[HN Gopher] Squad Solar City Car
___________________________________________________________________
Squad Solar City Car
Author : hochmartinez
Score : 122 points
Date : 2023-05-05 11:41 UTC (11 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.squadmobility.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.squadmobility.com)
| elliottkember wrote:
| Many people in these comments are saying "this is stupid, why not
| just use a bicycle?" and I just can't fathom this line of
| reasoning.
|
| The point of this car is not to replace bicycles. It's to replace
| big cars.
|
| Smaller, lighter, slower cars on the roads will make cycling
| safer. This is a net positive for bicycles and e-bikes and cargo
| trikes and the rest of the fun things that you are suggesting.
| This is not an all-or-nothing decision. If we don't support car
| alternatives, we'll be stuck with cars.
| NoLinkToMe wrote:
| Agreed, it'd also be a helpful trend-breaker to the ever bigger
| sizes of cars. We've never had such a high share of SUVs and
| trucks on the road, it makes everyone less safe.
|
| Road safety has essentially become a typical social dilemma
| now: everyone's self-interested pursuit of safety (driving a
| bigger car), leads to worse outcomes for all, and if we
| coordinated better by all driving lighter vehicles, we'd all be
| safer off.
|
| Still quietly hoping for solutions through regulation here in
| Europe, to severely limit the number of large cars (either
| requiring a special license like for busses, or through taxes
| based on their impact of weight on road maintenance and size on
| parking requirements). But I don't really see it happening. We
| really, really love our freedom of choice in the cars we buy,
| even if some of these cars are approaching the size of literal
| tanks [0] and can be driven by teenagers on the same streets
| shared with kids playing or people cycling. It's absurd to me.
|
| I'm also really hopeful about driverless tech. If the majority
| of cars are driverless, I'm sure the majority of vehicles on
| roads will become unmanned taxis, at which point we can have
| way more differentiation in size. Right now we all buy personal
| cars with a size/capacity to accommodate even the least
| frequent occurence of travelling with 4-6 friends, even if 9/10
| trips we drive solo. But if you can just call-up a ubiquitous
| taxi, 9/10 taxis would probably be 2-man pods at most. It
| should reduce average car sizes (as it's cheaper to manufacture
| and operate) and increase average occupation, making driving
| cheaper and safer. But that may be 2 decades away.
|
| [0] https://www.motorbiscuit.com/american-trucks-suvs-almost-
| big...
| yourusername wrote:
| >Still quietly hoping for solutions through regulation here
| in Europe, to severely limit the number of large cars (either
| requiring a special license like for busses, or through taxes
| based on their impact of weight on road maintenance and size
| on parking requirements). But I don't really see it
| happening.
|
| Cars in Europe are not that big, already limited to 3500kg.
| If you put a limit at say 1000 kg that means that driving a
| delivery van, your plumber, small scale public transport,
| driving around a cleaning crew will all require a "special"
| license. In practice this special license will just become
| the default license. I dislike SUVs but the kind of things we
| drive in Europe aren't like American SUVs, most are the size
| and weight of a Golf or a Polo with 10 cm extra height.
| cstejerean wrote:
| The people who say that probably live in California (or
| equivalent) and can't fathom that some people live in places
| where weather is a thing.
|
| Or maybe they're the kind of hardcore cyclists that wouldn't
| mind cycling in a Michigan winter or an Arizona summer. Good
| for them. But there's nothing wrong with needing an air
| conditioned enclosed vehicle to get around.
| JohnFen wrote:
| > But there's nothing wrong with needing an air conditioned
| enclosed vehicle to get around.
|
| There's nothing wrong with _wanting_ that, but calling it a
| need it overstating things.
| EngManagerIsMe wrote:
| I live in Seattle, it's cold and rainy all year long (more or
| less). I still prefer using my bike over a car (though I have
| no problem with small car that replaces big car.)
| swalling wrote:
| You are weird. I am a born-and-raised PNW resident and a
| very small proportion of the population can tolerate having
| to wear a rain suit to bike home from work or go to the
| grocery store for 6-8 months of the year.
| EngManagerIsMe wrote:
| I'm not sure I'm weird. I've been here 35+ years at this
| point, plenty of folks bike, plenty of folks public
| transit, plenty of folks drive.
|
| Putting on a pair of snow pants over my jeans and a
| waterproof shell over my jacket takes... 1 minute? and
| protects me from basically all our weather.
| dmoy wrote:
| It's hardly ever cold in Seattle to the point where biking
| isn't ideal.
|
| This is exactly what GP is getting at. We have a warped
| view of "cold" here on the west coast, because "cold" to us
| means 0C, not -30C ~ -40C.
| PaulDavisThe1st wrote:
| > it's cold and rainy all year long (more or less
|
| End of May - September, Seattle is the 5th driest metro in
| the USA, with temperatures in the range that most people
| consider "ideal".
|
| Good effort trying to perpetuate the story told to
| outsiders, though. (I lived there for 7 years).
| EngManagerIsMe wrote:
| I've lived here 35+ years. I mean, May-September can be
| nice, though these days that's smoke season.
| munificent wrote:
| I also live in Seattle, bike to work three days a week, and
| don't mind biking in the rain and cold.
|
| Even so, I think mobility vehicles like this are excellent
| and should absolutely be part of our transportation
| systems. Sometimes you:
|
| * Have a disability that prevents you from biking.
|
| * Need to pick something up from the store that won't fit
| in your paniers.
|
| * Want to bring a passenger who doesn't bike.
|
| * Need to bring a small child who can't bike or doesn't
| have the endurance.
|
| * Need to carry something you can't get wet and won't fit
| in your panniers.
|
| * Are going somewhere nice and need to arrive without your
| hair and clothing discheveled.
|
| * Won't have a safe place to park a bike.
|
| * Need to leave something with your vehicle and want to be
| able to lock it away.
|
| There is a reason cars are so popular. They are _amazingly_
| useful and convenient. I dislike arguments against cars
| because so many of them try to downplay the benefits as if
| car consumers are idiots. The benefits are real and
| profound. The problem with cars isn 't that they aren't as
| great as people think they are. It's that the externalities
| often don't make the benefits worth it.
|
| Any vehicle that can give you many of those same benefits
| while reducing those externalities should be applauded.
| thewebcount wrote:
| Thank you so much for posting this sane response. As the
| spouse of someone who can't walk due to a disability (and
| also can't move themselves in a wheelchair), reading
| these discussions where people assume everyone is young,
| able-bodied, and lives in great weather gets really
| tiresome. It often feels like they're intentionally not
| arguing in good faith because some of the points are so
| obviously incorrect.
| munificent wrote:
| _> It often feels like they 're intentionally not arguing
| in good faith because some of the points are so obviously
| incorrect._
|
| Charitably, I think it's most often just that they're
| young and not yet as experienced at seeing things from a
| variety of different perspectives.
| EngManagerIsMe wrote:
| I don't think that's an assumption (it's certainly not
| one for me). Bikes are great, most folks could use bikes.
| Some folks cannot, and we should ensure our spaces are
| available to all of us.
|
| And I deal with a similar issue in my own life -- not due
| to a disability, but due to another form of
| discrimination. Believe me, I'm well aware that spaces
| aren't designed for everyone. If I gave the impression
| that bikes were the _only_ or _universal_ option, then of
| course I apologize!
| EngManagerIsMe wrote:
| Of course. I explicitly tried to say this -- bikes are
| fantastic, small cars like this are ok too (though,
| building for cars carries a lot of externalities with
| it).
| elliottkember wrote:
| I live in California. Cycling in Michigan winter and Arizona
| summer are great! I wouldn't mind either. People do it all
| the time. Having the right clothing is very important.
|
| It's okay to have options. Many people who live in those
| places and have bikes also have cars. Why not have a small
| car instead of a big car?
| govg wrote:
| I live in Madison, which is an incredibly bike friendly
| city and there is almost no bike usage once winter starts
| over here. This is in a city with dedicated bike paths and
| lanes all over town. Under heavy snowfall and -20 C
| temperatures with wind screeching in cause of the lakes, I
| really doubt this is a doable scenario.
| menus wrote:
| If Finns can cycle in the winter (1), why can't Americans?
|
| If it is possible for snowplows can clear giant 14 lane
| highways, they can clear small 2 lane bike paths
|
| 1) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uhx-26GfCBU
|
| Yes the answer is more complicated due to suburban sprawl
| and lack of infrastructure, but it is not impossible. It is
| always possible.
| scrose wrote:
| > An average car has a stationary footprint of around 10 m2, a
| very inefficient use of the scarce space in city centers. A Squad
| has a footprint of only 2,4 m2, or 1,2 m2 per person. 3 Squads
| can easily park on 1 car parking spot.
|
| This is the biggest issue in the US in my opinion. I believe
| Smart cars and just generally smaller cars like the Fiat 500
| would have been far more successful if US cities allowed cars
| under a certain size to be able to park facing the curb and
| extended other benefits like reserving corner spots near the
| crosswalks for small cars(to improve daylighting intersections)
|
| Massive 'cars' didn't come out of nowhere. US policies and
| subsidies at the federal, state and city level all incentivize
| them at practically every turn.
| ZeroGravitas wrote:
| Economic analysis of putting solar on golf buggy carts, which
| this is fairly similar to, suggests this is a good idea:
|
| https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/15567036.2020.1...
| [deleted]
| jeffbee wrote:
| Not sure why this is superior to a Ferla for most people. This
| golf cart weighs 5x more than, and has less range than, and costs
| more than a cargo e-trike.
| elliottkember wrote:
| Have you ever ridden a tricycle while wearing a dress?
