Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Technology

The Chevy Segway Keeps On Rolling (Video) 210

Posted by Roblimo
from the as-if-regular-Segways-weren't-dorky-enough dept.
Back in 2009 G.M. and Segway talked about the P.U.M.A., or Personal Urban Mobility and Accessibility vehicle. Now it's the EN-V, which stands for Electric Network Vehicle. G.M. (along with partner Shanghai Automotive Industry Corporation) debuted the thing in Shanghai in 2010, then displayed it at the Las Vegas Consumer Electronics Show in 2011, and now they're showing it off at auto shows, no doubt hoping to get a lot of buzz going for this two-wheeled wonder, which is supposed to be so loaded with navigation and collision avoidance electronics that you can sleep in it on your way to work. (Please wake us up when we get there, okay?)

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

The Chevy Segway Keeps On Rolling (Video)

Comments Filter:
  • Wow (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 25, 2012 @10:00AM (#38817639)

    Could we maybe get a little less talking by the broadcaster and a little more of a look at the damn thing

  • by cpu6502 (1960974) on Wednesday January 25, 2012 @10:06AM (#38817675)

    "So now we can spend money on stupid stuff (like segway clones) that were already proven failures by other companies (Segway)." - GM

    No I'm not trolling.
    This is my honest opinion.
    Though their Volt car seems like a decent idea; not sure why it isn't selling better?

    • by DigiShaman (671371) on Wednesday January 25, 2012 @10:19AM (#38817783) Homepage

      If you ever been to Shanghai, the first thing this reminds you of is a cycle-less rickshaw (opposed to a horseless carriage). Wacky.

    • by MightyYar (622222) on Wednesday January 25, 2012 @10:44AM (#38817959)

      Though their Volt car seems like a decent idea; not sure why it isn't selling better?

      Because they start at like $40 grand and a Prius is $23k. That's a LOT of gas - even the guy at work who has already has solar cells and was going to charge it for "free" couldn't justify the price given the current price of gas.

      (We live in PA, so currently he is allowed to spin his electric meter backwards with the solar cells - that is why "free" is in quotes... it would actually cost him the going rate of electricity.)

    • by mcgrew (92797) * on Wednesday January 25, 2012 @10:50AM (#38817997) Homepage Journal

      So now we can spend money on stupid stuff (like segway clones) that were already proven failures by other companies (Segway).

      Segway was a failure because it's too goddamned expensive. Six grand? I only spent ten on my car. When the patents run out and they're a hundred bucks each, everybody will have one.

      The volt isn't selling better for the same reason. A teeny little car that costs more than my full sized sedan did new, has limited range, etc? No thanks. When an electric car costs no more than a gasoline car, they too will sell well.

      The 1% do not understand the 99%. Most of us don't have much money we can afford to waste on expensive toys like segways and electric cars, and those who can buy any damned thing they please can't get their heads around that.

      • by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 25, 2012 @11:52AM (#38818659)

        The other problem is that the two parallel wheels thing is just pointless. There are electric scooters [nycewheels.com] that do the same thing as a Segway but are way cheaper because they put the wheels one in front of the other.

      • by superdude72 (322167) on Wednesday January 25, 2012 @12:15PM (#38818949)

        Segway was a failure because it's too goddamned expensive. Six grand? I only spent ten on my car. When the patents run out and they're a hundred bucks each, everybody will have one.

        Also, many cities--including mine, San Francisco--have banned their use on sidewalks. If I could buy the original Segway for under $2,000 and take it down the sidewalk, it would be a nice way to get around in a dense city with a lot of hills.

      • by ArsonSmith (13997) on Wednesday January 25, 2012 @01:44PM (#38819953) Journal

        More like 99% don't understand economics. Or maybe it's just you.

      • by King_TJ (85913) on Wednesday January 25, 2012 @02:58PM (#38820871) Journal

        Seriously, you believe the products like the Segway and Volt are priced wrong because "the 1% do not understand the 99%"?

        I'd say that has practically nothing to do with it. What you've generally got here is the realization that our govt. leaders are pushing for environmentally "greener" solutions to energy-related issues, meaning loads of tax subsidies and loans available to those promising to design and deliver such solutions.

