AIRPod looks dorky, makes friends easily
By Vladislav Savov 
posted Jun 29th 2009 8:38AM
posted Jun 29th 2009 8:38AM
[Via AutoblogGreen]
Please note: If you're a current Engadget commenter, you do not need to re-register. Simply login and you will be prompted to select a username.
Why do all green vehicles have to look like crap?
Because the people that make them, buy them, and drive them absolutely hate independent transportation. They much rather the public toss themselves on trains and buses.
Give me an mice car so that when I do get stuck in traffic i can be comfortable.
why can't they just take lexus and just change the engine and other tweaks and make it green..
Does it run on FARTS?
I see this getting renamed to "AirportPod"...
All new designs look like crap until you get use to them. It will grow on you kinda like the name wii. It sucked at first, but eventually, it catches on and becomes acceptable.
@dking: The same reason that, when you put a hybrid powertrain into an SUV, it still gets crappy mileage: the platform was not designed to support any other form of propulsion other than an internal combustion engine.
A Ford Escape Hybrid, for example, gets 34 city / 31 highway--not all that much better mileage than it's 2.5l 4-cylinder, 5-speed brother, at 22 city / 28 highway. [www.fueleconomy.gov]
Why? Simple. The Escape is a heavy brick. And bricks aren't particularly aerodynamic.
The Toyota Prius--the current yardstick by which all other hybrids are measured--has a nice, slippery 0.26 drag coefficient and a low curb weight of 2,900 lbs [Wikipedia]. In short, It has less heft and less aerodynamic drag than the Escape, and can therefore post the amazing MPG numbers it posts.
Incidentally, it seems that all dropping a hybrid powertrain under the hood of a Lexus SUV did was make more expensive: Lexus SUVs are perhaps the least-efficient hybrids on the road. The 2008 RX 400h Hybrid SUV puts up an disappointing (for a hybrid) 27 city / 24 highway, where it's cousin, the Lexus RX 350, delivers 18 city / 23 highway [www.fueleconomy.gov]. So it's okay for in-town, but don't plan to road-trip with it.
@OneLove: If it ran on farts, I'd never need to plug it in... :-P
I'll bet you it -sounds- like a fart, rolling down the street, though...
50mph... that thing looks like it would tip if it hit a small rock going 50.
BLAM!! TAKEDOWN!! Crumpled wreckage with mangled body...
And suddently the state of California bans the use of all vehicles except ones like this, no more crashes :).
Saw this on the KLM inflight magazine, it sounded pretty impressive.
Why don't people use compressed air and fit it in an ultralight glider aircraft, using it to take off, and perhaps a power glide mode in which less power is used?
cause compressed air is heavy ? No joke intended, it is, cause it's compressed ! Not to mention the weight of the container which needs to be quite think / strong enough to keep it pressurized. Don't think ultralight glider will be one of its applications in the near future.
Penny per mile? Sound good to me! I don't care what my vehicle looks like as long as it's really cheap to operate and gets me where I need to go.
looks like fisher-price 2.0
I would take a Tesla over this anyday.
That's some huge blind-spots. Though I bet this thing can't go fast enough to cause any kind of major crash.
Air-pod?
Apple WILL sue!
I thought Apple had the copyright/trademark/patent/birth certificate/dibbs on all things POD, they will hear from their Attornies, they should have their checkbook handy!
You are forgetting the Macbook Air.. I would assume apple has the rights to Air as well!
Double Blasphemy!
leave it to Apple to patent air...lol
Air France AND KLM? I thought they were the same company?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_France-KLM
Have to be crazy to use one, like bike users :).
Zero-emission? Not quite. Compression of air requires energy at some point in the chain. Moving the emissions away from the vehicle and to a central location doesn't make that vehicle's propulsion system "zero-emission." That being said, the efficiency of a compressed air system is still amazing. And the potential to use renewable means to compress that air is great since you don't need a constant baseload of energy to compress air.
I suppose that's true, depending on where you are on the grid. If you're on a section of the grid served by a nuclear plant, then it's zero-emission (unless you count the treatment and storage of the spent fuel rods). Otherwise, the powerplant does produce emissions. Of course, it's also producing emissions to run your refrigerator, charge your iPhone, and keep your PC juiced while you make ridiculously stupid comments on Engadget, Brainiac.