| jeffbee wrote:
| Are you suggesting that's impractical? I never wore a dress
| on any occasion but I've certainly seen people combine a
| dress and a family bike. Then again I've lived abroad so I
| don't have typical American beliefs about the impossibility
| of riding bicycles.
|
| https://cdn.shopify.com/s/files/1/0266/3979/4260/files/Royce.
| ..
|
| https://www.bakfiets-en-meer.nl/wp-
| content/uploads/2008/01/p...
| elliottkember wrote:
| Sure! Both of those are very suitable above-the-knee summer
| dresses and absolutely fine on a bike.
|
| Below the knee, or full-length, and you start to have
| problems. Nice to have the option of an enclosed space if
| you're going somewhere where the clothes matter.
| engineer_22 wrote:
| Neat little golf cart! Looks like fun!
| krashidov wrote:
| Great, let's incentivize more surface lots. Cars are the problem
| not the solution
| jkubicek wrote:
| "Easy and secure solar mobility for all (EU Only)"
|
| We're in the market for a new car. A cheap, small, low-range,
| light electric car is exactly what we need. I'm putting off our
| purchase for as long as I can in the hopes that someone make one
| for the US market... but I'm starting to give up hope.
| sebiandev wrote:
| Check out Aptera if you're interested in the SEV future. :)
| thomasjb wrote:
| A Citicar might work well for you, although they're all a bit
| old now.
|
| Apparently the Tazzari Zero [1] is available in the US,
| otherwise I'm unsure what else is available, and how electric
| vehicles interact with the US import rules
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tazzari_Zero
| jillesvangurp wrote:
| Fully charged did a review of a prototype of this car just
| yesterday: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TYroDMTLVt4
|
| Seems like a nice practical city car and an overall great
| platform for building all sorts of vehicles on for local traffic.
| It is a glorified golf car indeed. And that's exactly good enough
| and optimal for a lot of people. I could imagine a few variants
| of this form factor that are equally practical. For example, a
| mini pick up truck version, a convertible (remove doors and
| roof), stretch limo version (the East German trabant exists in
| such a form factor), etc.
| uoaei wrote:
| There is the Kei standard in Japan for vehicle sizes. Being one
| of the most prominent societies as regard dense development
| practices, I'd trust that following Japanese standards
| elsewhere takes a lot of the development cost out.
| liamkinne wrote:
| Stop putting solar panels on cars. It's just not worth the cost
| or complexity.
|
| That square meter of PV is going to get you at most 250W in
| perfect conditions. Conditions that aren't found in cities or
| even at ground level in residential areas.
| throwawaaarrgh wrote:
| Besides the fact that it probably charges enough to keep
| operating most of the day, the swappable batteries makes it
| better than existing micromobility solutions that need to be
| picked up and recharged. With these a service vehicle can just
| drop by and replace the battery in 60 seconds. If they partner
| with gas stations in their cities, people could do it
| themselves. This design is very exciting
| SamBam wrote:
| How many charging stations are in a typical European city?
|
| The point of this is that it can be introduced in any city,
| anywhere, without needing to wait for charging infrastructure
| to catch up.
| throwbadubadu wrote:
| Start putting solar everywhere possible. It depends on lot of
| factors, not every city is built the same, and even in non-
| perfect conditions power collected is just a monotically
| increasing function over time.. cost and complexity always go
| down with more mass adoption.
| thejohnconway wrote:
| Their page addresses that point, it says the panel will charge
| for 20km of driving in a day, and the average micro car does 12
| (not exactly sure what a micro car is though...). Not having to
| plug anything in is actually a pretty big deal in many European
| cites where people do not have garages, and on-street chargers
| are still sparse.
|
| I don't know if this will work, but things like this deserve
| some consideration.
| blamazon wrote:
| > not exactly sure what a micro car is though...
|
| A popular modern example is the Citroen Ami:
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citroen_Ami_(electric_vehicle)
|
| Vintage, the Isetta: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isetta
| mysterydip wrote:
| I would be concerned about finding a sunny enough spot in a
| city to charge. Even their promo video showed it sitting in
| the shadow of some building.
| bryanlarsen wrote:
| There are two main classes of microcar in Europe. This
| particular one is classified under L6e in Europe, so has a
| maximum design speed of 45km/h.
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quadricycle_(EU_vehicle_classi.
| ..
| sidewndr46 wrote:
| there are these things called garages. People in many places
| have them. In big cities, you usually wind up parking in one.
| They tend not to be made of transparent materials.
| thejohnconway wrote:
| That's literally in my comment. Here is London, for
| example, garages are rare, and nearly everyone parks on the
| street or in their front yard.
| bryanlarsen wrote:
| Their marketing claims 1kWh per day when perfect conditions
| would give 1.5 - 2 kWh, so they're not misleading anybody.
| bryanlarsen wrote:
| It's a EUR6000 car. If that solar panel is significantly adding
| to cost and complexity, it's not being reflected in the price.
| mike-cardwell wrote:
| If you're going to attack the idea, at least address the bits
| of the page that talk about the thing you think doesn't work:
|
| > Even in northern countries like The Netherlands the sun gives
| enough energy for average urban use. The solar panel can charge
| up to 20 km per day in Europe. The average micro car usage is
| around 12 km per day.
| komali2 wrote:
| It's just really frustrating to think a path we might go
| down, after trying cars for 100 years, is using (sure, small)
| cars for daily trips of 12km. We're going to maintain travel
| and parking infrastructure, for 12km trips? Really? That's so
| much space that could be reclaimed.
|
| I'm not a big fan of scooters but most taipei trips cap out
| around 10km. A scooter takes a 1x.5 meter spot at home and in
| the city, and in lanes of traffic we stack three to five wide
| while moving. They still don't beat busses, trains, bikes, or
| walking, but they're a damn sight better than a private car
| no matter the size. If you're concerned about rain, you can
| wear a rain jacket like hundreds of thousands here do without
| issue.
| JKCalhoun wrote:
| For myself, I'm a scooter fan as well.
|
| I remember seeing a lot of dedicated motorcycle parking
| when I lived in California, none here in the Midwest.
| Having dedicated parking for 2-wheels would help for people
| scratching their heads about picking up an electric
| scooter.
| throwawaaarrgh wrote:
| Bikes and scooters do not replace all use cases for cars.
| We need alternatives. This is one of hopefully many more.
| PragmaticPulp wrote:
| Interesting concept. I'm interested to see how many people will
| find a use for microcars like this:
|
| > Max speed 45 km/h (L6) 70 km/h (L7)
|
| To put it in perspective, the L6 homologated version tops out at
| 28mph. That's marginally faster than a golf cart. The whole
| concept feels a lot like a very, very well designed golf cart.
|
| The bigger L7 version can go a little over 40mph. Thinking of my
| normal shopping and daily routine, I could make that work. Would
| be interesting to have an option like this available. I don't
| think I'd actually feel safe driving it mixed in with normal size
| cars at 40mph, though.
| elliottkember wrote:
| > 28mph. That's marginally faster than a golf cart
|
| Golf carts do not go 28 miles per hour.
| tuyiown wrote:
| I suspect 45kmph is enough for driving in dense part of many
| cities in the world. Very likely not true in the US, but my
| main concern would be the risk of being very easily crushed by
| heavier vehicles.
| RocketOne wrote:
| The Squad is a great concept. But the problem in America is not
| great concepts. Its convincing the public, and therefore
| investors, that small, lightweight road machines are viable.
|
| Aptera is facing the same challenge. The concept is fantastic.
| Its got amazing engineering and unlike the Squad its a highly
| designed, efficient machine. But finding funders is the hard
| part.
|
| Its the hard part for every start up. Which is why EV startups
| fail at nearly 100% rate.
| vm wrote:
| Investors fund products that people want. These cars have two
| majors problems in the US: 1) expensive and 2) city parking is
| painful
|
| There will be demand if a company solves those problems in a US
| city.
| incomingpain wrote:
| The price aside.
|
| I love the idea, been following betterbike and elf and a couple
| others.
|
| I drive once maybe twice a week. Solar powered makes sense for my
| use case. The thing ought to be fully powered all the time.
|
| What I'm hoping for is the VW ID buzz camper van hopefully has
| solar roof. That'll be amazing.
| cwkoss wrote:
| It's a golf cart with marketing
| GiorgioG wrote:
| As long as I have a choice, I'm not buying a golf cart pretending
| to be a real car. Look at the safety specs. It's a golf cart.
| cush wrote:
| If the big cars didn't pose such a danger, electric bicycles
| would already be our primary alternative for city driving.
| They're fast, quiet, cheap, and reliable, and every year they're
| getting better and better
| mattlondon wrote:
| Except of course it might rain. Or it might be too sunny/hot.
| Or you might need to carry kids. Or carry shopping/parcels. Or
| you might need to go faster than an ebike can legally go
| (12mph).
|
| Bikes aren't for everyone.
| ktosobcy wrote:
| > Except of course it might rain.
|
| Agreed on that (not a fan of being wet, even in tropical
| climat)
|
| > Or it might be too sunny/hot.
|
| That's usually not a problem but YMMV
|
| > Or you might need to carry kids.
|
| Or you may live in a sane place where you don't have to carry
| kids everywhere as they can simply walk to school (or take a
| bus in worst case scenario)
|
| > Or carry shopping/parcels.
|
| You don't have to shop for whole month? Doing groceries in
| the corner shop? Parcels can be delivered to you or to close-
| by point? It's kinda hard to imagine you would buy and
| maintain a car just because once in a blue moon you order a
| wardrobe (though, in this case using proper delivery makes
| more sense still)?
|
| > Or you might need to go faster than an ebike can legally go
| (12mph).
|
| Why?
| wishinghand wrote:
| You mention legal speed of ebikes but use mph- what country
| are you in? In the USA, it's 28mph.