        We saw this same thing in the Clinton administration when Bill mandated an electric car be put into production during his term in office. GM responded with the EV-1 electric car, which promptly flopped -- failing so miserably, almost all of the vehicles were buried underground! GM didn't elect to produce the EV-1 because they really believed it would be profitable and successful. They did it because federal govt. hung out the "WANTED!" poster demanding one, and they knew there were political favors to be had and loads of positive P.R. for forging ahead with it.

        The people with the money to buy an electric car as an "expensive toy" aren't really a target market for a Chevy Volt either. (Well, there will always be at least a few exceptions to the rule since tastes are so varied ...) In general though? Those "1 percenters" are going to go for something much "cooler" than a car with the Chevy bow-tie on it and with better performance, like the Fisker Karma or the Tesla roadster.

        The 1% tend to be people in industries like banking and finance, where they presumably have a pretty good handle on the spending habits of the "rest of us". They may be living in their own fantasy world made possible by their large amount of available spending money, but that doesn't mean they'd make a really boneheaded business decision like trying to sell the public a car that's 2x the max. price many of them can even get the loan approved for. There are other motivations at work here.

      • by StikyPad (445176) on Wednesday January 25, 2012 @03:09PM (#38821019) Homepage

        The 1% do not understand the 99%.

        They understand that people are generally lazy, willfully ignorant, and self interested, which is 90% of what it takes to be successful. The other 10% is either adding value to society by helping people overcome their weaknesses, or else being a dick enough to use people's weaknesses against them. (Not actually mutually exclusive in some cases -- art adds value to society, but the way art is typically marketed probably does not.)

        At any rate, it's a business decision. Auto makers could sell EVs at a loss until economies of scale kick in and make them profitable, but "success" in selling EVs would actually be a problem: The power grid is in no way capable of supporting mass adoption of EVs. Where tiered pricing is possible or existent, prices for daytime power would necessarily skyrocket and people could only afford to charge at night. In other areas, there would be blackouts or brownouts under the demand. Suddenly nobody would want to be stuck with the limitations of their EV, the market would fall out, and they'd be right back where they started. For successful deployment, we need to build out our electrical infrastructure in conjunction with EV adoption. But in some of the most populous areas, where EVs hold the most potential, new plants are barely keeping up with existing demand, let alone future demand. And since it takes years to get plants online and powering the grid, the time to start was 5-10 years ago, so we're already way behind.

      • by rsborg (111459) on Wednesday January 25, 2012 @05:32PM (#38822613) Homepage

        So now we can spend money on stupid stuff (like segway clones) that were already proven failures by other companies (Segway).

        Segway was a failure because it's too goddamned expensive. Six grand? I only spent ten on my car. When the patents run out and they're a hundred bucks each, everybody will have one.

        The volt isn't selling better for the same reason. A teeny little car that costs more than my full sized sedan did new, has limited range, etc? No thanks.

        Amen. This is why the Prius was successful - back in 2004, when they released the 2nd (less dinky looking) version, it was a) the least expensive car that had smart-key tech, bluetooth and nav options and b) a really good deal despite being a hybrid.

        The Prius cost has changed a bit (I priced out a newer model and was amazed by how much more expensive it is now - it's probably at price/value parity - natural considering the brand is firmly established), but the lesson is real: for mass-adoption to occur, pricing is a key element. This is why pricing innovation can be as important as technical innovation.

    • by DragonWriter (970822) on Wednesday January 25, 2012 @11:55AM (#38818697)

      Though their Volt car seems like a decent idea; not sure why it isn't selling better?

      Because its a fairly new plug-in hybrid that's substantially expensive as many competing hybrids (including, now, plug-in models) from more established brands (e.g., Prius), that is marketed as an "electric car" while at the same time spending a lot of marketing effort to overcome the perception of limitations of electric cars, and that is much more expensive than competitors electric cars (e.g., the Nissan Leaf.)

      If they had marketed it as a very fuel efficient hybrid, rather than trying to market it as an electric car and then trying to overcome the public perception of the limitation of electric cars (a limitation that is real, but doesn't apply to the Volt because its a plug-in hybrid, not an electric car) they would have faced less challenges, but they probably saw "electric car" as more of a differentiator, as there were lots of hybrids on the market. While that's probably true, and its probably a positive differentiator for a certain segment of the market, that segment is precisely the segment that is going to be turned off when they find out it actually has a gas tank.

      But even then it would be hard sell -- its a very expensive product that most of the intended market would need to finance, that doesn't appeal to the luxury-oriented market, that hit the market during an economic downturn that featured a major credit crunch, and for which the nearest competitors were much less expensive. Its not amazing that it was hard to sell even if the marketing had been spot on.

