> One of the most common accidents for motorcyclists is falling while turning a corner.
Yes, due to loss of traction or excessive cornering speed. But those are both issues inherent to two-wheeled vehicles, and adding gyroscopes won't solve either.
So you gain the ability to ride in the rain without wearing rain gear, but you give up cargo space and visibility. Not to mention the fact that your head will now be in the perfect position to get rammed by a bumper, and the lower profile increases the likelihood that other drivers won't see you.
It's a nifty trick, but I don't see who this would appeal to. Most motorcyclists already have rain-proof gear, and non-motorcyclists will still think it's a death trap.
I'll address the possible appeal as a diehard daily motorcycle commuter; from 110f down to 20f, anything except ice and snow.
I invested in a decent sport touring bike with ABS and heated grips, plus riding gear. Yes it's warm and dry. There is some irritation where it takes a few minutes to put on all the gear (pants, boots, jacket, gloves, ear plugs, neck gator if cold, and helmet) over work clothes, take them off at work, repeat on the way home. Cargo can be an irritation, needing tying down. A bag of groceries or case of cans is okay but not much more. I need a better way to carry a laptop. Yes, I dropped the bike once, sudden braking at a stop sign. Yes, it's pretty common.
So an enclosed gyro vehicle would improve these issues for me: convenience and cargo. The tippy thing is a minor plus.
The downside: it takes away most of the fun of a bike. The fun is hard to qualify but it involves being outside, connected to the machine, shifting, leaning, braking, and in general micromanaging your outcome.
Am I likely to get one as a commuter? Maybe. A Miyata or Mini would fill a similar bill and buy more utility.
My thoughts exactly. Staying balanced on a motorcycle isn't even on the list of things that are dangerous about riding one. Once you get over about 10 mph, it's impossible to fall off one.
> But those are both issues inherent to two-wheeled vehicles, and adding gyroscopes won't solve either.
Did you see the part of the video where they pulled the bike sideways with another vehicle and the gyros kept it upright? If the gyro tech they're using is good enough then the issues you mention are exactly what it will solve. The project still seems to be in its infancy though. They need an investor to come in with some money so they can build more test machines and destroy them with high-speed cornering on slick surfaces and side impacts from larger vehicles.
This actually uses control moment gyroscopes [1] in a scissored-pair configuration, the subject of my undergrad thesis. These differ from standard gyroscopes in that they are gimballed to produce a reaction torque. They are actually most commonly used on large spacecraft for attitude control, so the comment about "technology from the ISS" is quite relevant.
However, the statement that there are "two for redundancy" is dubious. The torque from a control moment gyro is not produced in a constant vector - the torque vector rotates with the gyroscope as it is gimballed. Thus, if there was only one gyro, some component of its output torque would be aligned with the yaw axis, which would create some rather unpleasant and dangerous effects. The scissored-pair configuration is required to cancel out the yaw torque.
I can't get if they are really serious about mass-producing an electric motorcycle. On technical side this company looks like it's run by an individual - Daniel. Team page [1] shows 6 employees not named as "Advisors". Out of who only two are technical (Daniel, the CTO and Kevin).
More worryingly Kevin's linkedin page shows he's not working at Lit Motors for last two months.
Looks like on technical side Daniel is pretty much alone. It's not necessarily bad, maybe they are just starting. I'm just worried they'll disappear.
Off topic rant, the BBC's Click strand drives me up the wall on occasions that I see any of it. We used to have the wonderful (if haphazard) Tomorrows World as primetime science viewing and now we're left with Click which is broadcast in a time slot for the terminally stoned and apparently produced by ex '... for dummies' editors.
And don't get me started on the abysmal Gadget Show.
What exactly is wrong with Click? Each programme is broadcast several times over the weekend, so there are plenty of opportunities to catch it.
I like that the presenters don't take technology too seriously - it's refreshing. And for the intended audience, the format is well balanced between 'dumbed down' and informative. I wouldn't expect anything more geeky, from Click or Tomorrow's World (which I remember well).
There's a BBC radio show (which is also now available as a podcast) called The Joy of Tech, which is quite alright (and way better than Click, IMHO) - http://www.bbc.co.uk/podcasts/series/jot
Enclosed two wheelers do solve the problems of, its too hot, too cold, to wet, and more. Yet the price point isn't sufficient to get me or many others out of cars let alone off of motorcycles.
Twenty four thousand is definitely out there but even twelve thousand will price it beyond the means of many. Many used bikes if not cars will fall under that price and unless gas is just astronomical it becomes a bit hard to justify its purchase. Its a great idea, don't get me wrong. However compared to existing transportation options its very pricey.