|
| Also, my ebike does fine for parcels/shopping, it has a rack.
| If it's hot I use more vehicle assist and less human power. I
| see cargo bikes for larger loads like children.
|
| Ebikes may not be for everyone, but they're much better than
| you portray.
| neoberg wrote:
| Except of course none of these are issues for biking. Weather
| situation is the same as walking; you need to dress properly.
|
| And there are countless solution for carrying kids or
| groceries. We go to kindergarten everyday by bike, a child
| trailer works very well.
|
| > Or you might need to go faster than an ebike can legally go
| (12mph).
|
| Yes, then you use the car or public transport.
| bufferoverflow wrote:
| > _Except of course none of these are issues for biking_
|
| Except they all are
|
| > _Weather situation is the same as walking_
|
| But we're not talking about bikes replacing walking, we're
| talking about bikes replacing cars.
| habosa wrote:
| > Weather situation is the same as walking; you need to
| dress properly.
|
| I love my ebike but that's not really true. Weather feels
| much more extreme on a bike, IMO. In the rain I get much
| wetter on my bike than walking. In the cold the weather
| hurts my hands and eyes. In the sun I sweat more, because
| biking is exercise unless I go throttle-only.
|
| And of course there's the danger aspect. Walking in the
| rain is not a safety risk for me at all. Biking in the rain
| is not as safe.
|
| So I mostly use my ebike in mild weather conditions and
| choose other options at the extremes.
| ben-schaaf wrote:
| > Except of course it might rain.
|
| You're not made of sugar and neither is the bike. Rain gear
| exists just like it does for walking.
|
| > Or it might be too sunny/hot.
|
| On an eBike it's usually more comfortable than walking due to
| the breeze.
|
| > Or you might need to carry kids.
|
| Cargo bikes, trailers and kids seats. Carrying kids on bikes
| is easy. Certainly better for them to be outside in fresh air
| with a good view. The older kids ride themselves of course.
|
| > Or carry shopping/parcels.
|
| Cargo bikes, trailers, baskets, panniers, backpacks, etc. You
| honestly cannot argue that bikes can't carry things.
|
| > Or you might need to go faster than an ebike can legally go
| (12mph).
|
| At least in Europe they're limited to 25km/h, or 16mph. With
| traffic lights, stop signs and congestion you may very well
| be going slower than that on average in a car.
|
| There _are_ of course reasons people can 't/don't use a bike
| for something: Poor infrastructure, lacking safety
| enforcement (from cars & thieves), anti-convenience laws like
| helmet mandates, super long distances, super heavy/large
| cargo, impassable terrain, good public transit, horrendous
| weather, etc. You might note that pretty much all of those
| apply to cars as well.
| warrenmiller wrote:
| I can tell by this comment that you're 100% Dutch :)
| menus wrote:
| > Or you might need to carry kids. Or carry shopping/parcels
|
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rQhzEnWCgHA
|
| There is a huge misunderstanding in what bikes are trying to
| achieve. No sane one is suggesting you use a bike for a 50
| mile work commute.
|
| The criticism is against giant SUVs and pickup trucks for in-
| city travel. You dont need to burn 2 gallons of fuel to carry
| a gallon of milk and dozen eggs from 2 miles away. A cargo
| bike like in the video above is sufficient.
|
| Most cars have 1 passenger in them currently. How do I know
| that? Because HoV lanes are always empty.
| EngManagerIsMe wrote:
| I live in Seattle, riding in the rain is not really a
| problem. A halfway decent outer shell protects you from the
| rain.
|
| I carry my kid on my bike. My wife's bike has a whole box up
| front that could carry two kids. (Mine has a long tail with a
| captain's chair on it.)
|
| I can carry shopping easily. I've carted something like 6-10
| cubic feet of soil on it before. Cargo bikes are made to
| carry stuff.
|
| Ebikes can go as fast as you can pedal them, and will stop
| assisting you at 28mph. I've regularly hit 30mph on
| downhills, and here in Seattle you can treat stop signs as
| yield signs. In practice, because I don't have to stop every
| block and because I can take paths and other shortcuts and I
| don't need to find parking, trips under a couple miles are
| generally faster on the bike than in a car.
| knodi123 wrote:
| > and I don't need to find parking,
|
| even with the basket/trailer?
| EngManagerIsMe wrote:
| Nah. It's easy enough to chain up to any ol' bike post.
| It's a midsize cargo bike. My wife's bike takes a bit
| more work, but she's got the whole bucket at the front
| going on.
| cush wrote:
| They go 25mph, which is the limit in many cities. Yes they
| can't carry children usually. They can carry shopping and
| parcels quite well. And agree, rain biking sucks.
|
| That said, not dealing with traffic or parking are two
| plusses of cycling you completely ignored and are the worst
| part of driving.
| shrx wrote:
| I park my car inside a garage, no way to charge it. If everyone
| would have to park their cars outside this would take a lot of
| additional parking space.
| timerol wrote:
| The batteries are removable and can be carried inside and
| charged separately. They likely weigh around 30 lbs each (up to
| 4 can be installed), based on comparable batteries, but I see
| the weight is listed
| yellowapple wrote:
| If this can plug in, then as long as your garage has an outlet
| you should be fine.
|
| If this _can 't_ plug in, then I question the sanity of the
| designer of this thing.
| elliottkember wrote:
| > Alternatively the batteries can be charged directly on a
| regular power plug or a charge point. The swappable batteries
| can also be charged externally of the car.
|
| This is FAQ #2
| Entinel wrote:
| I like the idea but in a world of Hummers and lifted trucks I
| wouldn't feel safe no matter how indestructible they claim the
| body is.
| jackhack wrote:
| Not just modified vehicles or hummers, but a road filled with
| SUVs, minivans, delivery trucks, crossovers. Even a "standard"
| Ford F150 is goliath, and an indestructable frame won't save
| you. To the contrary, a super-rigid frame translates into
| occupant injury. Crumple zones, energy absorbing materials,
| deformation of structures = survivability. A 20 mph head-on
| collision in a 1950s auto with a full frame design is often far
| more serious than a 40 mph collision in a modern auto. Head-to-
| head comparison: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fPF4fBGNK0U
| (likely death vs possible foot injury)
|
| Now contemplate a 6' long vehicle with 1' or less of "crumple
| zone".
| teekert wrote:
| Where I live people are on bikes, ebikes, escooters and cargo
| bikes all over the roads anyway so this fits right in.
|
| I drove through Texas in a small Kia once, indeed, I was
| always afraid someone would fail to notice me and drive over
| the car thinking "what was that?"
| LightBug1 wrote:
| Finally... a company that understood the assignment.
|
| Thanks. Will be looking into this more deeply.
| mkoryak wrote:
| Now that I'll never get a Tesla, what is a good alternative in
| the US?
| komali2 wrote:
| Depends on the city. For most cities I've found a bicycle or
| ebike has the best door to door time (most navigation apps
| neglect to calculate time to find parking in their navigation
| estimates). If possible walking + public transit is usually
| pretty good.
| Cthulhu_ wrote:
| Take your pick, all major car manufacturers and some new ones
| are making EVs these days.
| tantalor wrote:
| But nobody is building NEV (neighborhood EV) like this.
| ehnto wrote:
| Not sure what grey import rules are like, but Japan has
| some sweet Kei Cars/Tiny Cars that are all electric. A bit
| bigger than this but much smaller than regular cars.
| warrenmiller wrote:
| Built by the Dutch for Dutch cities - these sort of vehicles are
| all over Amsterdam, mostly by people who can't be bothered to
| cycle and 16 year olds :)
| crooked-v wrote:
| It's a glorified golf cart, but there's no reason to need more
| than a glorified golf cart for local trips where I live, given
| the two-lane streets and city speed limits of 20-25 mph.
|
| As with a lot of vehicles I've seen like this it seems wildly
| overpriced, though. It's listed as EUR9300 ($10,260 USD). I could
| get a used Miata for less than that, and it would be about as
| practical, only a little harder to park, and be usable on the
| highway.
| 71a54xd wrote:
| They do realize "Squad Car" is often conflated with police
| vehicles, right?
| jollyllama wrote:
| Yep. Another poorly named, confusing, and ambiguous product.
| clnq wrote:
| I really like these small electric cars, and I plan to buy one
| even if only just for fun in the next ten years. They fill a
| niche between electric scooters/bikes and regular cars. In most
| cities, an electric scooter is usually enough for me. But they
| don't work well in rain, snow, or ice as they have no protection
| from the elements. A small car with a roof does. Also, if the car
| can pull 10+ km of range out of thin air through solar power
| every day, that's just a cherry on top.
|
| The only letdown I have with these cars is their appearance. Why
| do they often seem so rough around the edges? The Microlino 2.0
| is the only EV micro car I've come across with a somewhat
| attractive design. In comparison, the TWIZY, AMI, and Squad
| models just seem plasticky, uncomfortable, and cheaply crafted.
| Even many electric golf carts boast a more polished look, not to
| mention a much better suspension.
|
| Is it that the target demographic demands cheapness? What about
| people who have the means for a premium car but like the
| practicality (the T-shirt and shorts in-the-office guys as
| opposed to suit and tie, so to speak)? I'd gladly pay a design
| premium, even if it's just to make these cars on par (pun
| intended) with golf carts in elegance, which is not a tall ask.
| ilyt wrote:
| > But they don't work well in rain, snow, or ice as they have
| no protection from the elements.
|
| That's honestly lesser problem than the fact 2 wheeled vehicles
| on ice are fucking scary to drive
| clnq wrote:
| E-scooters are reasonably stable when there's a small amount
| of ice so long as you don't use solid tyres. They are more
| stable than road bikes and city bikes because they have a
| wider area of contact with the ground. For more comfort, you
| can under-inflate the pneumatic tyres or buy studded tyres.
