'It Felt Like Star Wars': Flying Hoverbike Makes Its US Debut (kansascity.com) 117
"Whirring as it powered up, a hoverbike lifted directly into the air in Michigan, video shows."
That's the lead from one news report about a big debut at a U.S. auto show in Detroit: a gasoline-and-electric powered hoverbike (using a Kawasaki motor) created by Japanese manufacturing company AERWINS Technologies. They've already started selling them in Japan, and they're now also hoping to sell a smaller version in America in 2023. The hoverbike flies for 40 minutes, Reuters reports, and can reach speeds of up to 62 miles per hour (100 kph). (They added that the bike drew "perhaps inevitable comparisons to the speeder bikes of Star Wars.")
From McClatchy news services: Video from WXYZ's Facebook shows the hoverbike's flight. The test rider checks the vehicle then signals with a fist pump. The engines power up, whirring louder and louder until the bike lifts off. The hoverbike flies back and forth, slightly faster as the ride goes on, then lands smoothly to the ground, video shows. "I feel like I'm literally 15 years old and I just got out of Star Wars," the test rider told Reuters. "It's awesome! Of course, you have a little apprehension, but I was just so amped. I literally had goosebumps and feel like a little kid...."
The price of a hoverbike? Only $777,000 according to current estimates, though the company hopes to get the cost down to about $50,000, The Detroit News reported.
The Detroit News adds this about the company's founder/CEO: As a boy, Shuhei Komatsu loved Star Wars movies, especially the lightning-fast land speeders. So when he grew up, he decided to make one of his own, he said.
"I wanted to make something from the movie real," Komatsu said. "It's a land speeder for the Dark Side...."
Komatsu said his company will make its public offering of stock on the NASDAQ exchange in November.... He said he's hoping the U.S. government classifies its XTURISMO as a non-aircraft.... He said he thinks consumers will buy the machine for recreation, and governments will buy it for law enforcement and for inspecting infrastructure. "I hope that in the future, people will use it for every day," he said.
That's the lead from one news report about a big debut at a U.S. auto show in Detroit: a gasoline-and-electric powered hoverbike (using a Kawasaki motor) created by Japanese manufacturing company AERWINS Technologies. They've already started selling them in Japan, and they're now also hoping to sell a smaller version in America in 2023. The hoverbike flies for 40 minutes, Reuters reports, and can reach speeds of up to 62 miles per hour (100 kph). (They added that the bike drew "perhaps inevitable comparisons to the speeder bikes of Star Wars.")
From McClatchy news services: Video from WXYZ's Facebook shows the hoverbike's flight. The test rider checks the vehicle then signals with a fist pump. The engines power up, whirring louder and louder until the bike lifts off. The hoverbike flies back and forth, slightly faster as the ride goes on, then lands smoothly to the ground, video shows. "I feel like I'm literally 15 years old and I just got out of Star Wars," the test rider told Reuters. "It's awesome! Of course, you have a little apprehension, but I was just so amped. I literally had goosebumps and feel like a little kid...."
The price of a hoverbike? Only $777,000 according to current estimates, though the company hopes to get the cost down to about $50,000, The Detroit News reported.
The Detroit News adds this about the company's founder/CEO: As a boy, Shuhei Komatsu loved Star Wars movies, especially the lightning-fast land speeders. So when he grew up, he decided to make one of his own, he said.
"I wanted to make something from the movie real," Komatsu said. "It's a land speeder for the Dark Side...."
Komatsu said his company will make its public offering of stock on the NASDAQ exchange in November.... He said he's hoping the U.S. government classifies its XTURISMO as a non-aircraft.... He said he thinks consumers will buy the machine for recreation, and governments will buy it for law enforcement and for inspecting infrastructure. "I hope that in the future, people will use it for every day," he said.
What we know so far (Score:4, Insightful)
"It felt like star wars!"
"As a boy, the CEO"...
Standard tablet-pessimized website.
One frontal picture. Might be an oversized drone.
"Our mission" and other corporate bumf.
video inside walled garden.
