Uber's 'Elevate' Project Aims To Bring Flying Electric Cars To Cities By 2026 (businessinsider.com) 107
Uber has revealed a new project through which it aims to bring flying cars to commuters by 2026. The company published a white paper today outlining its plans for Uber Elevate, a network of on-demand electric aircraft. Business Insider adds: Known as VTOL aircraft -- short for Vertical Take-Off and Landing -- the aircraft would be used to shorten commute times in busy cities, turning a two-hour drive into a 15-minute trip. According to a piece out from Wired on the new plans, Uber doesn't plan to build the aircraft themselves. The ride-hailing company will bring together private companies and the government to deal with the larger issues of making this project a reality, Wired reports. The vehicles would be able to travel at about 150 mph for up to 100 miles and carry multiple people, including a pilot, according to Wired.
Re: (Score:3)
It might be simpler to get them flying autonomously than it is to get them driving autonomously.
Re: (Score:2)
It might be simpler to get them flying autonomously than it is to get them driving autonomously.
Maybe. But the initial plan is for them to be human piloted ("The vehicles would be able to travel at about 150 mph for up to 100 miles and carry multiple people, including a pilot, according to Wired"). TFA says, "Eventually, the planes will be self-flying." I interpret "eventually" to mean, "perhaps someday".
faa says they can't be a private pilot and cost of (Score:4, Insightful)
faa says they can't be a private pilot and cost of all of the safety stuff add's up fast.
Re: (Score:2)
Uber's whole business plan is based on people using ther own capital (ie. car) to drive customers from point A to point B for a low fee of which Ubse gets a cut without having to spend anything on maintenance and repair, - without Uber having to spend capital on buying, or committing to fixed cost leasing of vehicles.
Unless everyone starts buying flying cars, they will have to majorly restructure their business. Same goes for them having fleets of self driving cars. They lose their greatest business advan
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
That's right. Because there's nothing above you that might move down to avoid something and nothing below you that might move up to avoid something. Like, ever.
Who are they talking to? (Score:2)
Day traders? Or are they diversifying and this is their new division to provide content to click bait sites such as ./ ?
"bring together private companies and the government to deal with the larger issues"
On second thought, maybe uber is laying the groundwork to run for office in 2020.
Re: (Score:2)
Sub-orbital? With the way uber has been BSing lately, they'll announce a manned faster than light colony transport to the Andromeda galaxy.
Money for nothin'... (Score:4, Insightful)
The ride-hailing company will bring together private companies and the government to deal with the larger issues of making this project a reality
"We don't actually want to do any of the work. You guys handle that. We just want the profits."
Re: (Score:3)
Well Uber serves a few important tasks: they make sure that quality is okay. Obviously its not perfect, but really bad offenders can't hide, but will be baned quickly. Compare that to taxis, where in some cities you couldn't be sure whether you'd be robbed or raped when taking a ride. Uber solves this problem, at least mostly.
Yes, they are the evil middlemen, but they aren't much different from McDonalds or other franchise model companies. Even CocaCola does this:
http://www.coca-colacompany.co... [coca-colacompany.com]
So if many
Re: Money for nothin'... (Score:1, Interesting)
Complete and utter cobblers. In most cities, Uber drivers are vetted far, far less thoroughly than proper taxi drivers, and your chances of being raped, robbed or swindled by one are higher, not lower.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
[citation needed] on the both of you.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Compare that to taxis, where in some cities you couldn't be sure whether you'd be robbed or raped when taking a ride. Uber solves this problem, at least mostly.
Is there a place on the app for noting that you got raped or robbed, or do you just leave a comment and rating?
Got robbed: 1 star
Re:Money for nothin'... (Score:5, Interesting)
What they really want to do is to do to Airtraffic what they did to Taxi services.
Uber is a taxi service that doesn't have to abide by the same laws and regulations that other taxi services do. By not having to follow rules and regulations (By claiming to be ride share).
They want to provide air-traffic service (maybe intra city at first but willing to bet this becomes inter city) without having any of the airtraffic regulations. I bet this has very little to do with "flying cars" and more to do with circumventing laws to get it done cheaper.
Re:Money for nothin'... (Score:5, Insightful)
Hard to see this working at all. Instead of hundreds of different cities with varying rules about who can drive on their roads and 50 states with similarly varying rules you have one Federal entity - the FAA which strictly regulates air traffic from the top of your lawn to the Karmin line. They are not going to be bluffed into changing rules for commercial human air traffic because a bunch of avaricious Millennials want to hone in on the action.
You want to start an airline, fine. Go ahead. Be prepared. It's not all that easy.
Especially when you don't even have the aircraft design.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Well, in addition to flying, I hope they are also fully autonomous. Only then will I finally know what it was like to live in London in the mid '40s when Germany was lobbing the V2s in.
