Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Transportation

Hyundai's Flying Car Flies For an Audience 96

Posted by timothy
from the powered-by-musical-cheese dept.
garymortimer writes "Not many garages would work with Hyundai's hexadecagon. Showcasing at the 2013 IDEAs festival, the manned 16 rotored multirotor looks rather dodgy! Well done to them though for making it fly." It's just one of many crazy looking ideas in this video.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Hyundai's Flying Car Flies For an Audience

Comments Filter:
  • by For a Free Internet (1594621) on Saturday April 20, 2013 @06:05PM (#43506537)

    The only truly flying animals are turtles. Turtles soar gracefully and have super multidirectional turbothrusters with hover capability. Birds are just kludges combining parts of slugs, fish, and squirrels, and they are graceless and inoperable, compared to the almighty turtles. Needless to say, man, which a species of Dog, does not know how to fly without the aid of turtle, so this is just another episode of Hyundai Hubris. Things would be better after a revolutionary reunification of Korea that sweeps out the parasitical chaebol like Hyundai and its phony "flying cars"! DEFEND NORTH KOREA!!!!!

    • by Anonymous Coward
      Gamera, Gamera
      So cool, Gamera! So cool, Gamera! So cool, Gamera!
      Sunday, Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, Sunday, Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday
      Shadow the Sun, Evil's Rainbow
      Frozen monster, Dare to march!
      Jumped, Flew. Go! Go! Go!
      Destroy with Jet Flame. Here goes Gamera!
      So cool, Gamera! So cool, Gamera! So cool, Gamera!
      • by Anonymous Coward

        Ah! Gamera!

        Gamera is really neat.
        Gamera is filled with meat.
        We've been eating Gamera!

        Shell
        Teeth
        Eyes
        Flames
        Claws
        Breath
        Scales
        Fun!

    • Re: (Score:2, Flamebait)

      by xerxesVII (707232)

      How is this scored 0?

  • 2015 is just around the corner. Anyway, not sure how good will look a DeLorean with one of those.
  • by Anonymous Coward

    Innovative, obvious buy in from the company employee's, teamwork. I say, well done. Who cares is any of these idea's are market ready. It's the creativity that will pay off in the end...

    • by alphatel (1450715) * on Saturday April 20, 2013 @06:15PM (#43506575)
      I think you mean "Eggcellent" in regards to the man driving an egg with a clear shell helmet.
      • by swalve (1980968)
        Eggscruciating! [youtube.com]
      • by Luckyo (1726890)

        For the record, I know of at least one recorded case where a young guy driving a bike got killed by hitting a wire stretched between two trees across the road at high speed. He basically broke his wind pipe.

        The wire was hanged by local festival organizers to block the road, and apparently they didn't mark it clearly enough for someone traveling at high speed in the dark to see. There have also been some cases of local young kids' stupid fad being stretching a rope across walkways where bicycle travel often

  • by Anonymous Coward

    That's no flying car... it's not even a "roadable aircraft."

    This [flyingenterprises.com] is a flying car.

    • Why is it every time someone says flying car, it's never like The Jetsons? As far as I'm concerned, anything less than an actual Jetsons car is false advertising.
    • by Anonymous Coward

      That's just a hot air balloon. Now this [youtube.com] is a flying car.

  • by Trepidity (597) <(gro.hsikcah) (ta) (todhsals-muiriled)> on Saturday April 20, 2013 @06:13PM (#43506569)

    The linked post is just a low-information reblog of this article [easier.com] and its embedded video.

    • by Walzmyn (913748)

      And the video is damned useless. It jumps around so quick you can't even figure out what half the stuff is and offers no explanation.

      • by donaldm (919619)
        Yes the video does jump around however I did like the egg shaped vehicle (cute but impractical) however most of the stuff shown would never make it to the market. Still it looks like many of the people including the spectators had allot of fun.