Re:What we know so far (Score:4, Insightful)
On the video, it's literally a large quadcopter with bike-like structure in the middle for a guy to sit on. There are no visible controls for the guy on it, he seems to be just sitting on a mock-up with solid handlebars that is remotely controlled.
Srandard "invest in our great new idea, here's totally not a drone quadcopter with just enough power to hover with a bit of plastic and a single man sitting on it, it's totally the future!" project. Point, laugh, move on.
Re:What we know so far (Score:4, Informative)
I don't why this is so hard for people to grasp: To the vast majority of the public, a "flying" car does not have wings or rotors. Ditto a flying bike.
It hovers. The Back to the Future 2 DeLorean. The cars in Blade Runner and the Fifth Element.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
I don't like extremely loud bikes - they're a nuisance but I bet they do save some lives / prevent serious injuries, by preventing many of the accidents where inattentive drivers pull-out of a side road into the path of a motorbike.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Also, those skis under the thing are pretty ill designed, they should go all the way up to the frame so they can't catch on anything while flying low thus sending the driver flying into the air just by himself. They should be designed so they can only bump the vehicle up if they hit something or be retractable.
Re: (Score:2)
That was my take as well, I have flow quads for years, and maybe watched hundreds of hours of other people flying them, and it seemed like a large quadcopter being flown by someone with a remote. The guy on it seemed almost terrified, and it looked like he took great pains to *not* move during the flight, I am guessing for fear of changing the center of gravity!
Re: (Score:2)
Stabilization algorithms on quadcopters are quite sensitive to changes in center of gravity, and maintaining stability is actually quite a challenging task. This is why early quadcopter prototypes crashed as much as they did by flipping over. It only takes a minor uncompensated disturbance to flip this aircraft.
This is why payload is typically mounted below the quadcopter whenever possible, even to detriment of volume and aerodynamics. Just think of small quadcopters typically having those ridiculously over
Re: (Score:3)
Even if we just look at "human sized drones", there are much better ones existing. Like the Jetson One [youtube.com] or the Blackfly [youtube.com].
Re: (Score:2)
Did you somehow miss the video of the guy flying on it?
Not *fast*, so I hope you like your hoverbike races in extreme slow motion, but a decent demonstration.
Re: (Score:2)
The half page story has a link "Only have a minute? Listen instead" Sorry, I only had 5 seconds so I read it instead.
Re: (Score:1)
'Huh. Where's the thing then? Care to show us this cool thing?'
"You must be fun at parties"
What party?
Re: (Score:1)
That would be "investment" parties where one is supposed to pony up lots of dosh just so a boy-"CEO" can pursue his dreams (of being a "CEO" of an "Awesome" company) while burning up other people's money? The more outlandish the idea and the less chance of the idea working out, the better, of course.
And you think the problem is not even with the pointing out the holes in the presentation, but with the being of the person noticing? That's impressive, dear, but not in a good way.
At least the KLF burned the
Fuck star warz (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
You must be fun at parties
Not really, he's no good at chatting up and always getting rebuffed. As a consequence you can always find him in the kitchen at parties.
Yes, but... (Score:5, Interesting)
Safety not Regulation (Score:3)
In addition, if these ever do sell like existing motorbikes then
Re:Safety not Regulation (Score:4, Interesting)
I don't see regulation as necessarily being an issue: these are basically skirtless hovercraft, and hovercraft aren't regulated as aircraft. At worst, the regulators will say that they must be restricted to ground-effect "flight" and that post-purchase modification to get around that restriction means that you need to get it reregistered as an aircraft.
I also don't see why they would be likely to be as popular as motorbikes. The only advantage they seem to have is the novelty factor. A motorbike has better range and fuel economy, and is easier to ride, maintain, and find a parking space for. You can already ride a personal hovercraft at dedicated centres, but when was the last time you saw someone taking one down a public road?
Re: Safety not Regulation (Score:2)
You forgot that only a harley come sclose to being this loud too
This isnt something you go have a casual ride on. Couple will show up 100 plus acre estates and even them the neighbors will complain.