Safety wise, with good use of LED lighting one could make it stand out very well in traffic without blinding other drivers because its a bit diminutive for my liking.
I wouldn't be so sure. Working in GBP that bike would cost me £7K. Say I had it three years, I'm looking at it costing £2.3K a year. Given that with my current commuter bike (a BMW R1100RT) I already have an annual cost of £1250 in fuel alone. That's before considering all the other costs you get with owning a bike.
Add to this that this is considerably more comfortable, more weatherproof, and not a 10 year old like mine it seems a fair price.
I saw this vehicle at the eg conference (www.the-eg.com) in April. I recognize the marketing pitch - that it takes "a baby elephant to knock it over" - good message!
I think it will take a lot for regulators approve this vehicle, because it really is something quite new, and untested in the field. It does appear to be fantastically safer than "normal" motorcycles, and I would love to try one out.
What was never mentioned was how it performs on extremely slippery surfaces. This is where two-wheeled vehicles have a lot of trouble.
Also, one complaint about the BBC article itself - it uses "technology from the Space Station and Hubble Telescope: gyroscopes" - Really, BBC? :-)
I'd like to see how this behaves with the typical things that cause a bike to crash, for instance, the front end washing out on ice, or a locked front wheel, or loss of traction on an accelerating rear wheel.
Seems like the gyroscopes would help with a bunch of those — traction issues become less about keeping the bike upright and more about controlling where the bike goes.
I don't see anything about ABS in the FAQ, but that would avoid the problems of locked front or rear wheels.
Also, I imagine this has only one brake control, unlike a motorcycle, so you can't lock up one wheel by stomping on your rear brake but not grabbing the front brake.
I also wonder how effective the gyroscopes would be against a high-side crash. Would the having to adjust for hills limit their ability to prevent one?
Having a seatbelt seems like it might help with high-sides, too.
The bearded guy raised the point of needing to trust the vehicle to not fall over, and there was a lot of talk about how it looked and what kind of cool features were included.
But before I purchased it, I'd definitely want to have a test ride to see how it went, and perhaps some decent feedback from Top Gear - how does it really handle in a variety of situations?
I expect that even if the gyros stop while you're driving you wouldn't fall over because... well because that's how bikes work. It might change the way it handles though.
So I would only be worried about it falling over while stopped, which is not as bad I guess.
Here in Paris I see a lot of those motor tricycles that don't require motorbike license, so I think there's definitely a market for a not-so dangerous and simpler motorbike in congested urban areas.
By the way I hate it when the hostess introduces gyros like "space age technology". Yeah, my bike has bits of steel soldered together, you know, like the International Space Station!
I'd go for a motor trend review. Top gear has been caught sandbagging electric vehicles in the past. I love the show for it's entertainment value, but they aren't always a neutral party.
> The bearded guy raised the point of needing to trust the vehicle to not fall over
I guess this will be only an issue to people who own a motorcycle already. I on the other hand as someone who never rode a motorcycle would have no problem with the C1. (But maybe that's because I know how reliable gyros are?)
A motorcycle turns by 'falling over'. For me, that and the acceleration are the main attractions. Can't imagine this will get many motorcyclists to convert.
This is my biggest question also. How does the thing turn at high velocity with those gyros. Either the gyros has to make the bike fall before the front wheel actually starts turning or you have to manually countersteer which the gyros will try to counter. I find it hard to believe that the gyros will handle the "centrifugal" forces by themselves if you do a sharp turn in high speed.
Did nobody notice that they never show anyone driving the thing more than 5 meters at a time and only straight forward?
And when the reporter is "trying" to knock the thing over she hardly touches it.
I would like to see a video with some rougher scenarios before i believe in this thing.
As a non-native speaker, "bike" confuses me. This is some sort of motorcycle ... what do you call a bike nowadays that this didn't confuse anyone else?
Notably, C-1 is a code name, not the final product name.
I'm curious how the gyros interact with turning. Presumably they have a limited ability to change orientation (necessary for say hills at the very least). It sounds like the steering wheel is hooked to the front wheel mechanically (from the FAQ: ”… with mechanical backups to allow the driver to steer and stop the car even in a catastrophic failure of all systems”). Does that mean you have to countersteer like in a motorcycle? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Countersteering)
I could imagine the steering wheel manipulating the gyroscopes to initiate leans rather than turning the front wheel. I'm unsure how effective that would be, especially at low speeds.
EDIT: I looked at some of the videos on their website. It seems like the steering wheel does turn the front wheel, and the gyros are free to tilt to accommodate hills. The video shows them tilting toward each other on a lean — I think that means they rotate in opposite directions? Not my area of expertise.
