Dymaxion Car Being Restored 121
An anonymous reader notes that R. Buckminster Fuller's Dymaxion Car is being restored by the company Crosthwaite and Gardiner. Only three of the vehicles were produced in the 1930s and only one survives. "Synchronofile.com has been granted the great honor of announcing the restoration of the Dymaxion Car — because our readers are now invited to help in the project. Can you identify the manufacturer for the component shown at the link?"
Cool - when can I order one? (Score:4, Interesting)
Just kidding here. But it was a beautiful idea. RBF may have been a crackpot, but he was my sort of crackpot - no axiom sacred. Yes, they weren't exactly safe, but then Ralf Nader wouldn't have passed on the Model A Ford-era cars with their beam front axles and rather philosophical approach to braking and steering, either.
30 MPG... in the 1930s (Score:4, Interesting)
According to the Wikipedia article [wikipedia.org], the Dymaxion car had 30 MPG and could transport 11 passengers with only three wheels. Suck on that, Detroit.
unusual if (Score:2, Interesting)
It is said that the fatal crash which cursed the prototype was due to astonishment.
Despite its remarkable innovations the Dymaxion car misfitted common sense.
Re:Pretty cool ride, actually (Score:1, Interesting)
damm.. 1933 and it got 36 mpg.
76 years later. and my car gets 34 mpg.
theres something really wrong with this...
Re:Cool - when can I order one? (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:30 MPG... in the 1930s (Score:2, Interesting)
Taking this seriously... (Score:3, Interesting)
It's been similarly pointed out that electric vehicles were very successful - at the end of the 19th century, because lead acid cell powered vehicles work well at horse speeds and horse ranges. Once the IC engine made much higher speeds and longer ranges possible, the electric buggy was dead.
Once trucks started their steady growth and road traffic started to rise, something like this would be too unsafe and too unmanoeuverable at higher speeds.
The reason you haven't seen anything so innovative in 70 years is that the last 70 years have had constant steady progress. Now, in 2009, a volume car maker can have a low cost vehicle with antilock brakes, power steering, air con, a high-efficiency Diesel engine, and roadholding and reliability unimaginable 30 years ago, let alone 70. If anybody had a really dramatic breakthrough - unlikely - they would have to get it to market faster and cheaper than the existing industry could improve their product to achieve the same thing. Look at the Prius, which is basically a California Special because the likes of VW and BMW can outgun it on nearly every front using existing technology.
There may be a future for electric bicycles running on dedicated cycle tracks - if the "pedalling is good" nutters don't force you off the road - but it will take a very fast, very dramatic environmental change to cause a step function rather than incremental development.
Re:Pretty cool ride, actually (Score:5, Interesting)
Greetings and salutations...
First off, please understand that I consider Bucky Fuller to be in the running for the smartest inventor of the 20th century, and, (at least SO far) the 21st, so I have a small amount of bias towards him. Do a bit of research and SEE what basic parts of today's society his inventions have become - say, like Celotex.
Now, as for the Dymaxion car... Here is an interesting link that seems to be a pretty complete history.
http://www.washedashore.com/projects/dymax/chronology.html
The car was, as is pointed out, a concept car, and, was in the process of evolving through its three incarnations. Each one was further away from the "pie in the sky" design, and closer to something that could be put in the hands of the average idiot, without them killing themselves in the first thirty minutes. The car also had some PRETTY innovative designs in it, including state of the art materials, and, individual suspension on all the wheels, with a decoupling of the body from the chassis, producing a VERY smooth ride. In "the Dymaxion world of Buckminster Fuller", it is quoted that the car could drive across a plowed field, at high speed, with the passengers feeling very little vibration or jostling.
I also question your assertion that rear wheel steering is unstable or dangerous. It is, I agree, different in its response to steering commands, but, I am not entirely sure that it is SO different that it is hard to get used to. I would think that the appropriate caster angle would tend to push the steered wheel back to a straight position, just as it works with front steered vehicles.
Your recollection as correct, but incomplete, as the third model of the Dymaxion car was a ALL-WHEEL steered vehicle.