| Also, you feel steadier on them than on a bike because you
| always have one foot as a third point of contact if you need
| it, and you feel somewhat more in control than with a car as
| the inertia is lower. The battery life and dirt/sleet are
| more frustrating.
|
| Don't knock it till you try it. Though be careful for the
| first time if you do try it, use common sense -- drive slower
| and don't turn as sharply, dress appropriately as you'll be
| caked in mud. But otherwise it's doable and quite fun.
| ilyt wrote:
| I've driven a bicycle in winter and yeah nah, I'd rather
| just take public transport. It's not just traction but the
| fact everyone else got shitty traction too, so there is a
| good chance than most of the agility of small bike/bicycle
| is negated by just slipping.
|
| At least with bicycle like 95% of my route is not on actual
| road sharing it with cars, can't do that on bike.
| danielnoiz wrote:
| I realy want the nobe cars 100 gt[1] to be a real thing, but I
| don't think it will ever really be produced. Seems like a great
| upgrade from the golf cart style small ev that would be perfect
| for a commute like mine, 20 miles one way partially on the
| highway.
|
| [1] https://nobecars.com/
| clnq wrote:
| Thanks for sharing that, it looks like a very standout
| design.
| endisneigh wrote:
| I want an enclosed bike under $2K with cargo. Plzzzz
| bkettle wrote:
| The widespread use of huge, highway-built vehicles (that is, all
| American cars) for short trips in US cities has been sticking out
| to me recently as a major safety hazard and detractor from
| pleasant urban living. Highway-built cars are fundamentally
| incompatible with human-scale living: they are loud and
| accelerate quickly while being soundproof, isolating the
| occupants from the effects they have on their environment. Sleek,
| reflective windshields and tinted windows also make it difficult
| for pedestrians and bikers to make eye contact with car drivers,
| dehumanizing interactions with vehicles and increasing reliance
| on inflexible measures like traffic lights that would not be
| required on a more human scale.
|
| I would love to see small cars like these come into more
| widespread use in the the U.S., with carsharing programs
| providing cars as needed for highway driving. This change could
| come much more quickly than the large-scale urban design
| improvements we will eventually need to totally reduce reliance
| on cars in cities.
|
| As it is, many city streets are too fast for these cars to be
| comfortable. I would love to see a general slowing-down of
| vehicles in US cities and towns that makes city vehicles like
| these practical, and, on top of the obvious safety benefits for
| all the cities that claim to have "vision zero", I don't think it
| would come with many downsides. Even outside of a city center for
| in-town trips of a few miles, 28mph is really quite fast--a
| matter of a few extra minutes compared to current dangerous city
| speeds.
| fishtoaster wrote:
| > with carsharing programs providing cars as needed for highway
| driving
|
| I feel like this is the missing piece for me for the car-less
| life I dream of: what to do when I want to take a few-day trip
| to any of the beautiful places in easy driving distance of my
| dense urban core?
|
| Car sharing is an option, but it's quite expensive. If I take a
| zipcar for 1 drive out to a campground on a Friday, then 1
| drive back on a Sunday, I'm spending $240 or more.
|
| You can argue that the cost of car rental is way less than the
| amortized cost of an actual car, but a $5k used vehicle pays
| for itself after 20 such trips.
|
| I don't know a great solution here. Trains + long-distance
| buses only work if you're going exactly where they're going, or
| if you're headed to another city with good post-train transit
| options. Rent other people's unused cars (a la Getaround)?
| Prices for that seem to be barely better than Zipcar. Maybe
| rentable driverless cars, eventually: they can drive me to the
| campground, then drive themselves to the nearest town and rent
| themselves out to other people for the weekend until I need
| them again? I dunno.
| NoLinkToMe wrote:
| There's no fundamental reason a zipcar - profit should be
| more expensive than a personal car. After all, if it's an
| equivalent car, you'd expect equivalent purchase cost,
| financing costs, insurance, taxes, fuel etc.
|
| The only difference is that Zipcar has a much stronger market
| position than an individual consumer, and thus can get better
| contracts & economies of scale for things like purchasing,
| financing, maintenance and insurance.
|
| And there's no reason to think profits are a very significant
| part of the pricing. It's a competitive market and Zipcar has
| never turned a profit in the past 20 years.
|
| There's overhead both for Zipcar and for consumers, e.g. to
| arrange for repairs on cars. Consumers are just doing 'unpaid
| labour' by arranging a car to get repairs for example and pay
| in 'opportunity costs', while Zipcar will pay staff to
| arrange such repairs, and charge the customer ultimately to
| pay their staff. But economically there's no difference,
| opportunity costs are still costs. And again, I'd expect
| Zipcar to get economies of scale, dedicated professionals
| working with optimised processes and tightly negotiated
| contracts on the overhead, to do better than an average joe
| having to arrange the same repairs.
|
| So while I won't argue the $240 bill you referenced, or
| calculate exactly the equivalent costs of a personal car, I
| hope you'd agree there's no fundamental reason equivalent use
| of a car via a sharing service should be more expensive.
|
| I do hope you agree that it should be as cheap, or cheaper
| for two reasons. One the economies of scale & professional
| approach to car ownership, being more efficient. But two,
| that some of the costs (like manufacturing the car) don't
| scale with usage, and thus become way cheaper when spread
| over multiple users. If you only use a car 1 out of 10 days,
| there's no way I can see how a personal car can get close to
| as cheap as a shared car.
|
| So apart from personal convenience & psychology around
| personal ownership, I think car sharing wins as an economic
| model long-term. Just like we share airplanes, hotels etc.
| Now convenience wins because there's not a car available
| everywhere and always. But as soon as every car has self-
| driving tech, given the amount of cars I see around me in a
| city that are just sitting there, I think in urban centres
| car sharing will become the norm. In less dense places
| personal cars will likely remain.
| 83 wrote:
| _You can argue that the cost of car rental is way less than
| the amortized cost of an actual car_
|
| I don't think people arguing this have ever actually run the
| numbers and realize just how expensive rentals get. Every
| year my wife and I plan a week long road trip. If I price out
| this years trip from the midwest to Utah in a full size suv
| or truck (need 4wd and space for climbing/camping gear):
|
| Base rental: $970
|
| mileage fees: $350 (1400 miles at 25 cents a mile)
|
| Tow fees: $180 (optional, but I like to bring my small
| teardrop so $20 a day for the tow package fees)
|
| We're now close to $1500. At this price I can buy a truck,
| title it, insure it, and then sell it at a slight loss when I
| get home and still come out ahead of the rental. In just one
| trip.
|
| *edit - formatting
| bombcar wrote:
| It can entirely depend on the deals you get; I was able to
| rent a Tahoe (largish but not huge SUV) and drive it across
| the country and back for about a grand; unlimited miles;
| and I've done similar with a minivan. You get a brand new
| vehicle that you can put miles on and it's unlikely to fail
| you.
| mechagodzilla wrote:
| With that $5k used car, you're also paying monthly insurance
| and any required maintenance on it. If you were averaging
| less than once a month, the zipcar probably works out to be
| cheaper indefinitely.
| KRAKRISMOTT wrote:
| In the event of an emergency, your car is available on
| demand.
| mechagodzilla wrote:
| Maybe? It depends if your car is in the shop for repairs,
| or has a dead battery (especially if driven
| infrequently), etc. For most people, the carrying-cost of
| a car is probably a few thousand dollars a year
| (insurance, maintenance, parking, depreciation, etc). If
| you're driving frequently and parking costs are sane,
| it's definitely going to work out to own a cheap car, but
| if you genuinely use a car infrequently and rentals are
| readily available, it's worth running the numbers
| carefully.
| KRAKRISMOTT wrote:
| Just get a Toyota and keep up with annual servicing. Too
| many people get "exciting" or "fun" cars as their daily
| drivers that are not reliable. It's entirely on the
| owner. What's the point of owning a car if you are not
| going to drive it? A light electric golf cart isn't much
| cheaper either.
| recursive wrote:
| I just got my annual registration bill from the DMV.
| $768. In most cases, it's probably cheaper, but that's
| another significant line item in the mere ownership of a
| car.
| kibwen wrote:
| As someone in the US who doesn't own a car, I can rent a
| car in the event of an emergency. Emergencies are rare,
| and spending $200 (including gas) for a one-off rental is
| still way cheaper than the TCO of owning a car.
| munificent wrote:
| _> way less than the amortized cost of an actual car, but a
| $5k used vehicle pays for itself after 20 such trips._
|
| First of all, the days of getting a decent car for $5k in the
| US ended with the pandemic and the supply chain insanity. But
| even if you could do that, you also need to factor in:
|
| * Gas
|
| * Insurance
|
| * Registration and taxes
|
| * Maintenance
|
| If you don't use a car as part of your commute or regular
| errands, it's likely cheaper to rent.
|
| Honestly, the best compromise solution is usually to share a
| single car for a household. Not helpful if you're single, but
| if you have a partner, then you can usually get by fairly
| well with just one car and now your individual costs are cut
| in half.
|
| Another way to balance the trade-offs is to own a car that's
| smaller and more cost efficient but doesn't cover all your
| needs. Then rent on the infrequent times when you're
| traveling, camping, bringing a bunch of kids to a party,
| hauling lumber, etc. and you need the extra storage or
| passenger space.