Re: (Score:2)
You can argue whether or not Uber is a "taxi" and thus subject to taxi regulations but you can't really argue that a flying car isn't an aircraft. And the FAA regulates _all_ air traffic from toy drones right up to giant commercial jet liners and everything in between.
That would be more like if Uber claimed their drivers weren't subject to normal road laws like traffic signs. The taxi thing would be more like if Southwest Airlines started complaining about the new service, which is unlikely as I doubt any
FINALLY (Score:1)
FINALLY we get our flying cars.
Good thing it's only 10 years out
Re: (Score:3)
Can't wait for one to break down and smash through my roof.
Everyone seems to forget that the predominant failure mode of a car in motion is that it gently rolls to a stop on the side of the road. The predominant failure mode of a flying car in flight is far worse.
Re:FINALLY (Score:5, Informative)
Depends on the technology. The failure mode for a lot of aircraft is that they simply glide to the ground. Even helicopters / autogyros do something similar - there's still a lot of momentum in the rotors and you sycamore down to the ground. It's not like the antigravity suddenly fails and you're back to having weight again.
When I was learning to fly, engine failure was one of the things that I had to practice a lot. Engine failure immediately after takeoff is potentially dangerous, because you don't have an engine and you don't have enough speed or altitude to go very far. You typically have to land in a field (or, if you don't want to damage your aircraft in a training exercise, you throttle the engine back and feather the prop, then line up your emergency landing and turn the engine back to maximum late in the approach so that you stay in the air).
Re: (Score:2)
How many engine failures did you practice over a city center?
Re: (Score:1)
Ya. I remember all those episodes of MAYDAY about the various aircraft that gently sycamore'd to the ground and everybody had ice cream, happily provided by the home owners whose yards they landed in. Everyone is always so happy to make new friends. Good stuff.
Oh wait... that was my last LSD trip.
Re: (Score:2)
Good thing it's only 10 years out
for the past 60 years.
boggled. (Score:1)
Wow. Flying cars, eh? Is there *anything* that Uber can't do? /s
In other words, helicopters. (Score:2)
In other words, helicopters run as taxis.
Re: (Score:2)
They already tried that. The FAA said "um, fuck no". Or rather, "we have real rules on helicopter services, follow them or shut down."
Worse than a bus (Score:5, Interesting)
It will leave from a terminal, not from where you are. It will arrive at a terminal, not your destination. It will go on a schedule, not when you're ready. It will be a lot more expensive than a bus ticket. It won't work in bad weather. There will be TSA (unless we come to our senses before 2026).
It's not an inherently bad idea, but who is it for? Who'll be willing to pay the fare? Who has a 2 hour commute?
Are they going to swap out the battery with a charged one for the return trip? And why are they saying it will be quiet? Are helicopters loud because of combustion, or because the blades disturb the air?
Re: (Score:2)
There will be TSA (unless we come to our senses before 2026).
Private aircraft charters don't deal with TSA; this probably wouldn't either. At least, one would hope not. They don't mess with buses or commuter trains.
It's not an inherently bad idea, but who is it for? Who'll be willing to pay the fare? Who has a 2 hour commute?
I guess you're not familiar with I405 in southern California. Anyone who lives in the San Fernando Valley and works south of LAX is very familiar with the concept of a 2 hour one-way daily commute. I make fairly frequent trips to Westwood; it's never less than an hour and a half. As for who'll be willing to pay the fare... I've observed many people violate the HOV lane rules to shave 10 minutes off their drive time at the risk of a ~$300 fine; I'm guessing there are enough potential users to make the business work.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
They don't mess with buses or commuter trains.
Yes, they do. [nytimes.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Terminal kills it. Getting a VTOL to land in my yard and fly me NYC for that odd trip and save hours of driving (in traffic) or 2.5 on the train could make sense for that odd trip. That is about a 20-30 minute trip at those speeds if it's similar cost to the limo company and takes a couple hours off the travel time.
The funny part is 150mph is the upgraded commuter trains we were supposed to get 20 years ago but the nimbly's fraught tooth and nail, so were stuck with 60mph you can drive there faster witho
Re: (Score:1)
The White House constituencies in the Middle East like us flying at these speeds by wire.
Uber Teleportation (Score:5, Insightful)
They should announce that too since it has about the same percent of it happening in 10 years.
Re: (Score:1)
They should announce that too since it has about the same percent of it happening in 10 years.
Either has a better chance than Uber surviving through 2026.
That's called a "helicopter" (Score:4, Interesting)
"Vertical Take-off and Landing" (VTOL) vehicle is marketing bullshit for helicopter. Why don't they try working with existing technology? Or at least show us a mass-producible electric-powered helicopter before telling us about your ride-sharing services with one. Seems like putting the cart before the horse. One step at a time there Uber, but thanks for the PR update.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Oh dang, I was hoping for Harrier jet pickups...
