What is Digg?58 Comments
- valkraider, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3To all the people talking about how their bigger vehicle is safer:
Science* is leaving you behind.
A good example? My father's 1950s era DeSoto is heavier than a 2005 Suburban, and made with more steel. But you are much safer in a new Suburban. Why? Science*. Engineering.
You see, you can accomplish more with science than pure bulk. Science* and Engineering have brought us crumple zones, collapsable steering columns, safety glass, seat belts, air bags, electronic traction control, anti-lock brakes, and all of the other advances. Heck, a 2006 convertible Volkswage New Beetle is a much safer car than a 1980 Olsmobile 88 - in EVERY aspect - due to advanced design and engineering.
The new small cars, like this and "Smart" are using advanced materials and designs to make the smaller lighter vehicles as safe as larger ones. Take Smart for an example. They have a special protective cage that is very very very strong. Much stronger than even your truck frame. That special cage is designed with special materials and shape that re-directs impact forces in a spinning motion in circles within the frame itself, so that the occupants bodies don't suffer the full impact force. Much like a crumple zone - except takes up less space.
This article talked about new advanced materials that change from liquid to solid state in microseconds being used to absorb force on impacts.
Science*.
Your hulking hunk of metal will be left behind, along with you in it.
*Science: Void Where Prohibited. Not valid in Kansas. - spiderland, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Link to actual article:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/story/0,3605,1674705,00.html - Odweaver, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1"Holy Crap... how much do these people make? I sure hope none of my tax money went into this! This just really sucks." posted by apotropaic
Think of it this way, it allows mobility around a city, while reducing traffic, and taking up less space with parking lots. It would also most likely be very fuel effecient, while not putting off a lot of emmisions. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I think its moving in the wrong direction. They are trying to fix a problem by only modifying a current problem, still leaving much of the original problem intact. The ultimate solution would be so you don't have to drive in the city at all. Have a great network of automated public transportation instead. Park outside the city where there is more space, then get on the network. Too many vehicles isn't the only problem anyways, driving practices contributes quite a bit too. Ever try leaving the city after a big sporting event? Takes an hour just to get out of the parking lot. It would be just as bad or worse if the cars were stacked up against each other.
And if there were a network of monorails and such connecting smaller cities together and to the main city, that would be even better. Less vehicles need to be made, less gas to be used, etc. Good for the evironment and better for the poor who don't own a car. Might not be good for the capitalist economy though. A lot of jobs depend on the selling of cars, and the gov't gets lots of money from tax on those sales, as well as gas. A new economic system would need to be set up. Which could be good, wouldn't the ultimate future be one where nobody has to work to live or have healthcare? - aluminumpork, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1To those of you who doubt the structural integrity of a SMART car. http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6605730767077503480&q=smart+crash
- Tracon, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1fly cars aren't an option. air traffic control is already congested as it is now. not only that it takes allot to get a pilots license its not something everyone is going to be able to handle. you have ground school, then alot of hours in plane with an instuctor that and it is expensive. the rules arnt going to change just because they can build a flying car or there easyer to make. flying cars will not happen its just not possable right now. ever have your car break down ya just imagine if you were at 2000 ft and it broke your dead so is everyone with you and anyone one on the ground were you crash land/explode in a firey mess of parts and human remains
- tacom8, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0I don't get the whole "i drive the largest piece of machinery ever built so now I'm safe" line that everyone uses. I mean don't get me wrong drive the best vehicle you can afford, and that makes you happy, but I've never figured out why safety was a major selling point of the behemoths on the road these days.. i mean there are always bigger trucks on the road how does doubling the mass of your SUV even matter compared to the big ass semi that's going to flatten you anyways?
and yes commuter cars like this and the SMART car are retarded, way too much of a premium for these suckers, did they forget the "econo" part why they designed these? - Teratogen, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Niven and Pournelle's _The_Mote_In_God's_Eye_: The Moties had cars that collapsed to half their size.
- bonlebon, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Eventually MIT will nail it, after 100000000s tries maybe, thats how major invention that have changed the world have come to life.
- doafhat, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0"How would the first car parked get out? You'd have to move the others in front..."
Good question, I don't think MIT really thought that through. - CptnObvious, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0How would the first car parked get out? You'd have to move the others in front...