      • by Smidge204 (605297) on Wednesday January 25, 2012 @02:37PM (#38820603) Journal

        If you've actually seen any of the TV ads for the Volt, they basically involve the driver/owner being harassed by confused onlookers arguing over whether it's gas or electric, with the owner sheepishly trying to explain that it's both.

        They're terrible ads that leave the viewer confused. I'm sure it's not the only problem but that ain't helping.
        =Smidge=

        • by DragonWriter (970822) on Wednesday January 25, 2012 @03:06PM (#38820973)

          If you've actually seen any of the TV ads for the Volt, they basically involve the driver/owner being harassed by confused onlookers arguing over whether it's gas or electric, with the owner sheepishly trying to explain that it's both.

          They're terrible ads that leave the viewer confused. I'm sure it's not the only problem but that ain't helping.

          Yeah, that's been true of the recent ads, which have (I would guess) made the problem worse: most of the earlier marketing efforts (up to at least right before launch, and I think even after launch) focussed on it as "electric".

          I think the new commercials are aimed (poorly) at overcoming the perception problems with "electric", which is a problem they bought themselves by initially marketing a plug-in hybrid as an "electric car".

    • by hitmark (640295) on Wednesday January 25, 2012 @12:42PM (#38819291) Journal

      My understanding is that Segway "bombed" because law writers could not make heads or tails of it.

      Now if Segway had gone ahead with their Centaur, people may have had a easier time "getting" the whole thing.

    • by Crudely_Indecent (739699) on Wednesday January 25, 2012 @01:07PM (#38819541) Journal

      Though their Volt car seems like a decent idea; not sure why it isn't selling better?

      Some people have an aversion to vehicles that have been reported to "burst into flames".

  • by rodrigoandrade (713371) on Wednesday January 25, 2012 @10:07AM (#38817685)

    Nothing like watching GM blow its bailout money on this turd.

  • by cpu6502 (1960974) on Wednesday January 25, 2012 @10:10AM (#38817705)

    They rolled-over a lot and damaged the driver. (Then the company went bankrupt.)

    • by Whorhay (1319089) on Wednesday January 25, 2012 @11:20AM (#38818257)
      I did a little googling and couldn't find much about accidents involving Sparrows, do you have any useful citations for that assertion? The main barrier in my eyes to the Sparrow EV line catching on would be the price tag for a single seater. At $30,000 you could just spend twice as much and get a Tesla Model S and still have some spending money left over. Granted I'm comparing an older existing product to a prototype but the Model S even though it's easily twice the value it still appeals to a relatively tiny portion of the population.
      • by Jeng (926980) on Wednesday January 25, 2012 @01:19PM (#38819681)

        At $30,000 you could just spend twice as much and get a Tesla Model S and still have some spending money left over.

        Um, do you assume that a person who would buy the Sparrow EV would be happy to spend twice as much on a totally different type of EV? And then do you think that someone who would buy the Tesla Model S would think, "damn for half as much I can get that sweet jellybean."?

        The only relationship those two products have are they are electric, and they have wheels. They are not in the same price range, nor do they cater to the same customers. Tesla will not be poaching potential Sparrow owners.

  • by SlipDisc (40657) on Wednesday January 25, 2012 @10:13AM (#38817735) Homepage

    Sarge: May I introduce, our new Light-Reconnaissance vehicle. (Rotating around the new jeep) It has 4-inch Armor Plating; M.A.G. Bumper Suspension; a mounted machine gunner position, and total seating for three. Gentlemen! This is the M12 LRV! I like to call it the 'Warthog'.
            Simmons: Why 'Warthog,' Sir?
            Sarge: Because 'M12 LRV' is too hard to say in conversation, son.
            Grif: No, but, why 'Warthog'? I mean, it doesn't really look like a pig...
            Sarge: Say that again?
            Grif: I think it looks more like a Puma.
            Sarge: What in Sam Hell is a 'Puma'?
            Simmons: Uhh, you mean like the shoe company?
            Grif: No, like a Puma. It's a big cat, like a lion.
            Sarge: You're making that up.
            Grif: I'm telling you, it's a real animal!
            Sarge: Simmons, I want you to poison Grif's next meal.
            Simmons: Yes sir!