Re: Safety not Regulation (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
> only a harley come sclose to being this loud too
Maybe only Harleys come out that loud from the factory. But there are plenty of raging narcissistic "Look at ME!!!" assholes out there who drill out, or otherwise sabotage, their mufflers on non-Harley motorcycles to make them obnoxiously loud as well. That may not be the case nationwide, I guess. But where I live, the damned things are a blight.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I also don't see why they would be likely to be as popular as motorbikes.
Clearly not in their current form but if battery tech keeps on improving you can imagine that at some point they might since, if they ever got to having the same range and price, they avoid traffic, speed limits and you can pretty much park it anywhere because you do not have to follow roads.
Re: (Score:3)
and you can pretty much park it anywhere because you do not have to follow roads
This is the part that worries people. When a ground-based vehicle has some kind of failure of operation, it rolls to a stop on the side of a road. When a flying vehicle has some kind of failure of operation, it crashes into the solar panels on my roof. Or into a dry forest and starts a wildfire. Or into a school playground that otherwise has guard rails and protections from vehicles being there.
I don't want flying cars, because I see the inconsiderate and outright dangerous shit stupid people do when th
Re: (Score:2)
Well, I've maintained for years that it's far too easy to get and keep a driver's license in the first place. Compared to Finland or Germany, for example, we give them out like an entitlement. Regular re-testing of knowledge, skills, vision, hearing, and reaction times should be mandatory. Maybe adding in flying cars/bikes could be the impetus for reform of our far-to-lax standards; plus even more stringent standards for including a flight rating.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You are still forgetting about failure modes.
What happens when a poorly maintained flying vehicle has a problem? It stops flying, right on it's ballistic trajectory, complete with a free 9.8m/s of acceleration until you intersect with something else. Such as an occupied structure.
When a car or motorcycle have a critical failure of some kind, even with zero brakes, friction and gravity will eventually slow you to a gradual stop as long as you don't continue applying more energy from the engine. And you ca
Hovercraft? (Score:3)
Where do you get the idea that it's a hovercraft? I don't see any mention of ground-effect physics being involved, and the video shows it pretty far off the ground for a hovercraft that size.
Looks to me like a passenger quad-copter, which means the only upper limit on altitude is the reduced lift as air pressure drops. I suspect they'll try hard to keep the weight low enough to sell it as an unlicensed aircraft, meaning you can fly it wherever you want, restricted airspace notwithstanding.
Re: (Score:2)
Okay, weight and power-off stall speed seem like they'd completely scuttle that idea. The rest though seem like an easy win.
What else could it possibly be used for other than recreational riding? You can't very well ride it to work (no approved landing zones, plus other urban flight restrictions, in addition to those you mention)
Offhand, (a), (b), and (c) seem like easy wins, and (d) doesn't apply. (2) is another easy win - not having a fuel tank is unquestionably less than 5 gallons (regulations are goi
Re: Safety not Regulation (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
require too much training to fly
In the US, you can get your certificate with as few as 35 hours total time. In what universe is that "too much training?"
Re: (Score:2)
In the US, you can get your certificate with as few as 35 hours total time. In what universe is that "too much training?"
In the universe where social media and youtube have eroded all patience and obliterated attention spans.
Re: (Score:2)
... which is about 35 hours more training than your average driver has been in since high school, unless compelled to by a judge.
Re: (Score:2)
In addition, if these ever do sell like existing motorbikes then we'll need to find a way to make them crash safely.
Oh, you mean like how we made motorcycles safe to crash? Good thing we got that solved.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Safety not Regulation (Score:2)
Fatalities from motorcycle crashes are very rare.
Oh, did you mean for the motorcycle rider?
Re: (Score:2)
Oh, you mean like how we made motorcycles safe to crash?
Yes, but motorbikes don't immediately crash every time there is a technical problem and they usually slow down due to friction before they hit anything if something does go wrong instead of picking up speed due to falling. There is a reason why even a small plane crash can do a lot more damage than a car crash.
Re: (Score:2)
When someone crashes a motorcycle, they are usually only putting themselves at risk unless riding into pedestrians.
