MIT's stackable concept car
By Paul Miller 
posted Dec 30th 2005 6:00AM
posted Dec 30th 2005 6:00AM
The Smart Cities team at MIT is tackling the problem of city traffic congestion -- still left untouched by the Segway -- with a "stackable" car to be used as part of a public transportation program, much like those bicycle-sharing programs in Europe, and stowed like a shopping cart. The wheels turn 360 degrees and contain the suspension and motor, so, along with providing a level of mobility fit for a city, they allow a new type of passenger compartment, replete with customizable displays and seats with "fingers" to catch you in a crash. It all sounds well and good, but we'll have to see see how much of this tech makes it into the final prototype, which is to be built by GM upon the MIT group's completion of the design.
[Via The Raw Feed]
I like this sort of stuff. I WANT something small portable and something I can run bugs over with! :)
It's hardly a solution to traffic congestion. It's a solution for parking. While reducing the area dedicated to parking certainly frees up more a little more space for driving, these benefits are probably offset by the fact that the car only holds two people, which means fewer car-pools. Studies have shown that increasing the amount of space available for driving (i.e. adding another lane) doesn't really do much to affect congestion. If the purpose of this car is as more of a station-car, once again the problem isn't really parking at mass transit hubs, it's getting people to use mass transit in the first place.
I'm all for small cars and design studies, but let's be clear about the problems before we start calling them solutions.
Studies also show that 95% of the US road system is "unoccupied" at any given time... unoccupied meaning that there isn't a car traveling on that specific section of road at that exact moment. It's not enough roads that cause traffic problems, it's the moron behind the wheel. Take them out of the equation and kiss morning rush hour goodbye.
I think this could be a solution to traffic congestion, given that more people would be inclined to take public transport into city centers if there were small, individual vehicles such as these available for share or rental at the terminal that would allow freedom of travel and ease of parking in cramped urban spaces.
I just don't think this kind of stuff will ever work. We have a handful of really compact cities in this country. Once you're in Chicago or Frisco, it's very easy to get around already. The problem is if you're in the mid size cities and suburbs. There's just not enough options for getting around and everything is so spread out mass transit doesn't really work. So the freeways become a mess.
We need transporters.
I would love to see something like this work, but I doubt that it ever will. I buy into the idea that these would cut down on traffic dramatically if in use. By that I mean if a significant portion of the population on the road, or all of the population, were driving these. But I doubt that automaker will allow this to happen.
I would prefer a motorcycle. Seats two, carry items in the saddle bags. Just have to deal with the weather but that is the fun of it. Plus, you can sometimes get away with parking on the sidewalk. Cheap to insure. You need a license however.
There are probably energy efficiencies using this stackable method.
The back cars will draft the front cars. This lessens the overall wind resistance of the "car train." (I'm not clear on whether they can drive in a stacked configuration or not.)
All cars can power their wheels. This reduces each car's power consumption allowing them to each require a shorter recharge time. While this isn't an energy gain, it is a time gain, especially as these are being envisioned for dense areas and would probably see a high turnover rate. The quicker that you can charge them, the quicker you can rent them out again.
I think this is a wonderful concept.
So... do they fold up like that when you back into a telephone pole?
I fail to see how this alleviates traffic congestion, other than I'd hate to be driving this thing behind a semi truck on the freeway at 70mph.
Maybe it's better suited for parking congestion, but that's not a problem around where I live. The concept only works if everyone has the same type of vehicle, but then what happens when all the cars are stacked together, yours in the middle, and you need it back?
I think to deal with traffic congestion you do need smaller cars or revolutionary concepts like this, but at the same time you need bigger roads, alternate routes etc. Ofcourse, traffic congestion can be eliminated by decreasing the number of cars but its doubtful that such will ever occur. Regarding this concept, I think that it will solve parking and fuel consumption matters better than traffic congestion. I agree with Mr. Ross's ideas provided that they drive in the stacked config. And something is better than nothing anyway.
No. It's not a train concept.
Click on the picture to see the full article.
(The UI for the Engadget web site sux. I only recently discovered that you need to click on the pic to find the source story.)
This is hardly a solution to traffic OR parking problems. Having a maximum of 2 passengers per vehicle means the typical family will have to drive multiple vehicles to get the entire family to their destination. The required space between vehicles doesn't change just because the cars are smaller, etc.