  • by GaryOlson (737642) <slashdot@ g a r y olson.org> on Wednesday January 25, 2012 @10:13AM (#38817737) Journal
    Where's the bamboo handles and the skinny guy to make it go?
  • by Chrisq (894406) on Wednesday January 25, 2012 @10:16AM (#38817759)

    supposed to be so loaded with navigation and collision avoidance electronics that you can sleep in it on your way to work.

    Whet they need is a way to get you to your desk and into your chair without waking you, making the transition form commute to work entirely seamless.

    • by somersault (912633) on Wednesday January 25, 2012 @10:56AM (#38818051) Homepage Journal

      If only there were some way to get a chair and desk installed in your home.. and connect via some kind of communications network to your workplace and/or colleagues to share files. Maybe some way of sending text, audio or even visual communications.. that would be cool. It would save billions of units of currency of fuel each year, not to mention commuting time.

      Of course we just don't have the technology, and probably never will. Why do I torture myself with such dreams?

      • by Bucc5062 (856482) <bucc5062@gm a i l . com> on Wednesday January 25, 2012 @11:29AM (#38818381)

        Oh, we have the technology. We have everything you describe...and more (btw, I get your point).

        What we lack is the leadership to use it *wisely*. It makes infinite sense (to leadership) to require people to travel to a location where they can reach out and touch you, look at you, know you are there no matter what you are doing. Why at home that worker could be...maybe...reading /., because he or she would never do that at work. The office is preferred to some, the home to others. When a job is suited to handle both, why do our leaders not recognize that productivity is not measured by the clock, but by the task. Let those who like an office work in one, let those who work better at home do so, thus managing and not babysitting the workforce.

  • by jopet (538074) on Wednesday January 25, 2012 @10:33AM (#38817883) Journal

    the physics of doing an emergency break with two parallel wheels when going 35 mph?

    • by digitalsolo (1175321) on Wednesday January 25, 2012 @11:05AM (#38818101) Homepage
      Sure, it's simple.

      *CRASH*

      See? Simple.
    • by dr2chase (653338) on Wednesday January 25, 2012 @02:24PM (#38820427) Homepage

      Supposed to work; I recall discussing this with a Segway owner, and pretty much you just lean backwards. How does the Segway keep you from falling backwards? By braking. To stop harder, lean further.

      This assumes both wheels have traction, of course.

      • by jopet (538074) on Wednesday January 25, 2012 @03:01PM (#38820911) Journal

        I do not think that this is compatible with physics for any speed faster than fast walking: the force from decelerating will be so strong that the vehicle will lean forward. There is no way how a human can counter this by just shifting weight (that force is ridiculously small compared to quickly braking a couple of dozen or even hundred pounds of mass down from 35mph to a stop.
        Even if the vehicle could look into the future and would automatically lean back as far as possible before initiating the break, the deceleration forces for anything but a very gentle stop would be too big to not make the vehicle turn around the point where the wheels touche the ground and topple over forward.

    • by Chuckstar (799005) on Wednesday January 25, 2012 @03:24PM (#38821201)

      On a Segway, you lean forward to accelerate and backwards to brake. The computer senses which way you are leaning and moves the wheels accordingly. For this vehicle, the computer has to control the center of mass, shifting it foward while accelerating and backwards while decelerating (or going in reverse). For an emergency brake, it just shifts the center of gravity really far back. Anit-lock sensors will keep the wheels from locking (which you really, REALLY wouldn't want to have happen in this thing). So I don't think emergency stops are a problem.

      Having said all of that, the thing's basically a death trap. The problem is not braking, or even emergency braking. The problem is that if you do actually contact anything, you're screwed.

      In a car, most accidents result in the car being accelerated in some manner along the two-dimensional plane along the ground. So everything sort of happens front/back/side/side. The car usually ends up coming to a stop on all four wheels -- banged up, but rightside-up. It's actually pretty rare that cars flip. You need a lot of energy or going down an embankment in order to flip a car.

      This thing, on the other hand, is going to fall over, and even potentially do cartwheels, without much energy being required. In a crash, it is always going to come to rest at an angle that would be problematic for inhabitants (unless very well restrained). If you go the equivalent of t-boned in this thing, you'd be doing cartwheels onto the sidewalk. Just thinking about it makes me cringe.