As a motorcyclist, I'd like the tech to be put into more traditional motorcycle bodies. The idea of not being able to be knocked off, or fall over on an icy road, appeals - but the look of this really doesn't. It reminds me of the similarly named BMW C1 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BMW_C1).
I don't think they're going for the biker market. After all, it has a steering wheel, not bike handles. That alone hints that it probably drives somewhat like a car.
A cool-looking vehicle, but wonder how much more weight it has compared to the regular motorcycles? I think embedding a cell phone at the center of steering wheel is a sure-fire way to distract driver attention and cause accidents.
Is there potential for something like this to be safer than a car during a collision, ignoring the fact that it can stay upright? I presume that a car going 30 miles an hour is going to have more of an impact than a baby elephant pushing, so i don't like the idea of being enclosed in a soft shell which is just going to fall over and go under a car.
Is it easier to fit small vehicles like this with things like roll cages, or more encompassing air bags? Or will a car always have a safety edge because of crumple zones etc?
The baby elephant message is cute - i'll know i'm safe if I go to a safari park.
I'm much more interested in what happens if an SUV at speed hits the bike (or, I guess, an adult elephant at speed). I see more SUVs on a day-to-day basis than baby elephants.
[+] [-] Irregardless|13 years ago|reply
Yes, due to loss of traction or excessive cornering speed. But those are both issues inherent to two-wheeled vehicles, and adding gyroscopes won't solve either.
So you gain the ability to ride in the rain without wearing rain gear, but you give up cargo space and visibility. Not to mention the fact that your head will now be in the perfect position to get rammed by a bumper, and the lower profile increases the likelihood that other drivers won't see you.
It's a nifty trick, but I don't see who this would appeal to. Most motorcyclists already have rain-proof gear, and non-motorcyclists will still think it's a death trap.
[+] [-] imglorp|13 years ago|reply
I invested in a decent sport touring bike with ABS and heated grips, plus riding gear. Yes it's warm and dry. There is some irritation where it takes a few minutes to put on all the gear (pants, boots, jacket, gloves, ear plugs, neck gator if cold, and helmet) over work clothes, take them off at work, repeat on the way home. Cargo can be an irritation, needing tying down. A bag of groceries or case of cans is okay but not much more. I need a better way to carry a laptop. Yes, I dropped the bike once, sudden braking at a stop sign. Yes, it's pretty common.
So an enclosed gyro vehicle would improve these issues for me: convenience and cargo. The tippy thing is a minor plus.
The downside: it takes away most of the fun of a bike. The fun is hard to qualify but it involves being outside, connected to the machine, shifting, leaning, braking, and in general micromanaging your outcome.
Am I likely to get one as a commuter? Maybe. A Miyata or Mini would fill a similar bill and buy more utility.
[+] [-] deelowe|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] tankbot|13 years ago|reply
Did you see the part of the video where they pulled the bike sideways with another vehicle and the gyros kept it upright? If the gyro tech they're using is good enough then the issues you mention are exactly what it will solve. The project still seems to be in its infancy though. They need an investor to come in with some money so they can build more test machines and destroy them with high-speed cornering on slick surfaces and side impacts from larger vehicles.
[+] [-] chimere|13 years ago|reply
However, the statement that there are "two for redundancy" is dubious. The torque from a control moment gyro is not produced in a constant vector - the torque vector rotates with the gyroscope as it is gimballed. Thus, if there was only one gyro, some component of its output torque would be aligned with the yaw axis, which would create some rather unpleasant and dangerous effects. The scissored-pair configuration is required to cancel out the yaw torque.
[1]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Control_moment_gyroscope
[+] [-] majke|13 years ago|reply
More worryingly Kevin's linkedin page shows he's not working at Lit Motors for last two months.
Looks like on technical side Daniel is pretty much alone. It's not necessarily bad, maybe they are just starting. I'm just worried they'll disappear.
Does anyone know if they are funded?
[1] http://litmotors.com/lit-team/
[+] [-] unknown|13 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] jentulman|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] fractallyte|13 years ago|reply
I like that the presenters don't take technology too seriously - it's refreshing. And for the intended audience, the format is well balanced between 'dumbed down' and informative. I wouldn't expect anything more geeky, from Click or Tomorrow's World (which I remember well).
[+] [-] coob|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] shrikant|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Shivetya|13 years ago|reply
Twenty four thousand is definitely out there but even twelve thousand will price it beyond the means of many. Many used bikes if not cars will fall under that price and unless gas is just astronomical it becomes a bit hard to justify its purchase. Its a great idea, don't get me wrong. However compared to existing transportation options its very pricey.
Safety wise, with good use of LED lighting one could make it stand out very well in traffic without blinding other drivers because its a bit diminutive for my liking.
