's Priss?

Three wheels = ?

[nixman99 (518480)]

Isn't this a tricycle?

Interesting design

[benjamindees (441808)]

The problem with motorcycles is, of course, safety. The rider is on the *outside* of the vehicle, meaning in a collision, he gets hit/thrown/generally injured. The solution is to put the driver on the inside (hello car), but while also maintaining the small size of a motorcycle and not just building a full blown car.

This design comes pretty close to fitting the bill. One thing I like is that the integral helmet and racing-style seatbelt pretty much eliminates the possibility of whiplash. In my humble op

Crash results.

[fahrbot-bot (874524)]

I would imagine the results of a crash would be much like being strapped to the hood of your car...

In Soviet accident, Yamaha Deus Ex Machina wears you!

It's been done, and it's on YouTube.

[Animats (122034)]

Here's one that actually works. [youtube.com] It's an exoskeleton for street luge.

M.A.S.K.

[boris111 (837756)]

Anyone think of M.A.S.K. [wikipedia.org] when they saw this?

Movie concept

[CopaceticOpus (965603)]

I don't think the wearable motorcycle is realistic, but it could be great fun in an action movie. I'm picturing a guy who jumps off a bridge onto a sloped road below, hits a button in midair to transform his suit into motorcycle mode, and then zooms away. I could see this in the next Iron Man movie, as a product made by someone trying to compete with Iron Man on technology, or even as a suit built by Iron Man for an assistant/sidekick.

Yeah, it's a cheesy idea, but it could be fun anyway.

Slshdot has let me down

[NMerriam (15122)]

I'm disappointed in the complete lack of Mospeada references posted so far.

If it doesn't have wheels on my shoulders and a jet pack, I'm not interested.

tagged...

[spazdor (902907)]

!motorcycle
!wearable

Re:

[spun (1352)]

Sounds like fun.

Yes, but what they don't show are the penis shaped "safety devices" that you must shove up your ass before using the device. And the penis shaped steering device that you control with your mouth.

Re:

[tbuskey (135499)]

Lay it down == crash intentionally.

I'm sure there's a way to crash intentionally on this thing.

As for laying down a bike intentionally, I bet you've never done it. You lose all control and it's *always* better to be in control.

Most of the comments here tell how wrong this is on the road.

It's also wrong off-road. I've been racing since I was nine, 30 years ago. I've done motocross, ice racing, flat track, etc. You can't use the brakes to slow down when you've laid it down. You can't save it & get ba

Re:

[mav[LAG] (31387)]

Amen. I just cannot ever see myself making a conscious decision to lay my bike down. I'd rather stay upright, on the rubber, on the clutch and on the front brake as much as possible to bleed off speed. In the average urban accident scenario, a rider has two seconds to react. In that time I can go from 35mph to 0 without skidding (and yes I practice regularly).

Today's tyre compounds have way more friction than your fairings, you're in control right up until the point of impact (if any) and twin caliper front

Re:

[g0bshiTe (596213)]

I'm curious how this goes 0-60 in 3 seconds when high performance sports cars do it in 4 with larger engines.

Re:

[Zakabog (603757)]

"I'm curious how a "motorcycle" that can do 0-60mph in 3 seconds is limited to a top speed of only 75mph." It's electric, just like the electric car that's "faster than a Ferrari" it's faster accelerating to it's top speed, but the top speed is limited to 60-70MPH.