If I Had About $20,000, I Might Try to Build a Prototype

[redneckgaijin]

The past few months, I've heard a lot- repeatedly- about how higher gas prices will force people to carpool.

No. It won't.

The reason is simple: convenience. Carpooling not only makes you dependent upon whoever's driving that day, but it inconveniences everyone involved. They can't do anything, anything at all, before work until they arrive or after work until they get home. The driver has to bounce from one meeting point to another, usually miles off their personal best-travel plan. Passengers have to wait an unknown amount of time for their ride to arrive, and pray their driver doesn't make them late. For these reasons- plus the simple fact that most people really cannot stand their coworkers and certainly don't want to be in the same car with them- most people will be hostile to carpooling until they absolutely, positively cannot drive themselves.

So why don't we approach things from the other angle? Instead of carpooling, let's make people-pods- a vehicle just large enough for two people, one behind the other, or one person plus a small cargo, say groceries. Mount the engines in the rear- make it a hybrid, using a small four-stroke gas engine for a generator to power electric motors rated for a max speed of 70 MPH.

The resulting vehicle would be slightly more than half the width, about two-thirds the length (or less), and less than one-quarter the weight of a standard car. With much, MUCH less mass to push, the vehicle would be much more fuel-efficient even if it ran as a straight gas-burner. With less materials and fewer individual parts, it'd be cheaper to assemble and sell- at a guess comparable to a high-end deluxe motorcycle. Definitely under $10,000, possibly as cheap as $5,000. Yet it would still provide the basic needs for a commuter- a flexible personal transport.

So... what's wrong with this idea?

Comments

[dvandom.livejournal.com]

While side by side instead of in-line, the SmartCar in Europe pretty much does what you propose. They keep trying to get market penetration here, it might even happen before 2010.

[redneckgaijin.livejournal.com]

I favor in-line because it saves more material and, I suspect at least, decreases wind resistance.

[wildcard9.livejournal.com]

Okay, since you asked, here are my thoughts:

1) if the vehicle only holds one person plus a little cargo, then it will be only be good for going to and from work. It will not be good for a family to use, even for Mom running errands (lots of cargo space needed) or running kids to/from appointments.

2) gas tank size. A car that small will have a small gas tank, which limits how far it can go between fill-ups. Gas adds a lot of weight to the car, especially for a 4-cylinder one. I remember when I had my first Focus with the less powerful engine, and it always was sluggish on a full tank of gas. Best milage was when I had 3/4th of a tank.

3) with a top speed of 70 MPH, most people will be driving it at max speed most of the time. this will wear out the engine faster. so I think the engine needs to be rated for 100 MPH (although maybe a spoiler of some sort could limit it to 75 with the gas pedal down to the floor).

4) safety: how safe would a car like that be if there is an accident? What about handling during snow and rain?

5) other amenities: Would the car be able to support an A/C for the summer? would it be able to be automatic for those of us who will not drive a standard? also keep in mind some people are tall and/or wide and this need more space to fit in the car (although that is an issue with some small cars today).

I *do* like the idea here. No new car design will be perfect for everyone. I think the handling in bad weather and safety in case of accident will be the big issues, assuming people understand this is a single person only car with little cargo space.

[redneckgaijin.livejournal.com]

(1) It's not a family use vehicle, no, but you may notice that a lot of the vehicles you see on the roads have only one or two passengers. The idea is to have a vehicle that combines the safety and comfort of a vehicle with the fuel efficiency and cheapness of a motorcycle.

(2) Small gas tank size, ideally, to be offset by superior gas mileage.

(3) I'd prefer to have people traveling no faster than 60. I made the top speed 70 to provide for passing, emergencies, etc. My experience is that, if it goes to 100, most people will take it as close to 100 as they think they can get away with- undoing one hell of a lot of the efficiency gains.

(4) Not much room for crumple zones. Airbags- front and side- will be a necessity. Handling is a big fat question mark- the one major disadvantage of the in-line design is a tendency for rollover. Handling in rain and snow is a total guess, not knowing the wheel or tire size and ground clearance.

(5) A/C shouldn't be a major problem, nor automatic tranny- would a transmission be necessary for electric motors? Body size will only be a mild problem- at least, the same level problem it is in current compacts.

And you're right about crash safety being the big issue- not for market reasons but for regulatory reasons. My biggest concern is that the concept could be killed by federal regulations that require a car to be big, bulky, fragile, and overweight to protect the passengers.

If I had 20K

[kyllein.livejournal.com]

Good idea, since the American people won't give up their wheels any time soon, and people buy SUV's because they think they're safer (they aren't).
Mass transit, at least in the cities is not the way to go. It's too expensive to build, and most people think walking a block is hard labor. Busses, set up as Hybrid systems are probably the best way to go there.
As for People-pods, I like the idea. The only problem is that it's been tried lots of times before, and the failure rate is...obvious.
Something that small could run on propane, which is cleaner; and the tanks are safer than auto gas tanks. The engine might even be tiny-say 500cc's displacement- and the electric system with batteries for acceleration is feasible. So is Air Conditioning, using the old Servel system where the exhaust manifold supplies heat that is used to pump the refrigerant. If the seating is tandem style, rather than side by side, use an elliptical body: stability is a function of length and height, so the wider the tire tracks are compared to the height, the more stable it would be.
As for collision, air bags and a space-frame passenger box would keep the occupants safe.
Finally, put them in the #1 lane, where they don't have to deal with trucks or busses disguised as R.v.'s. IF they have their own lane, they could even be auto-steered.
And as soon as gas gets to $5.50 a gallon,itjust might happen.
We do love our gas guzzlers...

[davemerrill.livejournal.com]

Smart Cars are hitting the States next year, aren't they? I see them on the highway here, so they must be able to move out when the need arises. Those little lawnmower engines always make me smile, though. They're suprisingly roomy on the inside, but it's definitely a two-person car only.

They made this already. It died.

[(Anonymous)]

http://www.corbinsparrow.com/

I thought the idea was awesome then and think the same now.

Re: They made this already. It died.

[redneckgaijin.livejournal.com]

Yes, I'd heard of Corbin before.

The killer here was price. A person-pod type design has to be cheap enough that Joe Blow Average can purchase one as a -second- vehicle- usable for daily commuting and minor errand-running in the place of the larger, more flexible family vehicle.

The Sparrow's price wasn't even competitive with the four-wheeled econoboxes of the time. (Memo to startup manufacturers: get the hell out of California, or any other closed-shop state. Go to a right-to-work state like Texas and use the savings in labor costs to lower your MSRP.) Add to this the constraints and limitations of a 100% electric vehicle, and you have a recipe for failure.

Sad but true.