[+] [-] neilmiddleton|13 years ago|reply
Add to this that this is considerably more comfortable, more weatherproof, and not a 10 year old like mine it seems a fair price.
[+] [-] nakedrobot2|13 years ago|reply
I think it will take a lot for regulators approve this vehicle, because it really is something quite new, and untested in the field. It does appear to be fantastically safer than "normal" motorcycles, and I would love to try one out.
What was never mentioned was how it performs on extremely slippery surfaces. This is where two-wheeled vehicles have a lot of trouble.
Also, one complaint about the BBC article itself - it uses "technology from the Space Station and Hubble Telescope: gyroscopes" - Really, BBC? :-)
[+] [-] bambax|13 years ago|reply
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BMW_C1
[+] [-] Joeboy|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] danielparks|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Irregardless|13 years ago|reply
Doesn't sound like it'll be an issue anymore.
[+] [-] huhtenberg|13 years ago|reply
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citro%C3%ABn_C1
[+] [-] neilmiddleton|13 years ago|reply
Highsiding this could still happen I guess.
[+] [-] danielparks|13 years ago|reply
I don't see anything about ABS in the FAQ, but that would avoid the problems of locked front or rear wheels.
Also, I imagine this has only one brake control, unlike a motorcycle, so you can't lock up one wheel by stomping on your rear brake but not grabbing the front brake.
I also wonder how effective the gyroscopes would be against a high-side crash. Would the having to adjust for hills limit their ability to prevent one?
Having a seatbelt seems like it might help with high-sides, too.
[+] [-] redcap|13 years ago|reply
But before I purchased it, I'd definitely want to have a test ride to see how it went, and perhaps some decent feedback from Top Gear - how does it really handle in a variety of situations?
[+] [-] simias|13 years ago|reply
So I would only be worried about it falling over while stopped, which is not as bad I guess.
Here in Paris I see a lot of those motor tricycles that don't require motorbike license, so I think there's definitely a market for a not-so dangerous and simpler motorbike in congested urban areas.
By the way I hate it when the hostess introduces gyros like "space age technology". Yeah, my bike has bits of steel soldered together, you know, like the International Space Station!
[+] [-] breakyerself|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] kybernetyk|13 years ago|reply
I guess this will be only an issue to people who own a motorcycle already. I on the other hand as someone who never rode a motorcycle would have no problem with the C1. (But maybe that's because I know how reliable gyros are?)
[+] [-] ericssmith|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Too|13 years ago|reply
Did nobody notice that they never show anyone driving the thing more than 5 meters at a time and only straight forward?
And when the reporter is "trying" to knock the thing over she hardly touches it.
I would like to see a video with some rougher scenarios before i believe in this thing.
[+] [-] Adirael|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Narretz|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] polymatter|13 years ago|reply
(I am UK native, but not a bike person)
[+] [-] pbhjpbhj|13 years ago|reply
"Imagine a touchscreen embedded in the steering-wheel"
Yes, imagine all the crashes it's going to cause.
[+] [-] zalew|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] danielparks|13 years ago|reply
Notably, C-1 is a code name, not the final product name.
I'm curious how the gyros interact with turning. Presumably they have a limited ability to change orientation (necessary for say hills at the very least). It sounds like the steering wheel is hooked to the front wheel mechanically (from the FAQ: ”… with mechanical backups to allow the driver to steer and stop the car even in a catastrophic failure of all systems”). Does that mean you have to countersteer like in a motorcycle? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Countersteering)
I could imagine the steering wheel manipulating the gyroscopes to initiate leans rather than turning the front wheel. I'm unsure how effective that would be, especially at low speeds.
EDIT: I looked at some of the videos on their website. It seems like the steering wheel does turn the front wheel, and the gyros are free to tilt to accommodate hills. The video shows them tilting toward each other on a lean — I think that means they rotate in opposite directions? Not my area of expertise.
[+] [-] merraksh|13 years ago|reply
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4037645
[+] [-] mikek|13 years ago|reply
Edit: a baby elephant weighs 3 tons, whereas an average car weights 2 tons. Hmm.
[+] [-] GigabyteCoin|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] prof_hobart|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] simias|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] happywolf|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] anjc|13 years ago|reply
Is it easier to fit small vehicles like this with things like roll cages, or more encompassing air bags? Or will a car always have a safety edge because of crumple zones etc?
[+] [-] timthorn|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] goatforce5|13 years ago|reply
I'm much more interested in what happens if an SUV at speed hits the bike (or, I guess, an adult elephant at speed). I see more SUVs on a day-to-day basis than baby elephants.
[+] [-] spupy|13 years ago|reply
Holly cow, gyroscopes! The technology of space travel!
[+] [-] rmason|13 years ago|reply