        I am afraid the concept of a flying car is still way off in the future or in Sci-Fi since you would have to have two major leaps in technology, the first being a flying car that is relatively small, manoeuvrable and economical and second you would need a county wide
  • How come in the video, it says 2012 IDEAs Festival everywhere?

    I think we're seeing old ideas here. Interested in seeing this year's though; some interesting devices created there.

  • by newcastlejon (1483695) on Saturday April 20, 2013 @06:17PM (#43506581)

    Here [youtu.be]

    The money shot starts at 2:50 and lasts all of 7 seconds.

    • Re:Better Link (Score:5, Insightful)

      by jfengel (409917) on Saturday April 20, 2013 @06:32PM (#43506629) Homepage Journal

      Thanks. I got about 90 seconds into the video and saw absolutely nothing of interest.

      My standard advice for anybody wanting to show me a video: edit it to half its length. Sight unseen, knowing nothing about you, I know that you're going to be too attached to the sound of your own authorial voice. It sounds like in this case that advice needed to be given 3 or 4 times.

  • no flying grandmothers nor rednecks nor tech-distracted either, all of which would be as annoying as flying opossums.
    • by RevWaldo (1186281)
      If an when there is a flying car, you can expect multi-tier licensing, say, starting with one tier that lets you tell your car where you want to go, and the car's autopilot takes you there, up to fully autonomous piloting, which would be hard to get and even harder to keep. "Throw trash out the car window? That's a groundin'. Flyin' in and out of flight corridors? That's a groundin'. Fly your car straight into the ground? Oh, you better believe that's a groundin'."

      .
  • Looks more Hyunadiy to me...

  • It's not a car or a plane and it can only lift a mannequin. It's cool but certainly doesn't push the boundaries of what's been done in the past.
    • by Flozzin (626330)
      Agreed. I expected to see a car that flies. I figured it was another car-airplane hybrid. But no, we have 6 fans blowing downward and it's wobbly as hell. I believe the US Military did the same crap in the 1960's. Congratulations!
      • by Locke2005 (849178)
        The "wobbly as hell" is a control system problem. Engines don't react in real time, so you've got to be proactive to balance the lift and keep it level. Seems to me this would be a much easier problem with only 4 rotors.
        • by iksbob (947407)

          I would blame it on the control system and the engineering of the vehicle. I don't think the number of rotors is a big issue... each cluster of 4 props could be operated in unison, making the control system see it as a quad-copter.
          Smaller electric multi-rotor aircraft run into the same stability limitations to a lesser degree, but it can be compensated for with an appropriate set of PID variables. The issue is the mass of the rotating assembly vs. the torque available to accelerate it. Electric motors have

      • Re:More Lift (Score:4, Informative)

        by donaldm (919619) on Saturday April 20, 2013 @11:18PM (#43507649)

        Agreed. I expected to see a car that flies. I figured it was another car-airplane hybrid. But no, we have 6 fans blowing downward and it's wobbly as hell. I believe the US Military did the same crap in the 1960's. Congratulations!

        Actually it was the British that developed the "Flying Bedstead" [wikipedia.org] in 1953/4.

      • Avro also had a "flying saucer" that they did for the US Military.

        From the docudrama: "and we're developing a flying saucer!"
        • Which never got more than a handful of feet off the ground. That, to put things in perspective, is not even a quarter of its own width. And just as I'm guessing is the case with this, it wasn't capable of getting out of ground effect.
          • by Goaway (82658)

            Quadcopters can easily get out of ground effect. They don't do it here for safety reasons, most likely.

            • I'm well aware that quadcopters can get out of ground effect; I own two. However, I'd wager the reason they don't do it here has more to do with a) weight issues, if the dummy is supposed to have similar weight to the average human, and b) control issues, because once they get out of ground effect handling that many props and balancing the craft is going to be a doozy.
    • And it can only lift a mannequin when it's in ground effect. I'd be willing to bet it's not actually capable of getting out of ground effect, let alone flying for any meaningful distance.
    • by Lussarn (105276)

      Agreed. It's also a dead end since a flying vehicle carrying people needs to be able to land with engine failure. Well, not the V22 Osprey, but every other type of aircraft. This type of aircraft will not auto rotate, and will never be deemed safe.