Another poster says something about the danger of roll-overs. Fuller understood physics quite well, which is why the single wheel was located in the rear. Trikes are only prone to rolling over because the force vectors are unsupported by a single FRONT wheel. By putting the two wheels up front, it brings great stability to the vehicle. As an example of this...take a wheel barrow...put a bunch of stone in it, then, try pushing it along the ground, with the single wheel out front. It is hard to keep it upright and stable, and, to make turns. Then, take the same wheelbarrow, and, PULL it along by the handles. All of a sudden that wheelbarrow becomes a model of stability and maneuverability.
Regards
Dave Mundt
The Dynamaxion was one of the worst designs ever. (Score:5, Interesting)
The 2-front 1-rear three wheeler design is vastly supervisor to the 1-front 2-rear. But the big problem I see with the Dynamaxion is three fold:
1) In an emergency situation, people react by crushing the break pedal. In a front wheel steering car this increases the down force on the steering wheels, improving traction, and gives the driver more control over the car. In a rear wheel steering vehicle, when the breaks are applied hard, weight still transfers from the rear axle to the front. But that means less down-force on the rear wheel and less steering control.
2) The cab forward design of the body put the majority of the vehicle's weight over the front axle already making the vehicle steer and handle worth a crap even under only moderate breaking.
3) The accident that kill the driver was the other vehicle's driver's fault. But that driver was guilty of following too close. When the driver of the Dynamaxion hit the breaks (transferring weight to the front axle, and the person following too close hit the REAR of the Dynamaxion, the vehicle flipped forward. Even though it was the other drivers fault, it was the incredibly poor design of the vehicle that allowed it to roll in such a manor.
There were amazing technological feats to this car, but the single rear wheel steering combined with the cab forward body was absolutely 100% retarded.
If you want to see the pinnacle of 3-wheeler technology, look into the T-Rex http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T-Rex_(automobile) [wikipedia.org] And Aptera http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aptera_2e [wikipedia.org] or some of the tilt-steering prototypes.
-Rick
Cool, but fatally flawed (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Taking this seriously... (Score:4, Interesting)
The reason you haven't seen anything so innovative in 70 years is that the last 70 years have had constant steady progress.
Not to rain on that parade, but in the mid-1930s we had V-8 engines for cars, which could accommodate no more than 6 passengers comfortably and got well under 30 MPG. Airplanes one the other hand had rotary engines a la the Armstrong-Siddeley [flightglobal.com] or Pratt & Whitney [wikipedia.org], carrying up to 14 passengers and with flight range capabilities of up to 745 miles.
Today we have 4 cylinder engines in cars that can barely accommodate four adults comfortably, let alone six, with a few models sporting MPG ratings in the 40+ range, but with fleet averages still far below that. Contrast that with aircraft, which have enjoyed brutes like this one [geae.com] for decades, and whose carrying capacities have increased geometrically since the 1930's and whose range can extend to the thousands of miles.
Anti-lock brakes, power steering, GPS in-dash navigation, and all the other bells and whistles are all well and good. But aside from computer controls and fuel injection (another technology from the last century), we are still being driven by the same engine Henry Ford used, in little metal (though now increasingly plastic) compartments not radically different from those used in 1930.
If the same attention to innovation and invention had been nurtured in the automotive industry as it was in the aircraft industry who knows what we'd be "driving" now.
The New Nomads (Score:3, Interesting)
The most practical application that I wanted to find info for was a friend in Alaska. They're in geothermal active areas, so a subterranean loop would provide for a very warm side, always warmer than the cool side of the ambient air. A lot of people up there live off-grid, and have to truck, boat, or fly diesel fuel in to keep their generators going. That's a cumbersome task in mid winter.
Ok, you've generated some nice imagery there. Somehow I took your Alaskan environment and tied it up in my mind with Dymaxion cars and Fuller-dome shaped (shush, Stewart, let me work with this) trailers using Stirling engines. You'd only travel when the sun was up, or when you had fuel for the iron stove in the back to run the engine.
There's something very Steampunk, very Golden Age of SF, Popular Mechanix cover about the image. "Well, looks like the sun's coming out. Pack up everybody, let's get ready to roll". Or, since it's a Stirling, "Well, it looks like snow, let's make the best of it and make some miles. Light the furnace, John-Boy."
Would You Buy a Used Trike from this Man? (Score:2, Interesting)