Aircraft are a completely different kettle of fish. Currently, I'm as close to zero risk of having a motorcycle hit the roof of my house in a twisted flaming wreck that burns my house down as one can reasonably get. Can you say that about this thing?
Have you even seen the average driver on the road? Now take them and put them at the controls of a light aircraft and see what you get. Because
Re: (Score:2)
While commercial aircraft are incredibly safe
If you mean airliners, yes, but general aviation is not incredibly safe. "If the average speed of car travel is 50 miles per hour, those 1.7 deaths occur in 2 million hours of driving. This makes general aviation, with 16 deaths per 1 million hours, roughly 20 times as dangerous per hour than driving." And I would say that is a better comparison to this vehicle than a 737 operated by United Airlines. I think your estimate of crashes might be low, but obviously there isn't nearly enough information.
https: [greenspun.com]
Re: (Score:2)
And it gets much worse for licensed Experimental aircraft
Just the name sounds like a fiery crash waiting to happen.
Re: (Score:3)
You are describing 1st World problems.
I am currently living in Quezon City, Philippines where traffic crawls at 5 mph, and nobody gives a crap about regulations concerning airspace or anything else.
Flying bikes will sell like hotcakes here.
Re: (Score:3)
Flying bikes will sell like hotcakes here.
That will certainly solve traffic and overcrowding problems.
Re: (Score:2)
You are describing 1st World problems.
I am currently living in Quezon City, Philippines... Flying bikes will sell like hotcakes here.
I assume the disposable income there is too low, and the sound/dust clouds created by this silly thing would be a nuisance.
Re: (Score:2)
I assume the disposable income there is too low
Most people here ride bikes or motorcycles, but there are also plenty of cars on the road ... even though walking is often faster.
TFA says the flying bike will cost $50k when it is mass produced. If they can cut the cost to half that, it's competitive with cars.
and the sound/dust clouds created by this silly thing would be a nuisance.
Compared to the dust, smog, and noise there is now, no one will notice.
Re: (Score:2)
Compared to the dust, smog, and noise there is now, no one will notice.
Heh, I didn't think about that. Good point.
Re: (Score:2)
>TFA says the flying bike will cost $50k when it is mass produced. If they can cut the cost to half that, it's competitive with cars.
So, I think "mass produced" already means that it is as cheap as it's going to get. I doubt that they will get another 50% reduction from that. In fact, I suspect that the $50K price when "mass produced" will end up being on the low end, and it certainly won't go down to $25K.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
A man sized quadcopter with a plastic bike mock up mounted in the middle that has no controls on board and is remote controlled for a few minutes of flight is... "looking good"?
Re:Yes, but... (Score:4, Funny)
A man sized quadcopter with a plastic bike mock up mounted in the middle that has no controls on board and is remote controlled for a few minutes of flight is... "looking good"?
Hey, some guys like women with fake boobs and lip injections. "Looking good" is very subjective.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
It looks small enough that its weight might well put it in unlicensed aircraft territory - I want to say the limit is something like 1500-2000lbs.
There's a whole lot of gliders, ultralights, paragliders, etc. that are allowed to fly without any licensing - I don't see how this would be any worse.
Re: (Score:2)
Those at least have some kind of wing. If you lose power, there might be some possibility of mitigating the crash. With this hoverbike if something goes wrong it just drops like a rock. Unless there's some autorotate possibility, but I've never heard of that for a quadcopter. It could be equipped with a parachute, but that would only work above a certain altitude and of course has weight and cost issues.
Re: (Score:2)
By "worse" did you mean more difficult to fit into regulations?
Re: (Score:2)
Absolutely. It's clearly a death trap, but the regulations allow for the legal operation of a wide variety of flying deathtraps.
Though as was pointed out the weight and glide characteristics almost certainly kick it firmly out of ultralight territory, seems I was thinking of something else... maybe DIY kit-plane limits?
As nice as they seem.... (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:As nice as they seem.... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:As nice as they seem.... (Score:4, Informative)
Apart from that, an engine failure is immediately fatal.
Brushless DC motors are extremely reliable.