As for parking, what a laugh. Imagine a row of 10 of these "stackable cars" parked in a bunch in any downtown parking lot (where such a car would have the most impact) and explain how you get the middle car out of the stack, eh?
Oddly, GM showed renderings of a concept car that stacked for parking in exactly the same manner in their pavilion at EPCOT in the late 1980s/early '90s (before the switchover to Test Track.)
Maybe they'd be more competitive if they didn't pay researchers to come up with the same ideas over and over again. BTW GM, where's my Lean Machine?
Poster #1 Bill E. completely misses the point and likely didnt read the article, as the point of the vehicle is not stated simply as a solution for traffic congestion as he implies but rather a solution for "congestion, pollution and parking".
The poster also seems to assume (incorrectly I might add) that this solution is strictly for US cities when in fact, it's not only modelled after European congestion solutions but will be tested in the very congested/polluted cities of the far east. This solution is clearly targeted toward cities all over the world not just the US.
Also, Its not just "small car design study", its an attempt at a new "model" of how cars can be used. To change the current thinking one must offer solutions different than the current thought would produce. This can confuse people who can't think outside the box because they make wrong assumptions without regard for facts.(the first poster is a good example of this).
On a personal note, I think this concept is an interesting one and whether it solves the problems it attempts to isn't nearly as vital as its potential to reshape (or rather UNshape) the current thought with regard to personal transportation in cities that has lead us to polluted congested and inefficient messes in many cases.
DAG, did you even read the article?
You would never need to get the middle car out of the stack. You would just take the front one. These cars would be owned by the city or some other entity and offered for transportation around a city. These would not be solutions for family travel but for workers in cities to move about more efficiently and with less pollution and congestion.
Marc,
I read the article. In addition to clicking on the picture, there's also a "Read" link to the original article.
The article isn't clear on whether or not they can be driven in a stacked configuration.
> "We have to think of city cars as not just small-footprint vehicles that can squeeze into tight spaces but ones that can work in unison and also be almost like a parasite that leeches on to mass-transit systems," says Mr Chin. <
The leeching statement implies that they can be driven while stacked, or at least attached together and driven ... somehow. I'd love to find out more about these cars.
If you look at the picture, you'll see that the seats have also re-arranged themselves depending on if its the first car or a stacked car. That implies to me that both modes are meant for passengers. Why have passengers if they can't be driven in their upright (stacked) configuration?
Cheers to MIT for thinking of something new.
There are more poor, uneducated people than educated people in most cities. Poor people like free stuff... and have garages.
This might work in Singapore; in Detroit - forget it. Unless you build 5 cars for every one citizen.
What about getting in and sitting down for unstacking? that is what I would think to do - and why you would want the seats right-side-up. These things do not look like they would handle a moderate turn in that configuration. The last thing from my mind would be for them to be driven together -- it looks like it is more for space saving and parking. Like the smarte carte at the airport. Why would you want to drive in a train like that again? What would be the point?
This system assumes that suburbs don't exist... imagine the chaos. Where do you park your PERSONAL car? Where do you acquire one of these at the start of the day? Freeways will still be clogged as all hell, especially near the docking stations of these cars.
I find the freeways a greater problem than city driving. Certain large cities would benefit from less stop-and-go congestion, but those cities plus hundreds of others all have freeway congestion in common.
I agree with a comment above - it's the idiot behind the wheel. If you had a train of vehicles all traveling as a unit, you would not have the delayed acceleration effect. Individuals respond to movement in front of them, and a lot of people are incredibly slow at doing this -- more importantly for safety/damage-avoidance reasons. I don't wanna scratch my shit or be responsible for someone else's. But, if cars could move together with a single velocity/acceleration, then you solve a lot of problems on the freeway.
You can fix the traffic by hiding it and putting it underground. Replace the congested streets with small parks and such.
No thanks. It seems pretty clear that they expect the government or some mass-transportation company to buy these things. Since I don't use mass transit except when forced by crappy city design and/or guild protection for cabbies, I hope that nobody convinces "my" politicians that they need to take even more money away from me to pay for these things. I live in a city with good roads, lots of parking, and crappy mass transit for darned good reasons, 15 minutes to get to work even though I live 10 miles away in a completely different suburb being one of them.
In many cities it is the the driver that causes congestion. We need to have some sort of color coding. Annually every driver should be required to take a simulation test (including reacting to various traffic conditions, changing lanes, driving ettiquette, etc..) and based on the result, your car is color coded (like the white band that runs the middle of a Viper). Based on your color code, you are allowed to drive in only certain lanes of traffic, so somebody going for a spa appointment does not drive at 55 on the fast lane - grrrrrrrrrr.....