| benbenolson wrote:
| I agree with using a single car for a household: my wife
| and I have done that for the past six years (living in
| Tennessee, Oregon, and Arizona) with a 2006 Toyota
| Highlander that we paid $7,000 in cash for. The last two
| years, we've had a baby/toddler. We've encountered a few
| (one or two per six months) situations where we might have
| _preferred_ another vehicle, but the inconvenience was so
| minor (I Ubered, or someone picked me up) that another
| vehicle couldn't remotely be justified. Recently we got a
| beat-up F-150 to haul lumber and soil, but don't use it
| day-to-day and have never _needed_ it as a second vehicle.
|
| Regarding the sub-$5k car: it depends on your definition of
| "decent used car." Most people are unwilling to accept a
| used vehicle with a slightly broken interior or other minor
| issues. Just today, I was looking for comparative prices
| for a 2003 F-150 that I've got, and I found multiple in the
| $2-3k range in my area that are in good condition (running
| motor, A/C works, non-necessary repairs required). And
| that's a pickup truck: if you want a coupe or sedan, there
| are even more options below $3,000. You just need to be
| willing to accept some flaws: right now I've got several
| tabs open of good "A-to-B" cars with under 200k miles.
| 83 wrote:
| Not sure why gas is on there, it's not like rentals come
| with unlimited free gas.
|
| And at $250ish to rent a vehicle for the weekend it only
| takes a couple weekends to pay for the insurance,
| registration, and taxes (or is it just that much more
| expensive on the coasts? I'm in the midwest). There's a
| reason people own instead of rent, and it isn't because
| renting never occurred to them.
| mehlmao wrote:
| Zipcar in fishtoaster's example includes gas in the
| price. The rental car comes with a debit card to pay for
| gas. There's a surcharge if you drive more than an 180
| miles per day (averaged).
| 83 wrote:
| Munificent is not referring to Zipcar. He literally
| quoted the line about car rentals and then said "it's
| likely cheaper to rent".
| [deleted]
| proee wrote:
| The industry is heading toward 100 EV for cars. Would it not be
| possible to create an industry standard that allows for
| geofenced speed regulators?
|
| We have the technology to enforce speed limits on a per-street
| basis if everyone is diving an EV (even non EV for that
| matter).
|
| This would make it impossible for people to drive 50MPH through
| a residential neighborhood.
|
| Seems like a good idea no?
| colordrops wrote:
| When all cars are connected we will 100% have geofencing that
| controls cars. I suspect that this will become a political
| wedge issue. The right will see it as unnecessary government
| control, and/or the left will be pissed that rich people
| coordinated with officials to prevent most people from
| driving through their neighborhood.
| SoftTalker wrote:
| > rich people coordinated with officials to prevent most
| people from driving through their neighborhood
|
| Gated neighborhoods are already a thing. You don't need
| geofencing technology to do that.
| colordrops wrote:
| You obviously don't live in LA. Google maps does
| everything it can to route you around rich neighborhoods.
| And there are countless extremely rich neighborhoods with
| no gates.
| issa wrote:
| In the US, I think it is more likely that we will regulate
| automobile speed than guns. I thought there might be a joke
| here, but sadly, this is just true.
| a_t48 wrote:
| We already have that technology for any non-manual car. But
| nobody would want to buy it - I'm not sure geofencing is
| reliable enough to do what you're asking for, GPS drifts.
| bkettle wrote:
| We can also prevent people from driving 50MPH through
| residential neighborhoods with good street design. Current
| safety standards with open roads encourage people to ignore
| the speed limit. Safety features like raised crosswalks, curb
| bulb-outs at intersections, and roundabouts at small
| intersections like those used in Seattle all make it
| uncomfortable to drive fast. This would go far in reducing
| egregious speeding without the claims of authoritarianism
| that would certainly come with technological speed controls.
| cptskippy wrote:
| You're right and the thought of this always makes me
| chuckle and think of a neighborhood nearby that has enacted
| these traffic calming measures along a heavily trafficked
| corridor. The curbs of the pinch points and chicanes are
| black from tire rubs. You probably don't have to wait more
| than 10 minutes to see a car come along and smack into a
| curb.
| zacharyaustin11 wrote:
| I live on a street that is an arterial in Oklahoma.
| Generally in tulsa people drive 45-50mph on our grid (major
| streets every mile). I had to have a 125cc scooter to keep
| up with traffic. Even on an e-bike going 25mph I had people
| trying to run me off the road if I used the full lane.
|
| I am seriously wondering if we just need to setup camera
| speed traps and red light cameras to solve this and fund
| better human scaled infrastructure. Imagine trying to cross
| one of these streets where there isn't a crosswalk for a
| half mile
| zzzeek wrote:
| I think about the all the time, as I'm in one of tens of
| thousands of cars blowing by "55 mph" signs at 75-80 mph
| regularly, right past cops who are supposedly looking for
| "speeders", etc. obviously if civil society wanted to
| actually eliminate "speeding" this solution is one of many
| that can do it immediately.
|
| however I suspect there are various large political
| roadblocks, not the least of which it would eliminate the
| jobs of cops who sit on roadsides and make money giving out
| tickets but I'm sure also including car manufacturers,
| consumers, maybe DMVs for some reason I can't think of, etc.
|
| you know it's one of those things that would be commonplace
| in an imaginary "imagine we traveled 50 years into the
| future" things, but how it actually happens is not at all
| clear.
| robomartin wrote:
| > I would love to see small cars like these come into more
| widespread use in the the U.S
|
| While I agree with the sentiment, I don't think this is
| possible.
|
| The first layer of the many problems is that people don't have
| unlimited funds to purchase multiple vehicles. Remember that
| every vehicle must also be insured.
|
| This means they must make a selection based on life's
| realities. For a family, in most urban areas in the US, that
| means highway travel to go just-about everywhere, including
| shopping for food, school and work. A relatively small
| percentage of people in most towns have the luxury of living so
| close to work, school, stores, church, whatever, to be able to
| use this type of vehicle.
|
| And then you have the issues you alude to: Speed and size. My
| street, which is in a nice neighborhood, is supposed to have a
| 25 mph speed limit. I can't tell you how many people who live
| here fly down this street doing 40 to 50 mph. It's mind
| blowing, really. If you can't be considerate in your own
| neighborhood, I hate to think what someone might be like on the
| highway.
|
| I have almost been hit a few times in the 25 years I've lived
| here just coming out of my driveway. People are moving so fast
| that you look right and left, it's clear and, when you are on
| the road someone suddenly is right on your ass. It's terrible.
|
| We've had multiple neighbors call the police for some
| enforcement. They put on a bit of a show and nothing happens
| (those signs showing your speed). They don't want to write
| dozens of tickets on a neighborhood street. They have more
| important things to look after, I guess.
|
| And so, most people look at a car like this and think "That
| would be nice, but...".
|
| I suppose there might be a potential future where self driving
| cars might be software-limited to maximum speeds based on where
| they might be and actually cooperate to increase safety (the
| car coming down the street knows my car is pulling out onto the
| street and plans appropriately, etc.).
|
| I think that's the only hope really. Which means it is at least
| 25 years away.
| y-curious wrote:
| Where do you live, just curious? Is it suburbs or city?
| robomartin wrote:
| Suburbs.
| bkettle wrote:
| What does your residential street look like? My guess is that
| is is wide and has no physical traffic calming features to
| make it uncomfortable to drive fast. If you and your
| neighbors want to slow people down on the street, you should
| fight for measures that make people feel like they should go
| slow naturally. Studies have shown [1, 2] that drivers often
| base their speed more on the "design speed" of the road more
| than the posted speed limit---and this likely resonates with
| most drivers.
|
| Certainly software limits on self-driving cars would solve
| the speed issue, but I don't think that is the only hope---
| nor do I think it (or self driving cars in general) is the
| best answer.
|
| [1]: https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/9354/17c4dca8e52a2a4920
| bd9e... [2]: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/12/19/8143
| kibwen wrote:
| _> Remember that every vehicle must also be insured._
|
| The vehicles in the OP aren't in the same vehicle class as
| cars. For example, you aren't required to get insurance or
| have a license to ride a bike. These are basically just
| e-bikes with a passenger seat (or alternatively, electric
| mopeds), which may or may not require insurance based on your
| jurisdiction (usually maximum speed is the determining
| factor).
| robomartin wrote:
| I would not drive anything on the road without insurance.
| Imagine if someone were to hit you and leave the scene
| after causing serious injury. Or, of course, the culprit
| does not have insurance or is under-insured.
|
| The bottom line is you could be a serious financial trouble
| if you are not insured. You can also be sued if you hit
| someone or cause injury. In the US, it simply isn't smart
| to expose yourself by not having insurance for activities
| where injury or liability could be a factor. An unrelated
| example: I have been flying model airplanes and helicopters
| for decades. I have a million dollars insurance to cover
| that activity.
| VoodooJuJu wrote:
| Urban living detracts from pleasant urban living. Pleasant
| urban living is an oxymoron. If not highway-built cars
| disturbing the peace, then it's the emergency vehicles, the
| sirens, the construction. Sound aside, the pollution, the
| disease, the trash, the smell. It's always something in the
| city.
| golemiprague wrote:
| [dead]
| inconceivable wrote:
| china already makes a lot of these but we all know how that's
| gonna go if they ever try to market them in the US.
| LightBug1 wrote:
| Except they run 2 to 3 Uyghurs pedaling under the bonnet to
| power the batteries, so I'm not sure they'll meet the
| required regulations.
| annoyingnoob wrote:
| > Highway-built cars are fundamentally incompatible with human-
| scale living: they are loud
|
| Most modern cars are very quiet. There is an alley behind my
| house, I mostly hear the stupid whirring noises that electric
| cars make and large trucks, I don't even hear modern ICE cars
| go through the alley. The safety systems for blind people in
| electric cars are much much louder than the exhaust of a modern
| car.