Re: (Score:2)
a gasoline-and-electric powered hoverbike
That might be true, but the gasoline part is still sensitive to irregularities in the fuel. I hope there is a battery in between to store enough power for the landing.
Re: (Score:2)
How long are these commercial quadcopters rated for again? A few hundred hours tops before total overhaul?
Just because brushless DC motors are reliable doesn't mean that system that uses them is.
Re: (Score:2)
It is theoretically possible to land a quadcopter on three engines, if they are reversible. If you are using a system which only allows you to power the motors in one direction then you're in big trouble. Or of course you could have rotors with variable pitch, but it's a lot less complex to be able to run the motors in either direction — it's a software change.
I don't want a ride in/on any multicopter craft that doesn't have redundant props/motors.
Re: (Score:2)
Not in any normal use, because unexpected single engine failure would nearly instantly send the quadcopter into a high speed spin around the axis formed by the two remaining opposing rotors. By the time you can stop the propeller and reverse it, the thing is already out of control. Variable pitch propellers would have much better response time, but still likely far too slow.
Re: As nice as they seem.... (Score:2)
Add the constant wail of police and ambulance sirens and youâ(TM)ve got a soundtrack nobody would want to hear
How about Colin Furze's one 6 years ago... (Score:5, Informative)
https://youtu.be/soxxPyaAT1k [youtu.be]
Re: (Score:3)
Or the one from the 1950s [youtube.com].
Same old ducted-fan novelties. (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
If they aren't full of shirt (and that's definitely a possibility), it has a 40 minute endurance which is pretty reasonable and would give you a useful range. With modern electronic controls stability shouldn't be a problem.
Here's a non-facebook video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
It's not particularly interesting or impressive, it takes off and hovers for a bit. That's a good indication it does actually work, but if it can actually do everything they're claiming, that's pretty questionable.
Re: (Score:2)
The thing demonstrated is a plastic bike body mockup with no controls on board mounted on a typical quadcopter drone with enough power to lift the mockup and guy sitting on it giving thumbs up while in ground effect.
Re: (Score:3)
Ground effect flight requires a wing like shape and forward motion. Unless you just mean ground effect type of altitude.
Re: (Score:3)
Before we continue on this odd tangent, do you understand that quad-copters are a type of rotary wing aircraft?
Wings in rotary wing aircraft get forward motion from rotation. This is why rotary wing aircraft is used in applications that require hovering and very slow flight where forward motion would be insufficient to not stall the wings in fixed wing aircraft.
Re: (Score:1)
How are you supposed to attack a rebelbase with that? The ewoks can hear it 10 miles away and have way much time to prepare logs and coconuts
I'm a pilot (Score:3)
Jetson 1 far more impressive (Score:3, Funny)
no progress (Score:3)
People have been building prototypes like this for at least a decade, maybe two.
I still have to see one of them flying at speed over some considerable distance, let's say at least a couple kilometers. Instead, nobody seems to have managed to get them out of the demo stage.
Maybe, you know, car-sized aircraft just aren't as good an idea as they sound at first?
Prototypes been around for years (Score:2)
Airshow next (Score:3)
not proof of concept flights
This Bi-plane of hoverbikes will have plenty of imitators and stiff competitors when license and registration become formalized.
Re: (Score:2)
not proof of concept flights
This Bi-plane of hoverbikes will have plenty of imitators and stiff competitors when license and registration become formalized.
I think the best niche for them now is airshow novelty and maybe some kind of airshow race series.
But I don't see any other practical use for now.
Though in a few decades I could imagine them being useful as a short distance transport for people working in the wilderness, basically a light weight short-range helicopter... but that's a loooong way off.
Let me understand this (Score:4, Insightful)
The vast majority of people are incapable of safely driving a vehicle with four wheels on the ground at all times through well marked roads, but now you expect these same people to be able to pilot what is in essence a flying motorcycle without any traffic lanes?
Finally... (Score:2)
Waste of Energy (Score:2, Interesting)
Some (not enough) are concerned by the physical limits of the planet resources.
Some others prefer wasting energy to make something fly to move ONE AND ONLY ONE individual.