On a related note ...
http://www.skywebexpress.com/
formerly known as Taxi 2000
I think it's great to have this train concept. Let's say you were driving down the freeway you could hook up with another one of these things and you could travel for half the cost. Maybe by the time you got to your destination, you'd have like eight or nine cars. It would be almost free. I've often wondered if this would work with our current cars if they were outfitted with magnetic bumpers. (Don't try to steal my idea!)
From article:
Add wafer-thin, programmable displays that cover the interior and exterior of the car like a layer of paint... "You can imagine signalling being not just a static signal light but something more dynamic," says Mr Chin, who suggests the words "reversing" or "turning left" could roll across the car's body to declare the driver's intentions... On the interior, you can customise your dashboard for each person. If I'm an elderly person, I probably want a very large speedometer so I can see it; if I'm a race-car driver, maybe all I want is a tachometer."
Me:
Why would we need words to replace traditional signalling? So that illiterate people wouldn't know what was going on? Not to mention that a scrolling word would have to take longer than a flashing light. And then, a large speedometer for an elderly person?? If they can't see the regular-sized speedometer from less than 2 feet away, should they be driving? And race car drivers...umm, huh?
What happens when you leave your coffee or other fragile personal items in that car, only see them get spilled around when the car tilts up like that?
Doesn't this step on Toyota's i-Unit concept's toes just a bit? The concept wasn't identical, in fact I don't the focus was on being compact at all but rather lowering the center of gravity when reaching high speeds. All the same, having a car go from lying down to sitting up was definately on the menu. http://www.conceptcarz.com/vehicle/z9032/Toyota_i-Unit/default.aspx. It's radically different in design, but if MIT were to try to patent and market, maybe it wouldn't get so far.
I think some people are getting the wrong idea here... This is not a car that one would buy, it's a car one would rent. It's like those trains of luggage carts at the airport that come from a dispensing machine. Insert cash or card, receive a cart from the end. There is no "your" car to get stuck in the middle. Use traditional public transit to a station near your destination, then once there you pick one of these up from a dispenser at the station, then drive to your destination. That's how it helps with traffic: it allows you to take public transport to places that were once too far from a station to be convenient. I would just be worried about vandalism and theft.
There are surely kinks to be worked out, but it's a good idea.
Wondering how do you get your parked car in the middle out? Also if something similar to this could be done with the traditional trucks, SUVs, sedans
the train idea would not work! it is simply for parking reasons that it folds. think about it, would the train go where you wanted? does the front car in the train choose where to go? if im in the middle and want to turn what would i do? its not probable.
Now I think this is a great step forward in thinking it is a possible one but agree it would not be a solid solution. It would work in the cities but another solution would be needed to resolve the commute to the city. Perhaps tax benifits for people to make the change to smaller cars? so help from the government in persuading people to change. then you could take these stacking cars upon arrival to the city.
I think the animation "Jimmy Neutron, Boy Genius" best reveals our future. The "advanced alien civilization" Jimmy discovered had devolved into amebic blobs living 24-7 inside their precious mobility devises, their cars. Perhaps they ran out of room for housing and decided living as blobs in egg-shaped flying autos was the best solution to traffic congestion? They became rather nasty creatures celebrating human sacrifice to their God, a giant 3-eyed chicken.
Home page for business plan based
on stackable rental cars
that I first proposed before 1992
http://www.taxi2work.org/index.html
----------------------------
Patent filed in 93 and granted in 95
http://www.taxi2work.org/BP_SERC_patent.html
-----------------------------
Excerpts from article in the Chicago Tribune, Friday June 12, 1992
http://www.taxi2work.org/BP_SERC_TribuneArticle.html
-----------------------------
Excerpts from article in the Chicago Tribune, Friday June 12, 1992
http://www.taxi2work.org/BP_SERC_TribuneArticle.html
I inform aboute the "Gearturbine", power by barr, for land use, with dextrogiro vs levogiro effect, an overunit engine, to take the hydrogen from water by electrolysis in acheap way. to see details visit:
www.geocities.com/gearturbine
I inform aboute the "Gearturbine", power by barr, for land use, with dextrogiro vs levogiro effect, an overunit engine, to take the hydrogen from water by electrolysis in a cheap way. to see details visit:
www.geocities.com/gearturbine