| swalling wrote:
| Try telling a family who needs to haul multiple children, dogs,
| and gear for even short trips to the park for soccer practice
| that they should use a tiny city car instead of a van or SUV.
| You buy vehicles for the life and city you have, not some
| aspirational version that exists in a fantasy of urban design.
|
| You're supposed to buy a second car just for long trips? Even
| if you live in a dense city, America is inescapably huge and
| requires highway travel unless you never want to leave your
| neighborhood. We don't have a functioning passenger rail
| network like China etc.
|
| Even if this were remotely feasible, which it's not, this kind
| of tiny car is a total death trap for your family when everyone
| else is driving large vehicles. I would love to see a crash
| test video of this against an F-150.
|
| Finally, let's say you do live in a city and you are already a
| two car household. Try telling your wife that she has to buy
| this ugly toy-sized car that she looks ridiculous in while you
| get to drive a Tesla or Rivian. Like it or not, cars are
| lifestyle status symbols where the aesthetics matter.
| dgacmu wrote:
| We're a one car family for two working parents and two kids,
| living in Pittsburgh (in the city, not the burbs). We make it
| work but there's a bit of Uber involved sometimes, and some
| compromises. Generally worth it - cars are both very
| convenient and a burden that requires ongoing care and
| feeding and money.
|
| If we do decide we need a second car as the kids get older,
| this is _exactly_ what I want. No gas stations. Super easy
| parking. Low capex and opex. Awesome on all fronts. (But as a
| second car.)
| chabons wrote:
| > You buy vehicles for the life and city you have [...]
|
| Agreed, there's a place for all forms of transit. I think the
| argument that the parent commenter was making was that we
| already have the density in many places for vehicles of this
| type make sense for residents, but the barrier is that road
| infrastructure is built to prioritize larger vehicles, making
| these vehicles unsafe.
|
| In places where safe infrastructure exists, families
| frequently plan their lives differently, and I know many
| (with the means to choose freely) who get by with carshare,
| good transit, cargo bikes, etc...
| swalling wrote:
| OP suggested that the solution should be to regulate in
| favor of cars like the one in the link. This is totally
| unrealistic and wrongheaded idea, because there are real
| use cases and needs that drive the decision to purchase
| larger, faster vehicles. Outside the functional reasons,
| there are also highly intractable cultural and emotional
| forces driving car trends in the opposite direction today.
|
| The viable solutions are 100% to encourage the kind of
| alternatives you listed to give people meaningful tools to
| decrease overall single family car use of any kind.
| chabons wrote:
| > [...] actively discourage or outlaw normal car designs
| in favor of cars like the one in the link.
|
| I read their comment as encouraging city-specific
| measures. They specifically reference "urban living",
| "human-scale living", or slowing down vehicles for "in-
| town trips". I agree that use-cases exist for larger
| vehicles, as even in the densest city centers delivery
| vehicles continue to need access. IMO larger vehicles
| need not be the vehicles we optimize for, or even allow
| at all times, in city centers, where such vehicles aren't
| needed by most residents.
|
| > [...] 100% to encourage the kind of alternatives you
| listed to decrease overall single family car use, not try
| to force everyone to change car designs [...]
|
| Honestly I'm thinking of this more like a large cargo
| bike, and less like a car. It's like a Canta
| (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canta_(vehicle)) in the
| Netherlands. It's not meant to serve the same purpose as
| today's cars, and we probably both agree it would feel
| unsafe to drive one amongst fast-moving traffic. It fills
| a gap in the transportation spectrum that's well-suited
| to certain areas, and I believe we should devote more
| infrastructure to vehicles which match the needs of an
| area, which I don't believe is always full-sized
| passenger vehicles.
| swalling wrote:
| We've already seen that vehicles like the Canta are
| abysmal failures in America. Smart Cars finally exited
| the US and Canada market in 2019 after years of poor
| sales.
|
| Meanwhile, cargo bike sales are climbing steadily.
| lumost wrote:
| I used to be a near pathological classic car fan. It's a
| unique kind of terror driving a 1500 lb '73 beetle or 2500
| pound 1995 ford escort alongside 7000 pound modern SUVs.
|
| That being said, I'm sure these cars will see some adoption
| in dense/regulated historic neighborhoods. Manhattan has had
| tolling debates for the last decade - on current trajectory
| I'd expect lower manhattan to be restricted access by the end
| of the decade.
| dylan604 wrote:
| I think you loose your pathological classic car club
| membership by touting a '95 Ford Escort. Just because it is
| 25 years old and qualifies for gov't definition of classic
| car does not make it the ideal car someone thinks of when
| the phrase classic car is used in normal conversation. (=
| bombcar wrote:
| I had a 1966 Plymouth Fury; it was only about a foot
| shorter than a 15 passenger van.
| mjmsmith wrote:
| > I would love to see a crash test video of this against an
| F-150.
|
| Don't buy a small car, don't walk, don't bike, don't use a
| scooter, because everyone else is driving large vehicles.
| Awesome.
| api wrote:
| Everything about the suburbs makes sense when you have kids.
| Nothing about the suburbs makes sense without them.
|
| I'm not arguing that the US style suburb is the best we can
| do, but you're not going to come up with anything better that
| really sticks without understanding why it's built the way it
| is.
|
| For people who don't have kids I don't feel like I can even
| explain it to you. Nothing can prepare you. You have to
| experience it.
| cwkoss wrote:
| Vehicles that can carry a large family could be significantly
| smaller if they didn't need to protect occupants from 60mph
| collisions.
|
| A 30mph crash entails order(s) of magnitude less force. Could
| look like a tram. Smaller seats with less padding become
| practical.
| zamnos wrote:
| Like it or not, not all marriages are dysfunctional like
| that. Sometimes (okay, rarely), the people in the marriage
| like each other! Two uneven sized cars is not a problem for
| every marriage, but for those that have that sort of weird
| power dynamic, the solution, of course, is not talking to
| each other, or couples counseling/therapy. No the solution is
| to buy _two_ ugly toy-sized cars, and one more Tesla.
| toss1 wrote:
| Fine, I will tell you that. The Station Wagon format was
| perfect for all of that before the CAFE (Corp Average Fuel
| Efficiency) standards came in with the exception for trucks,
| btu not a requirement that those trucks have commercial
| license tags.
|
| At that point, the entire production and marketing of the
| major car companies shifted towards SUV form factors, since
| they didn't count against their fuel mileage standards. Now,
| the behemoths are the norm, but what is really selling is the
| "Crossover", which is in fact indistinguishable from the old
| station wagon format.
|
| Yes, this thing won't likely do well when run over by an F150
| or Yukon. Which is why standards should be set such that the
| larger vehicles are not such a hazard to pedestrians,
| cyclists, and smaller cars (eliminating the front "wall"
| would be a start). It's likely you can do just fine with a
| station-wagon/crossover format, although this is obviously
| small for a bunch of kids and dogs. No car is not made for
| every purpose, and I wonder why the mere existence of this
| thing seems to annoy you so much?
| ktosobcy wrote:
| > Fine, I will tell you that. The Station Wagon format was
| perfect for all of that before the CAFE (Corp Average Fuel
| Efficiency) standards came in with the exception for
| trucks, btu not a requirement that those trucks have
| commercial license tags.
|
| Eh... we have to thank CAFE for SUVization of the world...
| the stupid trend is slowly trickling over the pond and it's
| getting more and more annoying... I do hope that either US
| will fix CAFE or UE will regulate to have smaller cars
| (usually hatchback is enough and wagon for bigger
| families)... or ideally both.
| swalling wrote:
| The existence doesn't annoy me. It's the sanctimonious tone
| that this _should_ be the norm, when it 's clearly not even
| remotely built for the reality of how families actually
| live, despite their marketing.
|
| The actual solution to this short trips problem is better
| mass transit and cycling infrastructure, with cars reserved
| for highway travel and other long trips or cargo hauling.
| Good pre-car suburban neighborhoods existed on a network of
| walking and electric streetcars. That is the future of
| urban design, not cars designed for Oompa Loompas.
| CalRobert wrote:
| It's not sanctimonious. It's trying to stop people
| killing our kids.
| p0pcult wrote:
| Only ~40% of American households have children under 18.
| Families are _not_ the norm.
| swalling wrote:
| The typical household != the typical new car buyer. The
| average age of a car buyer is decades older than the
| average American, and >90% of them own their home. So
| they're likely to either be families or elderly.
| https://hedgescompany.com/blog/2019/01/new-car-buyer-
| demogra...
| Retric wrote:
| Except having 1 young child hardly requires an SUV. The
| "minivan years" is really a small percentage of the
| average American adult's lifetime.
|
| Exclude people who never have multiple kids, and those
| you have yet to have kids or whose kids have left home
| and large vehicles simply don't fit most people's
| lifestyles.
|
| Which is why pickup trucks can be so popular cars just
| don't have many passengers on average.
| xp84 wrote:
| > pickup trucks can be so popular cars just don't have
| many passengers on average
|
| Where I live they mostly drive enormous, 4-door "pickup
| trucks" which can seat 5 grown adults very comfortably.
| While it's not quite a 7-passenger full-sized SUV, I just
| want to make sure you're picturing the most popular size
| and shape of truck when you think about pickups :D
| numpad0 wrote:
| Aren't they selling more for higher eye level and more
| upright seating position/posture, than that people are
| tortured into buying by conspiratory schemes among
| international corporations?
| twic wrote:
| People all over Europe do exactly this, though. You need
| space _inside_ the car, not five tonnes of unnecessary metal
| around that space.
| swalling wrote:
| Europe and North America are fundamentally different in a
| large number of ways, starting with the fact that a single
| US state (Texas) is roughly the size of Central Europe.
| Consider this when thinking about viable personal
| transportation modes.