Wow. That was needlessly harsh.
All I suggested is that, like anything that requires energy to run, this isn't truly a zero-emissions vehicle. I am not foolish enough to consider my appliances, lighting, or computer to be zero-emission devices either. And if you're implying that a power plant is producing emissions whether or not I'm compressing air because of these other power-using objects then it might be wise to keep in mind that generation stations typically have base load outputs and variable load ranges above and beyond those base loads. In other words, if the network demands more power, then the plant will gear up production, and emission output will increase accordingly.
Of course, as you suggested, this is assuming typical electricity production methods, and I consider nuclear power to equivalently polluting for the reasons you mentioned.
And to clarify, I am in no way "poo pooing" the concept of compressed-air-powered vehicles. I had a friend back in university who did some engineering research around the concept and the results were quite promising. I think they have huge potential. I just think that, if you want to strive to minimize your environmental impact you have to consider that there is always a next level. This technology may be a huge leap from the typical combustion-engine-powered vehicle today, and that's awesome, but calling it zero-emissions makes it sound like a final and perfect solution to our transport needs. Significant improvement? I hope so. A final goal from which no further advancement should be planned or anticipated? Not so much.
I watched the movie "Who Killed the Electric Car" and was more and more incensed with every frame. I also have the unfortunate pleasure professionally, from time to time, where I'm asked for my opinion on how to improve efficiencies and my suggestions are sometimes shelved for no other reason that, in the short term, implementing them would be too costly--or worse, too scary.
The fact of the matter is that as revolutionary as it was when it was conceived and first implemented, fossil fuel is a dead end for mankind on so many different levels. Developing non-polluting sources of energy and weening ourselves off of using fossil fuel for locomotion is a monumental (and sometimes thankless) task, yet one that is so critically important to the survival of our species and health of this planet that it staggers me that larger impetus isn't placed on the fulfillment of that ideal.
Whenever I hear someone bring up the old "But it's not -really- zero-emissions, is it?" related to a groundbreaking new locomotive concept, it conjures up images of the short-sighted, narrow-minded numbskulls on the CEB and their complete lack of spine to address the crucial problems that need to be addressed that could promote the development cleaner alternatives to the internal combustion engine. Because the vocalization of "it isn't -really- zero-emissions" is usually followed shortly thereafter with short-sighted, narrow-minded fools blathering "...so why should we invest all this time and energy and money into a locomotion source that still pollutes?" I would like to punch these people. In the head. Repeatedly.
You solve one problem at a time, and then leave the planet in better shape than you found it. What the heck is so hard about that?
I'm sick to death of true innovation in this space being killed, put down, and silenced by the greedy, corrupt, and powerful. I've been following the development goings-on at MDI with much interest. I know it will be several years--maybe even a few decades--before I can drive an AirCar to work, but I'll be able to drive a Chevy Volt to work in 2012. And it should come as no surprise to that both my family vehicles are Priuses--based on what was once another pooh-pooh'd technology that, thank goodness, Toyota saw fit to develop and bring to fruition.
Greg,
If it makes you feel any better, you should know that I bike to work every day in season (winter where I live is prohibitive to cycling, even to the most hard-core) for a round trip of 25km (15.5 mi). I own a tiny, efficient hatchback, which I dreaded buying because I always hoped I'd never own a car at all. I take the bus regularly if I'm not walking or biking. I bought a house in an urban environment to minimize travel distances for most regular activities. My girlfriend and I are doing poorly in a week if we produce half a grocery bag of garbage because we buy almost exclusively from our local farmers markets and reuse all our bags...that is assuming that we didn't grow that food ourselves. All that being said, there are tonnes of people that do much more than me, and I have so much room to improve.
I can strongly sympathize with the barriers you face in your professional life. I'm a civil engineer that works for a firm that does amazing things for our environment in one project, then provides the plans for a sad, sprawling suburb in another project. It's not ideal by any means, and the frustration does pile up.
All that being said, I stand behind my initial observation: this technology has huge potential and I get excited thinking about owning an air car, but I still won't drive that extremely efficient air car to work if the weather is good enough to ride my even-more-efficient bicycle.
I'd like to see how this compressed air energy storage system would react in a collision.
Probably very similar to letting the air out of a balloon and watching it fly around the room.