  • by tekrat (242117) on Wednesday January 25, 2012 @10:34AM (#38817893) Homepage Journal

    They were displaying a prototype of this 2 years ago at the NY Auto Show held at the Javits Center... My friend and I are standing by it, and we're trying to guess how much electronics are crammed into the thing, and my friend says "I'll bet it runs Linux"... So the booth babe next to us turns and says 'No, it runs on electricity!"

    We thanked her for her insightful information, took three steps and then started laughing hysterically.

  • by elrous0 (869638) * on Wednesday January 25, 2012 @10:36AM (#38817913)

    Can't we just have those things from Logan's Run? They looked almost as cool that that network they had where you could hook up for sex (nothing could top that, of course).

  • Solved problem. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by characterZer0 (138196) on Wednesday January 25, 2012 @10:37AM (#38817915)

    The problem of getting a large number of people around in an urban setting was solved more than a hundred years ago.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bicycle [wikipedia.org]

    No reliance on fossil fuels. No recharge time. Takes very little parking space. Extremely maneuverable. Easily moved when broken. Cheap. Easy to repair.

    It does have one fatal flaw - low profit margins.

    • by CastrTroy (595695) on Wednesday January 25, 2012 @12:27PM (#38819105) Homepage
      Very much agree. I've been biking to work for the past 5 years, and I love it. Keeps me fit without having to ever step foot in a gym. First little while it seems like quite a workout, but eventually it becomes just as easy as walking, or even easier. But one correction. I think there's plenty of room for profit margins in bicycles. There's a lot of high end bikes, or bikes aimed at people who like specific styles which cost way more than just the cost of the manufacturing.
    • by swillden (191260) <shawn-ds@willden.org> on Wednesday January 25, 2012 @02:07PM (#38820259) Homepage Journal

      It does have one fatal flaw - low profit margins.

      You sure about that? I'm currently shopping for a bike. Right now I have a hybrid that is a little too heavy and inefficient for my commute to work (it's 26 miles each way) so I'm looking for a replacement. I thought about getting a real road bike, but I can't touch anything decent for less than $1500 new. I have found a couple of touring bikes and a couple of cyclocross-style bikes which are probably actually a better choice for my commute, and a little bit cheaper, but only a little bit. The budget I set for myself is $600, and I was hoping to include toe clips, rack, etc., for that, on a reasonably-light bike with disk brakes -- and I'm not finding it. Not new, anyway. I'll find something used, I'm sure.

      Anyway, my point is that for the materials that go into them and the amount of labor it looks like they require, bikes seem to me to have quite a healthy profit margin.

      • by dr2chase (653338) on Wednesday January 25, 2012 @02:35PM (#38820569) Homepage

        26 miles each way, I think you are looking at an e-assist or an aerodynamic fairing, depending on your route.

        Neither is cheap, which supports your skepticism regarding low profit margins.

        For a rack, it's not cheap, I think the CETMA racks are very pretty and functional, though I don't own one myself.

        And I am not your go-to guy for light bikes -- yesterday's errand was to tow a 40lb bike behind a 65lb cargo bike to get the rear hub rebuilt on the 40lb bike (a legitimate antique, "ALL STEEL", circa-WW2 Raleigh).

  • The EN-V is perfect. (Score:4, Interesting)

    by sgt scrub (869860) <saintium&yahoo,com> on Wednesday January 25, 2012 @10:38AM (#38817923)

    Imaging a fleet of these at bus/train stops for daily rental. In the US, at least, the problem with mass trasportation is getting from one stop to the rest of the destination. I tried to start a business in the Dallas area based on this. The idea is basically, a person pays a monthly subscription rental on an small shuttle electric vehicle. The company provides them with a vehicle like the EN-V at the location where they are dropped by the bus. When they are done, they simply return the vehicle to the stop, get on the bus, and go home. Ironically, the Texans that bitch all of the time about federal regulations, wouldn't let me start the business because of state requirements on vehicle size, liability insurance "path to owner" requirements, and licensing restrictions on who can run a "rental car business". If someone has the investment capital, I can guarantee the Federal incentives and tax cuts on this business alone would be worth getting into.