End of human race is close and that's a good thing. Let's just hope that we won't take with us what remain of the planet, and what's living on it.
Re: (Score:2)
End of human race is close and that's a good thing. Let's just hope that we won't take with us what remain of the planet, and what's living on it.
What exactly do you believe will end the human race? Short of a dinosaur-killing asteroid, there is nothing remotely devastating enough around to wipe out the entire species.
Also curious how every human dying would be a "good thing". Does a planet devoid of intelligent life; a planet that will, itself, eventually die, serve any purpose? The light of consciousness of the human race is the unique and important result of Earth. Preserving that is what we should all hope and strive for.
Re: (Score:2)
Humans will end human race.
It will be a good thing for everything else.
Please define "intelligent life" and explain how it applies to human race, when so many of its actions are self destructive.
By the way, limiting the scope to what happens in companies or with politics will show that what we may call intelligence is not what drives the world : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]. More often incompetence and/or greed.
Re: (Score:2)
Humans are flawed, just like every other life form on the planet. The only reason we are so destructive is that we are so successful, we haven't learned how do deal with that success, no species has. If we fail all that will happen the next insanely successful species will dominate and ruin the planet. We have to try our best not just go oh well we are bad, we should die, that's what evolution will do for us we don't need to help by giving up. As I see it the purpose of life is to spread, and currently we a
Meh (Score:5, Insightful)
As an air transport, it is slow and dangerous (power fails and you are toast).
As a ground transport it is too slow. And deafen everyone around you before-hand with noise, blind everyone with dust and debris.
Either way, range is horrible. No wheels, so can't be moved if no power.
Conclusion: very expensise toy.
Re: (Score:2)
Cue the iron man 2 "Hammer" video
The video is proof of concept (Score:2)
He had the hoverbike painted in olive drab; hints at who might be his first customer. Now if he wore the hunterâ(TM)s camouflage colors, the Star Wars reference would be complete
Calling them speeders would be (Score:2)
Giving the wrong impression but the hover would be necessary to hop over the roadwork/construction zones/accident scene and so on
Only three requirements for this to succeed... (Score:1)
Tech moves slowly (Score:2)
In 1955, you had to stand.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Funny how... (Score:2)
Proof of concept? Absolutely not (Score:2)
I have seen, easily, a half dozen "quadcopter lifts man" videos over the past 20 years, most of which are markedly better than this.
There is nothing remarkable, new, or different about this video.
I mean... in terms of viability: there are already jetpacks and hoverboards capable of markedly more than this.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gtvCnZqZnxc
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WQzLrvz4DKQ
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nj-Iwv5NJKg
Always leaves out the important stuff (Score:2)
1) Height. Can this go to 10,000 ft above the ground? Can it get that high but is only legally allowed to travel under 100 ft off the ground?
2) Skill. Pilot license needed? If you buy this, can you legally fly it into NYC? What kind of pilot licesne do you need? How much training does it take to use?
3) Maintenance. How many hours of flight do you get before you need to do tear the whole thing down and rebuild it. For a helicopter to legally fly, it must be visually inspected every day (Walk around and
What is old is new again (Score:2)
The price of a hoverbike? (Score:2)
Where by ``people'' he means billionaires. What other people are going to have $50K laying around for a toy? Even $5K is a huge stretch. Call us back when it's only $500.
Re: (Score:2)
``I hope that in the future, people will use it for every day''
Where by ``people'' he means billionaires. What other people are going to have $50K laying around for a toy? Even $5K is a huge stretch. Call us back when it's only $500.
$5K? Apparently you haven't looked at motorcycle prices [rumbleon.com] recently.
Bigger problems... (Score:2)
$50K - how long before it breaks... (Score:2)
Top Slashdot comments from Wright Bro First Flight (Score:3)
The top comments if Slashdot was around during the Wright Brothers first flight:
* It can only carry a single person. How useless!
* That's way too dangerous. I would rather just walk.
* Think of how horrible this will be for our climate!
* Others have already done something similar. Nothing impressive here.
* These will be way too expensive to produce. It will never work.