  • And not a helicopter or whathaveyou?

    • Righto. All the Slashdot stories I've read about flying cars turn out to be prototypes for vehicles that look more like a helicopter or a VTOL jet plane. So what's to prevent somebody putting some road-worthy wheels on an airship or rocket and calling that a flying car?

      My idea of a flying car is a car that lifts off the ground for longer than an action movie chase scene and looks no weirder than the Batmobile in default configuration. I'll cut some slack for Transformer-like vehicles that can change modes.

      • by Cenan (1892902)

        Flying cars are a dead end science as long as these gimps insist on mechanical-only propulsion. If, and that's a big if, they ever get this piece of crap to do more than just hover with a doll on top, they'll still have to solve a bunch of other problems.
        Like designing a rotor that won't indiscriminately cut pedestrians in a billion pieces and then crash to the ground face-first. And a whole host of other malfunctions that will also make this hovering bathtub crash face-first.

        Cancelling gravity with the hel

  • Already done. (Score:4, Interesting)

    by jcr (53032) <jcr.mac@com> on Saturday April 20, 2013 @08:08PM (#43506977) Journal

    A group of German engineers did this a couple of years ago.

    http://e-volo.com/ [e-volo.com]

    -jcr

    • by Locke2005 (849178)
      Electric?!? What's the range, a couple hundred feet before the battery goes dead? There are rotax engines that barely have the power-to-weight ratio necessary to make this work, but even then you don't have enough payload capacity to carry any decent amount of fuel. So it's only good for short flights for small people. But then jet packs are only good for a 60-second flight. Need a lot more range to make them useful and safe.
    • Yes, the German one looks a lot more impressive, with a real person in it (piloting using the remote control) rather than a mannequin.
  • Is Hyundai actually calling it that, or was that name just invented by some random person who has forgotten high school geometry? It doesn't have 16 sides, more like 4. You could call it a hexadecacopter, but hexadecagon has an existing meaning, and it's not this.
    • Naming things based on shape names is ridiculous anyway.

      Recently I built a hierarchical tree structure to organize a huge 2D tile-based world such that it could be easily sharded and scaled.
      Similar approaches of spacial partitioning are: Binary Trees (2 children per node -- 1 axis), Quadtrees (4 children per node, 2 axes), and Octrees (8 children per node, 3 axes). To reduce bandwidth requirements and run-time, instead of multiple levels of Quadtrees each level of the tree has 256 more nodes...

      I'm no

  • by YrWrstNtmr (564987) on Saturday April 20, 2013 @08:26PM (#43507043)
    There is no flying car there. All I see is a muti-rotor platform, lifting a mannikin. A scaled-up Parrot AR.

    Whoopdi freakin do.
    • by Locke2005 (849178)
      Agreed. I'd be a lot more impressed if they trusted it enough to carry a real payload and didn't just fly it by remote control. I believe we now have engine technology with a power-to-weight ratio that would make a quad rotor capable of lifting a human possible, but the power is pretty close to the edge and the control systems are difficult to make safe. So it is theoretically possible to make one, but since it would cost about $100 million to develop and the liability issues would prevent you from ever get
    • There is no flying car there. All I see is a muti-rotor platform, lifting a mannikin. A scaled-up Parrot AR. Whoopdi freakin do.

      Yeah, and how can they even consider a man removing the tire from a car, then slapping it on a bicycle and using the stored energy to motor away on "flying" at all is beyond me. That driving centipede thing was totally land based too -- It practically CRAWLED up stairs!

      Hell, the compact transforming motorcycle thing and mobile tea-cup ride were barely even aerodynamic! None of the vehicles even have wings! One was just a Guy in a Plastic Bubble! It's a travesty to call this a new line of flying cars!