Good point! Who knows what Uber is thinking... Uber doesn't even know what Uber is thinking, or they would asking other private companies and the government to figure out flying electric ride-sharing cars for them!
Re: (Score:2)
...or they would asking..." ...or they WOULD NOT be asking... darn typo...
Re: (Score:2)
Wouldn't that be a "Carrier" jet?
Re: (Score:2)
Ornithopters FTW!
(Yeah, yeah, I know--not really VSTOL, I just think they're cool.)
Re: (Score:2)
"Vertical Take-off and Landing" (VTOL) vehicle is marketing bullshit for helicopter.
If the rotors turn forward and allow regular flight like an airplane after liftoff, then it's a VTOL - regular wings have efficiency and other advantages over helicopters which make this desirable.
Re: (Score:2)
If the rotors turn forward and allow regular flight like an airplane after liftoff, then it's a VTOL - regular wings have efficiency and other advantages over helicopters which make this desirable.
Fair enough... I don't like clicking on a Business Insider links so I did not RTA, but I hope it included that detail for anyone, like me, not familiar with the VTOL term.
Re: (Score:2)
You don't know what the term means yet you called it marketing bullshit....
I deserve that... but when a company puts out a press release about an unspecified product they aren't even making, what do you call that?
Re: (Score:2)
"Vertical Take-off and Landing" (VTOL) vehicle is marketing bullshit for helicopter...
Regardless of what Uber markets, there is no "bullshit" surrounding the various types of aircraft that actually utilize VTOL technology that are NOT helicopters.
Haha! (Score:1)
"Hey, let's make an outrageous press release!" (Score:2)
Pay attention to meeeeeeeeeeeeeee!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
That's what this sounds like. No basis in reality, just some outrageous, fantastic press release to get some free advertising for Uber. *Ignore*
Flying Uber (Score:2)
Whereas I'm not 100% against flying cars. I'm 100% against Uber being the ones to deliver them.
A few flying cars in the sky might not be a major problem. When you get hundreds of them in a single city, that's when it starts getting a mess. Hundreds of one ton combustible devices flying over my head at the same time... Needs a lot of thought on safety.
Re: (Score:1)
Consider the government sanctioned Committee on Public Safety during the French Revolution.
They didn't prevent a whole lot of accidents, but they did lop all the heads off during that tumultuous time period.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, we'll never beat gravity!
Aeroplanes,
Helicopters,
Zeppelin,
Blimps,
Hot Air Balloons,
Rockets,
Shuttles,
jet packs
None of the above exist.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Antigrav technology would be cool. I don't think we're near any breakthroughs with that yet sadly.
Oh, and I forgot:
Maglev.
10 years away (Score:4, Funny)
Flying cars, only ten years away since 1930.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, we've had flying cars for a couple decades now. We just haven't had any practical flying cars.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, yes, those too... since the 50's- although the early ones were notoriously crap (there again so are the modern ones).
There's also been flying cars for a few decades now, at least in concept form, not available to public... of course the main problem is, all the concepts had to be tethered to the ground to prevent them crashing... not very practical at all.
Electric VTOL aircraft? (Score:2)
Does this plan involve inventing Mr. Fusion reactors?
What known power source exists capable of running an electric VTOL aircraft? The only thing I can think of is gas turbine driving a generator, at which point it's not really electric and efficiency wise you might as well just use that as shaft power. Certainly no current battery technology is capable of the power density required to drive a VTOL aircraft.
Re:Electric VTOL aircraft? or Mr Fusion? (Score:1)
We do actually have small usable fusion reactors, they were developed at the UW. And then started military use.
What?
You didn't think we'd license it to you, did you?
They're really expensive, and our idea of small is the size of a walk-in closet, or a mudroom. But they're much smaller than fission reactors.
Re: (Score:2)
You just wait until it hits 88mph...
Someone is confused (Score:4, Interesting)
Obviously the person who thought up this idea has no idea how traffic in cities work, let alone the other issue of how to navigate between tall, narrowly-spaced buildings.
And no, the chase scene in Phantom Menace or the sky paths of Bladerunner are not how it's done.
pipedream (Score:2)
FAA regulations alone is enough to ensure this won't happen.
Obligatory XKCD... (Score:4, Interesting)
Too many challenges (Score:3)
CEO's nowadays always make it sound like their visions are brand new, that no one's ever tried to invent this stuff before. But c'mon, if the VTOL car was even a remote possibility, it already would have been invented. But there's already a rich history [popularmechanics.com] of people who have tried, and either failed in inventing it, or succeeded but failed with commercializing it, both fixed-wing car varieties and VTOL varieties.
There's too many challenges:
1) Safety -- If a car breaks down / runs out of fuel while in use, it rolls to a stop. If a flying object breaks down / runs out of fuel in use, it crashes.