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0i would have put this in the design directory.... but great news anyways
+digg - Beanis, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0>>How would the first car parked get out? You'd have to move the others in front...
The wheels can move 360 degrees, so if parked in a stack just drive perpendicular to the stack. If moving in a stack I'm sure the cars could communicate and a buffer zone could be temporarily created to allow the car to safely exit the stack. - ihybridora, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0i like how they designed it, but what is the use?
and the picture doesn't look like it has windows on the side doors. - nozol03, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0And GM is slated to produce the prototypes? Hopefully they are making some money on that deal, because it seems like American auto manufacturers are having enough of a hard time staying afloat, needless to say the hit that GM has taken...
I just can't see this working, really. It's like a stackable golf cart.... Still, if GM is closing plants left and right and actually is paying to be part of this, it would be a shame. - Otto, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Incredibly stupid idea that doesn't really address the problem at all.
- SBelyea, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Sounds like a very cool idea - I'll be interested in seeing some prototypes on the streets, although I was left a little fuzzy on whether these would be provided by cities or if consumers would have to purchase their own.
And a production deal with GM seems a bit scary, considering that car maker has yet to stay in the black for more than a quarter and is spiraling towards bankruptcy. - mentacoff, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Freaking craziness man.
- dotuplink, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0I don't care if it is a dupe, BUT THIS THE AWESOME! I WANT ONE! as soon as there is a way to figure out who's is who's
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0lol i wonder if it will cost 100 dollars
- cargo, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0I'll save my money for the flying car
LOL - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0That is sooo COOL! :)
- psylence, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0apotropaic: I'm sure lots of your tax money goes to MIT...
- headzoo, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Hmm, don't a lot of those bikes get stolen? I'd give the cars two weeks before they all completely disappear.
- Twenty, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0People don't care about other people. I hope you all know that.
Still, interesting concept even though it'll never come to fruition. - tentwentyfour, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Actually, almost all of MIT's funding comes from private sources. None of this is government/tax funded.
- sooperdooper, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0@ automagically: the ideal solution would be a city designed for pedestrians and city residents. the idea is to not need too large a network of public trans. suburbs are bad for the environment.
- gorndog, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0On a related note ...
http://www.skywebexpress.com/
formerly known as Taxi 2000 - aznbond, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Stupid and unrealistic... at least not for a long time.
- Clazor, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0all that Brain Power at MIT and this is the best they could come up for traffic congestion....Pathetic
- troydoogle7, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0very cool however me thinks someone at mit has seen i robot?
- treelovinhippie, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Why not just get a couple of those Japanese car parks happening? ... i.e. the one's where it picks up your car and stores it in a spot, and then when u want to go it finds your car and brings it back from the rack.
- invader, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0it looks cool. must have been fun to throw together in a 3D modeling program.
however, it's definitely not a very practical way of storing cars.
as far as the vehicle itself, i'm disappointed that these kids going to school so they can grow up to be injunnears (engineers) did the opposite of what real engineers would do. they put form before function. actually, they threw functionality out the window and just designed something that looks cool in the 3D app. but hey, who needs steering and a drive train? who cares how much extra weight the apparatus to lift the car will add? or the space it will take up? i'm sure it would either be hydrolic or magical. who cares if the wheels we put on it won't be stable at half the speed of most freeways or last half as long as the 'old-fashioned'/'outdated' ones we use today? let's assume nobody will want to leave anything loose anywhere in it! it'll be fun!
damn.. i sound like a pessimist listing half the downfalls of their 3D model. :( i didn't mean to.. i did say it *looks* cool, though! - lysdexic, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0"How would the first car parked get out? You'd have to move the others in front..."
"Good question, I don't think MIT really thought that through."
Read the story again. You take the first car in the line, like a shopping cart or a luggage cart at the airport, not your personal car. - draxik, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0The benefit/point of the cars is that they are shareable, so if you are in the program, you hypothetically get off your airplane and go get the first car in the stack and drive off.
But then why do they go into the discussion about personalization like bigger speedometers for the elderly?
Weird. Interesting concept but not too useful until they are widely adopted and you can find a stack of them most everywhere you go in my opinion. - jakkyl, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Hate to see what would be left of that little piece of crap once I run over it with my full-sized Chevy Pick-up!