  • This thing reminds me of the vehicles of Zorglub.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Saturday April 20, 2013 @11:20PM (#43507655)

    1. Find a helicopter.
    2. Call it a car.
    3. Profit.

  • It's all in the signature, been there for a while too....
  • Posting this because too few people know about it.

    There is such a thing as a personal flying device, it has existed since the 70s. It's called the Williams X-Jet or WASP (Williams Aerial Systems Platform), and also known as the Flying Pulpit.

    Here's a video [youtube.com] and its Wikipedia page [wikipedia.org]. Other videos: one [youtube.com], two [youtube.com], three [youtube.com], four [youtube.com].

    It's basically a manually controlled 3D Segway in the way it operates. You just lean in the direction you want it to move and adjust the power output. There's a separate control for yaw (turni

    • by nukenerd (172703)

      There is such a thing as a personal flying device, it has existed since the 70s. It's called the Williams X-Jet or WASP
      .........
      I won't go into a political tangent, but you've got to ask yourself why it's not being sold to the public..

      I love these conspiracy theories ! Unless you are extremely rich yourself you are never going to have one of these, so why get so hot under the collar about it ? I don't know where to start with the problems this WASP raises. Here are some :-

      1) Using a jet engine's thrust for all your lift (as opposed to wings or a rotor) is horribly inefficient. What mileage did this thing get, and what range?

      2) There is no escape from engine failure or even slight malfunction. Leading to :

      3) As TFA talks abo

  • Great! A video of a flying car! But nooooo.... "Unfortunately, this UMG-music-content is not available in Germany because GEMA has not granted the respective music publishing rights."

    FUCK YOU GEMA! FUCK YOU ALL TO HELL!

  • IMHO, this illustrates what's wrong with American companies on several levels. One: Lots of Asian companies allow their engineers full access to the resources of the company to do proof-of-concept competitions. In general, American companies don't. Two: Lots of Asian companies actually make product. Too many American companies are focused on selling services.

    • FWIW, the design limitations on a car (has to be able to handle collisions well, needs to be compact to fit the road, needs to handle ground drag well, visual range appropriate for a ground vehicle) and an aircraft (has to be lightweight, visual ability for 3-D awareness, needs to handle front drag well) conflict so badly as to make a flying car horrible at both jobs.

      Which, in turn, means that the engineers forgot to do the most basic engineering: examination of the performance requirements and envelope.

      So

      • The intent of the competition is to turn ideas into working models, not actual product. The goal being to allow the designers and engineers some freedom from the day-to-day grind. Maybe once in a while something they come up with has potential. And certainly they all learn a lot during the process which is useful when working on real product. My point is that most American companies don't encourage this. 3M is one exception and they have incorporated technical "screwing around" into their business mode

        • by MickLinux (579158)

          I suggest you read The Tipping Point. There is more to 3M than allowing their engineers to play games.

  • I have rarely seen camera and editing work that was this bad. Someone got carried away with a new editing software package or something. Besides the ideas being nothing truly special or new (albeit fun to watch them having fun), the continual quick cuts - too fast to get a good look at anything - just gave me a headache. C'mon Hyundai, you're releasing THIS as something you are proud of?
  • Americans - their idea of the future is the 1950's, only with smartphones. Like grandpas wearing their fedoras and suit-n-tie, they want to keep on looking like they did when they were young and on top of the world. Cars and freeways, only with faster cars that don't look too silly, that is, that look like something that they grew up with.

    A multi-rotor platform, with a little work, *is* a flying car. A flying car will not look like a flying Delorean. It will look like what a flying car will look like. And t

  • Hyundai. :P

  • Guess Hyundai hasn't heard of the Moller flying car:
    http://youtu.be/rgjug_0OAF0 [youtu.be] youtube video.

    http://moller.com/dev/ [moller.com] company website.

    still in R&D but getting closer.

Thufir's a Harkonnen now.

Working...