2) Price -- To reduce risk associated with problem #1, you can't cut corners or make things cheaply.
3) Lack of Infrastructure -- Cars, airplanes, and helicopters all have governed mediums by which and through which they can travel. A flying car does not. Nor will it fit perfectly within any of the existing mediums reserved for the existing vehicles.
4) Fuel consumption -- VTOL consumes a considerable amount of fuel for takeoff and landing.
5) Inefficiency with Tilt-Rotors -- Most current engineered VTOL aircraft use tilt-rotor systems (like the V22 Osprey [wikipedia.org]. They work for VTOL, but inefficiently, as explained here [krossblade.com], and their nature limits where they can take off and land.
Some engineers, like the makers of the Elytron [elytron.aero], have come up with some neat hybrid fixed-wing/rotor solutions, but these aren't solutions that can be commercialized easily into flying cars like suggested in this article.
Personally, I'm getting pretty tired of "Backseat Visionaries" who tell everyone what the future is supposed to look like but don't do their part in driving us there.
Re: (Score:2)
1) Safety may never reach that of an automobile- but most designs don't crash if the engine dies or they run out of fuel, most current designs of aircraft/car hybrids will glide to safety.
2) Supercars find a niche market selling cars for hundreds of thousands of dollars.
3) The whole sky is the infrastructure
4) Presumably run on some magic future-batteries... they are improving rapidly.
5) Perhaps.
I think the main reason this idea won't *ahem* take-off any time soon is more down to logistics. Having a few fl
Re: (Score:2)
3) The whole sky is the infrastructure
True. With them being autonomous, I'm not too worried about them running into each other up there. Don't necessarily need ATC...
But they have to land somewhere. Unless you're figuring that the pretty girl in the tight dress and heels or the guy in a nice suit and oxfords is going to rappel out?
LA used to have a rule about having to have a helicopter pad on the roof of tall buildings so that, in the event of a fire, people could be evacuated from the roof. Of course, it (a) didn't really work too well wh
Re: (Score:2)
1) Safety -- If a car breaks down / runs out of fuel while in use, it rolls to a stop. If a flying object breaks down / runs out of fuel in use, it crashes.
Uh, runs out of fuel? I don't know how they'll fuel these things, but that's quite easily dealt with for a taxi service. Also, since we're talking about an "autonomous vehicle", it'll go get gas when it needs to. It's not like I have to remember to pull into the local Exxon station...
Also, we have helicopters flying around. While they do crash on occasion, it's not what I would call a common occurrence. And you can make the same complaint with airplanes--yet lots of people still prefer flying over driv
Re: (Score:2)
6) Noise. It will still be a problem when the rest are solved.
Upcoming funding-round vapourware alert!!! (Score:1)
Disclaimer: tldr
These are great for dronejackings! (Score:1)
Think about it. Rich flyers in Uber flyers, and an armed drone intercepts and requires they give up all their bitcoins or it explodes!
Ain't it wonderful!
Re: (Score:2)
That would be the Tesla Model NCC1701.
Just wait for that flying jalopy to fall a part an (Score:2)
Just wait for that flying jalopy to fall a part and crash with uber point to all kinds of fine print to get out of paying for the mess.
No, god, please no... (Score:3)
I've got enough helicopters flying over my house at all hours of the day and night. I don't need another bunch of entitled rich bastards doing it because it's gotten easier.
I really wish that the FAA didn't have the duties to both regulate air traffic, and promote air traffic. The second duty tends to have a lot of impact on the first to the detriment of anyone on the ground (to whom they have no duty).
Yeah, sure (Score:5, Informative)
> The vehicles would be able to travel at about 150 mph for up to 100 miles
Cruising at 150 mph is pretty energy expensive, even the tiny Moony M20 series needed the better part of its 200 hp to maintain a 150 mph cruise and most other aircraft using the same engine, say the Piper Arrow or (Rockwell) Commander 112 are generally closer to 120 mph cruise and maybe 140 full-throttle.
So if you convert that to electrical terms, 200 hp is 150 kW. To run that for 45 minutes (takeoff, cruise, land) you need 112.5 kW of battery, and with reserves and stores, at least 150 kW. The Tesla 85 kWh pack is 544 kg, so we're looking at something on the order of 960 kg, or a bit over a ton just for the battery. For comparison, a fully loaded Piper Arrow with four passengers, baggage and a load of fuel is 2,500 lbs.
Now that's assuming you're flying straight and level using wings, the efficient way to fly. This claims to be VTOL, which adds A HUGE AMOUNT.
So, yeah, I'll believe it when I see it.
I saw one (Score:2)
I saw a prototype yesterday, it's shaped like a pig, the techs even called it piggy, but unfortunately it didn't fly that day.
Nor any other day.