  • by FudRucker (866063) on Wednesday January 25, 2012 @10:41AM (#38817939)
    i would rather just have a golf cart, at least a golf cart has the room to haul four people, or two people and several bags of groceries or luggage or whatever else you need to haul
  • by flibbidyfloo (451053) on Wednesday January 25, 2012 @11:48AM (#38818613)

    At the very end of the video she points out that this model (2nd gen) has no windshield wipers, headlamps, or climate control. But they are looking to add that stuff for the 3rd gen model so it will be "all weather". It seems to me that by the time they add all the crap to it that a normal car has, it won't be any cheaper than buying a SMART car. Sure you can spin it around and park it more easily, but with the range and speed tradeoffs it hardly seems like a good business model.

  • by Attila Dimedici (1036002) on Wednesday January 25, 2012 @11:51AM (#38818637)
    I'm confused, who is the target market for this thing? They do not have the safety features of existing cars, so they cannot be used on the roads with existing cars. The justification for not including standard safety features is that they will never crash because, when every vehicle on the road is one of these, they will talk to each other and know where all the others are. The question is how do we get from where we are, to the place where every vehicle is one of these? Of course, the government and big businesses would love this because they would be able to track your every move.
    • by daid303 (843777) on Wednesday January 25, 2012 @12:06PM (#38818841)

      Car manufactures are already working on car to car communication (and car to roadside).

      Also, if the government and big business would want to track your vehicles, they already can! We sell the tech for that. It's quite new, but it doesn't even require changes in the current infrastructure as it uses the normal induction loops in the road. It has only a 90-95% detection ratio (less when people are taking corners) but it should be enough to track your habits.
      We are using it to track and optimize your travel time. But who knows what till will bring...

    • by Culture20 (968837) on Wednesday January 25, 2012 @01:26PM (#38819739)

      The justification for not including standard safety features is that they will never crash because, when every vehicle on the road is one of these, they will talk to each other and know where all the others are.

      As someone else pointed out, deer, falling rocks, and icebergs tend not to be where expected. "We don't need more lifeboats, she's unsinkable!"

    • by dr2chase (653338) on Wednesday January 25, 2012 @02:54PM (#38820799) Homepage

      There's a lot of safety gained by not going fast, and by not being quite such a large target. Despite the widespread belief that bicycles are deadly-unsafe, per-hour (not per-mile) they're about the same as automobiles. One might guess that there is some frequency-of-brain-fart constant at work here.

      I think the way we get there is that we start deploying the anti-crash and collision sensor stuff now in ordinary cars, and once those are widespread, then cars can get smaller.

      I also think that by the time these are deployed, your every move will be tracked anyway (pattern recognition, ubiquitous cameras, etc) unless legislative steps are taken to stop this from happening. My snap answer would be "ride a bicycle" but that is not a remedy to ubicams.

  • by Jason Straight (58248) on Wednesday January 25, 2012 @11:52AM (#38818661) Homepage

    Looks like they got their concept from the head of a yellow jacket.

    http://levahnbros.files.wordpress.com/2011/07/yellow-jacket.jpg

  • by g0bshiTe (596213) on Wednesday January 25, 2012 @11:59AM (#38818749)
    The name PUMA, it made me think of Red vs Blue

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uo7QCC2EDtk
  • by Lashat (1041424) on Wednesday January 25, 2012 @12:39PM (#38819255)

    Put your ego aside for just a moment, my little slashdotters.

    I doubt that US, CA, UK, AU, NZ, or other Euro countries are the initial target market for the Chevy Segway.

    Have you ever visited high population density cities in China or Taiwan (and Japan to a lesser extent)? If you have, you have also seen the insane scooter deathrace they call normal traffic conditions.
    I found this video on youtube. http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=endscreen&NR=1&v=P19qFzqBKGs/ [youtube.com]
    Now imagine it's raining. A canopy sounds like a good thing.

    I have personally witnessed scooters being driven like bumper cars in Taipei. It dawned on me then, that this was the reason scooters are designed with the protected leg space in front of the seat vs. motorcycle style. Additional driver/rider protection of a frame and collision avoidance sound like good things.

    At 6'3" 260lbs (1.905m 117.9 kg) for me to consider buying one of these is ludicrous. But it wouldn't stop me from making money by selling them to these folks in Taipei.

  • by GameboyRMH (1153867) <gameboyrmh@@@gmail...com> on Wednesday January 25, 2012 @01:23PM (#38819711) Journal

    Sorry, if a vehicle has only two wheels they should be one in front of the other.

    If any new form of vehicle is the future it'll be the half-width car, it will probably be a 3-wheeler though.

You know, the difference between this company and the Titanic is that the Titanic had paying customers.

Working...