- cellplex, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Except you probably won't be allowed to drive in the city of the future with your pickup truck :)
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Good link gorndog. Thats more like what I was thinking. http://www.skywebexpress.com
They could probably have multiple size cars too. Its good that they build above the sidewalks, so the road is still clear. Roads will always be needed, for commercial and emergency vehicles and such. - infra172, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Right. Because when I'm driving to work I want the protection of a shopping cart to keep me from getting killed.
- KyleKaplan, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0neat idea, i don't think it will ever become mainstream but good idea
P.S.
"The wheels turn 360 degrees and contain the suspension and motor, so, along with providing a level of mobility fit for a city, they allow a new type of passenger compartment, replete with customizable displays and seats with "fingers" to catch you in a crash."
WTF does 'replete' mean??? - HiddenS3crets, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Can I have one? ;)
- YamahaSteve, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0I like that video of the smart car crash test.... tough lil bastard...
- darb, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0@Tracon -
Flying cars wouldn't require a license past your regular driving license.
They wouldn't need mass heaps of Air Traffic control.
Airplanes fall out of the air. They make firey messes. That doesn't stop them.
They'd most likely be designed to have safety features in the even of sudden decent, and I'm sure all explosive elements would be contained. Cessna's fall out of the sky. They crash. Maybe catch on fire. They don't explode...you've been watching Hollywood too much.
----
So you're asking why?
Why wont flying cars need air traffic control? - They'll fly on computer controlled pathways, linked to a system that knows where the cars are. Where they're going, and calculate the path.
Why wont you need a license? - They'll fly on their own. See, cars driving themselves is difficult - it requires modifying the existing highways. However, the sky is limitless. Digital pathways will allow the "car" to travel on auto-pilot.
---
Think a little bit.
However, this MIT stackable car concept. Pointless. I expected better. - ikiryou, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0It'll never happen since it's sensible, energy efficient, and safe (according to the above paragraph).
Instead, MIT should give America what it really craves and deserves: Flying Cars. Then sit back and watch the yuppie bodies pile up. The future looks exceedingly bright for Natural Selection. - ForbesBingley, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0This is a pretty old concept that some German car manufacturer toyed around with over a decade ago...
- alceria, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Who would actually want to drive one of those? Yeah right.
- chosenone-, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0re·plete Pronunciation (r-plt)
adj.
1. Abundantly supplied; abounding: a stream replete with trout
2. Filled to satiation; gorged.
3. Usage Problem Complete
--------------------
Seriously though, this is an awesome concept. The socialist car! Use as you may, drop off at a storage/charging point and move on. Keys have a monthly fee... I'd use it like a mofo! - AllanX, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0As automagically said, this isn't solving many of our problems -- or even the one they refer to. "Smaller" or "stackable" isn't going to significantly reduce congestion. Only greater efficiency will. And that will only really come when you get people out of the equation.
Humans are just terrible at operating vehicles. We have slow reflexes, think slowly, respond slowly, are prone to fatigue and panic and confusion and sudden loss of judgement and road rage, we can barely see in the dark or when the sun is in our eyes, and we're only ever faintly aware of the spatial relationships between our vehicle and those around us. The list of reasons why we should never be piloting anything that could kill us or others goes on and on.
No wonder millions die in auto accidents each year and it takes us hours to commute to our jobs in southern California.
So once you decide that computers are going to drive it comes down to design and implementation. Subways and light rail are non-solutions. gorndog linked to Skyweb Express but right now my current favorite solution-in-progress is their competitor, SkyTran (don't let the amateurish website throw you):
http://www.skytran.net/
Like Skyweb, it uses a packet-routing approach but appears to be more lightweight (smaller footprint, faster installation) and generally a better-engineered design. It uses a novel linear motor maglev system and passenger voice recognition. They estimate efficiency at that of a 200mpg car and intra-city speeds of 100mph (although I think that might be a bit aggressive). Like similar partially-designed systems, a lot of questions remain to be answered but I'm very excited about this approach. I hope some city planners eventually sit up and take notice.
- amandaw33, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1duplicate story. no digg. see
http://digg.com/robots/MIT_Working_On_Stackable_Cars_With_Robot_Wheels - stenspect, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0www.TheRawFeed.com originally broke the story and submitted to digg a few days ago. Dont know why engadget got more diggs (not to look a gift horse in the mouth)?
-
Show 51 - 57 of 57 discussions
Check out the new & improved 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is