| CalRobert wrote:
| That illustrates that these city "streets" are, in fact,
| stroads.
| ilyt wrote:
| But slowing down means every vehicle is on road longer, so even
| more vehicles in peak traffic.
|
| I think problem is that many of high speed roads are also very
| "interfering"; highway circling a city is not really a problem
| and can be decently isolated, but high speed road full of
| streets flowing into it just makes for many more chances for
| accidents.
| [deleted]
| CapstanRoller wrote:
| If the goal is efficient and consistent transportation, then
| traffic coordination is far more important than raw speed.
|
| A fancy 10GBe switch without any flow control or collision
| detection is basically useless.
| ilyt wrote:
| True but people don't have that either, regardless of
| speed.
|
| > A fancy 10GBe switch without any flow control or
| collision detection is basically useless.
|
| basic 10Gbit switch works far better than fancy 1Gbit
| switch in vast majority of cases. Only if you need single
| digit ms jitter while running storage loads on same switch
| does it start to matter.
|
| It's also absolutely terrible comparision at every level
| because
|
| * now even lower end switches can sustain max speed between
| every port at once, while traffic often have clear
| bottlenecks
|
| * pentalty for stopping traffic (by congestion) for 10ms is
| 10ms delay. Stopping car traffic (with say red light) means
| multiple second delay till everyone gets up to speed. Even
| single car acting badly can make massive traffic wave
| slowing down people behind them for minute or more.
| CapstanRoller wrote:
| >pentalty for stopping traffic (by congestion) for 10ms
| is 10ms delay.
|
| That's because Ethernet has flow control, while car
| traffic doesn't. That's why my example was about a very
| fast switch _with no flow control or collision
| detection_. Basically, a fast but otherwise terrible hub.
|
| We can't solve the inherent problems of hubs by making
| them faster, but somehow we think it's okay to solve
| inherent problems of bad road design by adding more lanes
| or increasing speed limits.
| jonas21 wrote:
| Slowing a road down doesn't decrease its throughput (at least
| not until you get to _very_ low speeds). The minimum spacing
| required between cars is proportional to speed.
| bkettle wrote:
| Slowing down roads also means they are more comfortable to
| bike in and to walk alongside, which will move some people
| from cars to other modes and decrease peak traffic for
| drivers.
| solarpunk wrote:
| NEVs!
| https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neighborhood_Electric_Vehicl...
| shiftoutbox wrote:
| [dead]
| setgree wrote:
| I love the idea, but this looks very easy to steal/steal from:
|
| * 350 kg and 1.6m tall = 3-4 people can lift this into the bed of
| a pickup truck
|
| * If the doors are removable, can a car thief get inside just by
| carrying the door removal tool?
| duckfruit wrote:
| Is there something remotely similar for the US market? I would
| love a small, cheap electric city car and it doesn't have to be
| solar or anything - though that would be a plus! It would be
| perfect for my Silicon Valley commute (<10 miles on urban
| streets) although I appreciate that it probably won't be quite as
| useful for the vast majority of my countrymen.
|
| I have considered a used electric smart fortwo and a fiat 500e,
| but the combination of upfront cost and upkeep expenses owing to
| the need to register it as a car dulls their value proposition as
| a secondary commuter vehicle. I have looked into an
| Electrameccanica Solo, but as far as I can tell that company has
| folded after a series of recalls.
| RocketOne wrote:
| My Fiat 500e has been the lowest maintenance cost vehicle Ive
| ever owned. And Ive had approx 50 so far (Im a collector). In 5
| years of ownership its cost me one 12v battery ($80) and two
| headlights ($60) because one burned out. That's it.
|
| Yup I have to register and insure it but its ridiculously low
| cost compared to everything else.
| komali2 wrote:
| https://www.squadmobility.com/cookie-policy
|
| > We do not currently support Do Not Track signals, as there is
| no industry standard for compliance.
|
| By waiting for the rest of the industry to simultaneously decide
| the right way to do the right thing, you too can do whatever you
| please!
| yellowapple wrote:
| I further love how they demand an "industry standard for
| compliance" when complying with "please don't track me" is
| literally as simple as "okay then I won't track you".
|
| Such nonsense is why I don't trust anyone with "marketing" in
| one's title.
| Tade0 wrote:
| Just like things keep evolving into crabs, the final stage of
| vehicular evolution is the humble golf cart.
|
| I don't drive daily, but if I did, I would get this. It's 48%
| width and 40% the length of a parking spot according to current
| building standards around here, meaning I could squeeze four of
| these in there. I'm assuming that at 350kg I could just push this
| thing into place, thus avoiding the need to exit to the side once
| it's parked.
|
| And on top of that it even costs around 1/4 of what I would pay
| for a car.
|
| EDIT: here's a review and test drive:
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TYroDMTLVt4
| galleywest200 wrote:
| Am I reading this right in that I do not see airbags listed under
| the Safety header on this page? I see brakes, seat belts,
| lighting, roll cage, and "safety structure".
| wffurr wrote:
| I remember seeing an NEV (Neighborhood Electric Vehicle) concept
| at the MIT media lab like 15 years ago. And I might even recall
| something from the 90s like glorified golf carts.
|
| The tech has been around forever. The regulatory and built
| environment is the issue, reinforced by the status quo inertia of
| car dependency.
| msandford wrote:
| Looks like it doesn't have any real climate control. Once you
| have a light, efficient vehicle like this the climate control
| loads start to become significant vs the actual transport.
|
| Might work great where it's super mild all the time like Europe
| or parts of California. Probably not awesome in the US South.
| ladberg wrote:
| I can't speak to most of the US South but golf carts are a
| pretty common method of transportation for people who live in
| downtown Charleston.
| JKCalhoun wrote:
| For short excursions I don't see a huge problem. We often dress
| for the climate (coats, hats in winter, t-shirts in summer).
|
| Regardless, removing cars _anywhere_ is a win. Get something
| going like this and innovations to allow for different climates
| will follow.
|
| For little electrics like this, the low price may be the
| sleeper feature. Cars keep going up, up, up in cost. People
| might look at these as a 2nd car, then find they are
| increasingly using their 2nd car....
| bryanlarsen wrote:
| According to the preview on Fully Charged[0] it has heating and
| they're planning a version with Air Conditioning.
|
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TYroDMTLVt4&t=3s
| throwawaaarrgh wrote:
| Removing the doors makes it no worse than walking or biking?
| jiminymcmoogley wrote:
| probably much better actually, since you're not exerting
| yourself physically
| laputan_machine wrote:
| A lack of physical exertion is a large cause of obesity and
| depression. Human innovation tends towards us making our
| lives easier (so: less physical exercise). Quite the
| dilemma!
| throwawaaarrgh wrote:
| And some people are physically impaired and cannot walk
| or bike. The able world would love to forget about them
| or force them into 3 hour long bus routes, but besides
| that being incredibly unfair, it's just not necessary if
| there is alternative transportation.
| atonse wrote:
| I've actually seen some really impressive scooters that
| take care of this actually.
|
| The issue I've seen (can only speak for a large city in
| the US) is still accessibility. Like entrances, finding
| elevators, ramps, etc. especially in older buildings.
|
| For the record I got to experience this first hand when I
| hung out with an old colleague who was injured in a car
| crash. And this was at the DC convention center, a
| relatively new building. Finding elevators and navigating
| around took way longer, especially when you were lost.
| But I will say that it was amazing how everyone around
| him was willing to help in any way they could.
| yellowapple wrote:
| My folks run into similar issues with small children in
| strollers, and I myself run into similar issues with
| moving lots of stuff (or really big stuff) with a hand
| truck. The curb-cut effect is real, people!
| kamray23 wrote:
| Yeah in Finland you see people in effectively single-seat
| L-class vehicles all the time. It's the vehicle they use
| to get around, but that's an exception that should
| probably be left to them. There's far too many bent road
| signs around here because of the myriad of road safety
| issues these things pose. In the US, they don't drive
| golf carts on roads, and in the EU you sometimes start to
| get why.
| 2-to-15 wrote:
| I'm trying not to sound sarcastic, but doesn't an electric golf
| cart fill this need? These look like a fancy golf cart with a
| solar panel on the top. Is there a street legality issue with
| golf carts being on public urban streets? Edited: spelling
| Tade0 wrote:
| Highly depends on the region of the world. Street legal golf
| carts are generally a thing - at least in Europe.
| GoToRO wrote:
| Where can I buy one?
| elliottkember wrote:
| Golf carts do not have adequate suspension for roads. They're
| designed for wide-open, mostly flat golf courses, covered in
| grass. They don't do well in a roll-over, either. The size is
| similar, but the construction is quite different.
| robga wrote:
| Looks a lot like the citroen ami - electric but not solar.
|
| https://business.citroen.co.uk/ami
| sleepybrett wrote:
| looks like a golf cart with doors
| moffkalast wrote:
| Add some mecanum wheels and a pallet fork in the front and it
| also doubles as a forklift in a pinch, how neat is that?
| kamray23 wrote:
| Looks a lot like the L EU vehicle class which is more than
| common in the EU. Go by various names: voiturette, mopoauto,
| quardicycle, same thing. Big, big issues and very dangerous for
| a variety of reasons, those being easier or harder to fix.
|
| Firstly, we give them to 15 year olds (AM/121 license). This is
| an obvious safety issue but we also give them mopeds (AM/120),
| tractors (T/F/TM/Tkt/K/L & AM) and buggies (AM/121) whatever
| else. Ordinary driving licenses (B) in the EU are always 18 and
| up so this is our transitional mobility option. They're only
| meant to go 45 km/h but you know if you give someone a pimped
| up lawnmower with a plastic body they're going to do their
| everything to make that little engine work way harder than it
| should. You can, surprisingly, cram eight teenagers into one if
| you try - it has two seats. The age thing is relatively easy to
| fix.