Anything with potential energy sufficient to propel a vehicle is going to be deadly in a worst-case scenario. Lots of research goes into avoiding that worst case -- gasoline tanks try to prevent leakage, GM's hydrogen tanks are designed to radically deform instead of rupturing. Even a wind-up spring big enough to move a car would be lethal in a crash.
What exactly is Zero -emissions? surely there must be emissions of some kind... the compressed air that filled the car must have come from an AIR compressor which was probably powered by electricity, which (the electricity) was probably produced by fossil fuels of some kind. I'll take this a step forward, no say a human compresses the air with a hand pump of some kind. Well then the human would need some kind of energy to pump the hand pump (food) and last time I knew we all excrete waste (which is an emission) no?
Perhaps I'm not thinking about this right!?
I love the people who pooh-pooh the concept of vehicles that don't use an internal combustion engine under the argument "Well, there's still emissions from -somewhere.-"
They're talking about CO2 emissions that come from THE CAR. THE CAR produces NO CO2 emissions or greenhouse gases as it putters its way down the street--unlike -your- car, which -does.- The folks in California don't count the CO2 or hydrocarbon emissions from the powerplant that made the power to turn the compressor to fill the tank with compressed air (at least not yet).
So for all intents and purposes, because it produces no hydrocarbons on its own, this ugly little green thing is a ZERO-emissions vehicle.
I'm not pooh-poohing, just emitting methane gas. :-)
*drum fill*
I wish people would stop saying stupid stuff like "it is powered by air." This tech is nothing but a battery that uses compressed air instead of lithium or lead to store power, and uses a different method to convert potential energy to kinetic. You still need electricity to charge the thing, either directly or via outside air compressor. It's as stupid as those cars that "run on water," "water" actually being electricity that is applied via electrolysis to create hydrogen. It's dishonest and deceptive!
And?
That's certainly never bothered a company before....
The read link says 30mph?
Looks like a Kiosk from the mall.....
Can't wait to see the crash test videos on this thing. The Smart car videos were frightening enough (oh look, i have no more legs!) this thing would be ten times worse unless that frame is made out of the stuff they use on Wolverines claws.
you mean like this :
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ju6t-yyoU8s
Where it even shows the passenger area doesnt collapse. Not hardly "no more legs". Hardly any intrusion into the passenger compartment after hitting a reinforced concrete wall at 70 MPH!!!
Granted, your organs may be destroyed (all that energy transfer at once) but they said the same of the other car the did the test with, Corsa (probably european version of the Metro by the look of it).
or how about the fact when the car went airborne int he IIHS test it was hitting a mercedes C class head on. Thats a LARGE bit of size difference, compared to say a SMART and a Camry, or Smart and an accord (more common than C Classes).
When you get a small car like this and the SMART, yes there are some safety trade offs. I will in no way say it is safe as a big truck or even a superlarge sedan (but even some of THOSE fared bad on IIHS tests). And the smart, though smaller than a Metro or other size vehicle, is just as safe
If you think this is "safe" Ivanhotter, i'd hate to see what you consider to be dangerous:
http://wheels.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/04/14/small-cars-rate-poorly-in-new-crash-tests/
Just making a note here... the original link says a top speed of 30mph (50km/h). If it really was 50mph, THEN I'd be interested.
Just remember, the Scooty Puff Jr. sucks........
Thanks, Nibbler. Now poop me some starship fuel. :-P
In 1,000 years, I'll get right on it.
I can't get this car! :'-(
I have no dignity to run it?
Crazy ugliness was made fun of on http://www.fuglyrides.com/2008/10/11/the-mdi-airpod-id-rather-be-walking/
What happens when someone pollute Air inside this Airpod?
I need to burn rubber with the "GT" version!
The tiny 180cc, two-cylinder engine is rated at 5.4 horsepower and 11 pound-feet of torque with 261 psi of air pressure. An MDI spokesperson explains to us that upgrades will also boost power for the upcoming AIRPod GT model to 6 kW — still just 8 hp.
In other news... no thanks.
I don't really mind the way it looks, especially for the efficiency, it kinda looks like Guy-Manuel de Homem-Christo's helmet when its closed
"From the set designers of Logan's Run & V comes AIRPod!"
Seriously, this thing is straight out of a Sci-Fi Original Movie...not in a good way either.