|
| Secondly, inherently unsafe design. These look more safe than
| mopeds. In terms of stability, they're stable upright and
| mopeds aren't so that's a big plus. Other than that, they're
| effectively the same vehicle when you get into a crash, that
| is, you practically become an 80 km/h pedestrian. They give off
| an illusion of safety though, making their (often young) user
| base very likely to find themselves in roadside posts due to
| the high centre of mass and low contact area making these
| things very likely to tip over in curve at any speed above like
| 35 km/h. Mopeds can actually often corner faster because
| they're designed to tip, but they're less likely to be driven
| with as much impunity due to the complete absence of the
| illusion of safety given by being inside a vehicle.
|
| Thirdly, they are slow. At 45 km/h top speed they are pretty
| much only useful on local roads which limits where you can go
| to the exact same range as a bicycle. Being on an arterial for
| a long time is going to be a massive road safety risk simply
| because of everyone passing you and attempting to drive on a
| highway is in fact, entirely illegal. In everything, be it
| cargo capacity, seats, range or whatever they are equivalent to
| bicycles in everything but cost and lifetime emissions,
| especially if they're 2-stroke. Not only that but they don't
| benefit from the quicker and more free bicycle and pedestrian
| infrastructure which can cross however it wants and are
| confined to roads, leading to often much higher travel times
| despite twice the top and thrice the comfortable riding speed
| of a bicycle. In literally every way these are useless unless
| you live in a rural village an hour's walk away from the local
| town and are 15. Even then, a speed limited car would probably
| do better.
|
| This insight into European driver's license and road safety
| politics brought to you by a Finnish man who wishes to see not
| only less SUVs but also less of these things on the roads
| because they are equally dangerous, although in different ways.
| cuu508 wrote:
| Regarding low speed, these are for driving in city, where you
| have 50km/h speed limit.
| kamray23 wrote:
| Yes, and for that they would be useful. However, in such an
| environment, it will be exceedingly rare for you to need
| one of these, as you would have to contend with city-level
| traffic and have to go at least 1.5 km away to even choose
| one instead of a bicycle. They have effectively the same
| safety and cargo capacity as a proper cargo bike, as they
| are super tiny. For families carrying children, bakfiets
| would fill the same role within that small radius.
| Therefore this is for intra-city, entirely urban trips,
| specifically going to places where there are no tram or
| metro stations within a few hundred metres or when a very
| small amount of too-heavy-to-carry cargo has to be moved
| more than 1.5 km, which as we all know, is a definite daily
| occurrence. Weather is one thing it protects you from, but
| from what I see on the daily, that's not a big enough issue
| to wage war against city traffic for for most people.
|
| I don't find a good niche for these to succeed other than
| in very small towns with integrated suburbs but then again
| people would bike for bike trips and buy a car anyway
| because they want to get out of the small town at some
| point. It's a great idea but it either comes with most
| downsides of L-class vehicles or it loses its niche
| entirely.
| teekert wrote:
| I was on Sicily last week and saw quite some of those. Doesn't
| even stand out that much as people there seem to prefer very
| small cars (just look at a city like Modica on Streetview and
| you get why).
| cjrp wrote:
| They can also be driven by 14+ year olds without a licence in
| some countries. Pretty cool way to get around.
| syassami wrote:
| This is a joke compared to a BYD seagull.
| https://twitter.com/TaylorOgan/status/1651128414915424256
| timerol wrote:
| If you're willing to pay 50% more, require a driver's license,
| be 75% longer, and not include solar charging, you should get a
| different vehicle.
| sschueller wrote:
| Unfortunate name of "Solar City Car". I initially though this had
| something to do with solar city and Tesla. I guess they could
| rename it to Squad Solar Urban Car or something.
|
| This is similar to some other such vehicles[1] which can be
| driven by 16+ year olds with just a Mopet license. They however
| only go up to 45km/h which is fine in many cities which have a
| speed limit of 30 but just outside it becomes and issue if you
| can't go 50-60km/h.
|
| Cars that are a little bigger like the microlino[2] which can do
| 80km/h but require a regular license seem more usable. Although
| personally I think it is butt ugly and I don't get why these
| vehicles have to look different than regular vehicles.
|
| [1] https://www.eta.co.uk/2011/03/18/electric-car-you-dont-
| need-...
|
| [2] https://www.newlyswissed.com/microlino-swiss-microcar/
| bryanlarsen wrote:
| One of the reasons for the looks of this car is that its wheels
| extend beyond the car, effectively acting as bumpers. In the
| Fully Charged preview[0] Jack demonstrates parking by running
| into the curb.
|
| [0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TYroDMTLVt4
| sschueller wrote:
| I think the squad looks alright, the microlino look awkward.
| ilyt wrote:
| I feel like they can't really exists in environment when they
| can be hit by cars weighting 3-4x as much
| teekert wrote:
| I'm often on a bike, where I can be hit by vehicles weighting
| 100x as much :)
| ilyt wrote:
| Me too, I just avoid roads for vast majority of my route.
| That is at least benefit for bicycles vs motorcycles, vast
| majority of danger can be avoided by just using
| bike/pedestrian routes
| Cthulhu_ wrote:
| It's a golf cart; nothing revolutionary to see here.
| throwawaaarrgh wrote:
| It's quite a bit more advanced than a golf cart. Unibody
| aluminum tub and roll cage, wheels for bumpers, built in solar
| charger, 4 lithium hotswap batteries, compact design.
| jackhack wrote:
| As much as I wanted to like it, I am still just seeing an
| $8000 upfitted golf cart. (spaceframe golf cart) I didn't dig
| too deeply, but there seems to be a lot of information
| missing that would be necessary for a purchase decision.
|
| My initial criticisms: Air Conditioning is an upcharge -- how
| much? (It is essential in many regions). And how much does
| its use affect range? Similarly, how much does the heat
| affect range? (probably resistance heat- the least efficient
| type?) What is range in winter, or summer?
|
| What about safety - crash tests and occupant injury - what is
| the result of a 20mph head-on collision? Side collision?
| Roll-over? Does the "savings" of a cheap car translate into
| life spent in a wheelchair as a result of a minor fender-
| bender?
|
| The 25/40mph top speed is severely limiting in terms of
| usefulness. Perhaps city-only use is the only domain?
|
| Each battery pack gives 25km range. 2 standard, 4 max. What
| is the cost of additional packs? What is charge time? How
| many cycles per pack?
|
| Seat belts? Passive restraints? Is there even a spare tire in
| case of a flat?
|
| Taxes and Insurance - what is the vehicle category and how
| does it compare?
|
| Again, I hate to be a dark cloud over this project, but to me
| a $5000 used gasoline auto seems to be much more practical
| everyday transportation.
| throwawaaarrgh wrote:
| A sport bike is an upfitted moped. Basically the same
| thing! Only a few things different like chassis,
| powertrain, size, range.
|
| The vehicle in question here has been built to purpose, and
| that purpose is very different from the purpose of a golf
| cart. A golf cart cannot do all the things this new vehicle
| can. They look similar, but that's where the similarities
| end.
|
| And the purpose isn't to replace a gas car. Cars in cities
| are a crap solution to transportation. They're too big,
| they go too fast, they pollute too much. The purpose of
| this new vehicle is to provide a completely different
| solution: space-efficient safe mobility in urban cities
| _without burning fuel_.
|
| The whole point is to find a solution that isn't a gas car.
| This gets us closer to that. Gas cars and golf carts don't.
| bkettle wrote:
| I think city-only use (in cities with slower speeds than
| American ones, too) is the intended domain indeed,
| especially given the "city car" name. In theory, in urban
| environments where pedestrians and bikers who have no
| protection at all are common, cars should certainly not be
| traveling fast enough to injure someone inside any kind of
| metal protective shell.
| dsr_ wrote:
| The 4 battery, 2 door, a/c L7 car comes in at a little over
| US$9000.
| mab122 wrote:
| so more like ATV but electric
| CalRobert wrote:
| This looks great for when the bakfiets doesn't suffice.
|
| Unfortunately, if you drive this in the US someone will likely
| kill you with their monster truck.
|
| https://youtu.be/jN7mSXMruEo
| passive wrote:
| Dang, I hope these make it to Canada. I had been considering
| picking up an older Leaf to supplement our SUV for short trips,
| but having something that would charge itself via solar would be
| nice step up from that.
| dopamean wrote:
| I love the look of this thing and I'd love to own one.
| Unfortunately I live in America and there are very few places
| that I'd actually feel safe driving one of these. I live in
| Austin, TX and I wouldn't risk my life on the road in something
| like this. I wish it wasn't that way but unfortunately it is.
| moffkalast wrote:
| Parking issues: Zero
|
| Emissions: Zero
|
| Crumple zones: Zero
|
| Chance of survival when hit by a Ford Raptor: Zero
|
| > The Squad is surprisingly spacious and comfortable, stable
| and very safe with a full crash structure, roll cage and belts,
| no helmet needed.
|
| Though they say it has a roll cage, why does it seem oddly
| weird that they say "no helmet needed"? Like asbestos free
| cereal.
| bradfa wrote:
| Re: roll cage: Possibly in some jurisdictions it may be
| regulated as a motorcycle? Many times motorcycles require the
| use of a helmet even if said "motorcycle" isn't a 2-wheeled
| vehicle with an exposed rider.
| freemanofthewan wrote:
| Now that is one smoooth looking ride. I'm referring to the paint
| since this clearly has the same suspension as a ride on lawn
| mower. One of our local potholes would swallow that buggy whole.
| Cute though.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2023-05-05 23:01 UTC)