When the troubled auto giant said it had big news in urban driving, CNET News reporter Martin LaMonica was hoping for something different than a two-seat Segway that looks like a futuristic rickshaw.
Web sites launch all the time, but they also shut their doors. We highlight 15 that bit the dust this year.
Let the debate begin: Was the iPhone more important than iTunes? Was anything bigger than Google finding a great business model? CNET offers its list of the 10 most important stories of the '00s.
Innovation in energy and environmental technologies is long overdue, in business and at home. Green-tech reporter Martin LaMonica and other CNET writers serve up fresh clean-tech news and commentary.
Add this feed to your online news reader
In other parts they have these things called motorscooters--big in Asia and Europe.
I can't see any advantage for GM PUMA design versus the in-line seating in the more conventional motorscooters. And the GM PUMA is likely to be just as illegal as motorscooters are on sidewalks.
Absolute, utter foolishness.
I have seen golfcarts with better designs.
So, there are cars out there that are extremely efficient, powerful and sporty. I've been driving a '00 VW New Beetle with a TDI engine for the past 10 years almost. I still get about 45-50mpg on the highway and 38-42 in the city. Nothing out there really compares...10 YEARS LATER!
The new Tesla sedan that supposedly will only cost around $50k is a far better candidate than the Volt in my opinion. Sure they don't have a factory and will only be able to make 20,000 cars a year when they do..but it's a step. 120-300miles (depending on configuration) per charge...makes 40 look like peanuts. Compared to diesel it's also kinda silly...It only costs me 1gallon to go 40miles usually in my current car.
Volt=good idea...bad execution.
Let people go electric, you gas guzzling fools! The more people using electrics means that much more gas left for people who prefer gas. Keep running down electrics just means it will be that much sooner that YOU won't be able to buy a large powerful vehicle at all.
The REAL solution is vehicles that don't need fuel OR a charge, they produce their own power, and some are practical and being produced today. Wake up, see a list at http://www.selfpoweredelectricvehicles.com/
Some even have air conditioning!
In the dense parts of the US the electric grid can not keep up with CURRENT electric demand. In the US rather than spending money on existing parts of the country to upgrade and maintain infrastructure they keep spending money to build up new remote parts of the country as the old crumbles. Look at the roads in NYC, or the northeaster US, look at the power system in any densely part of the US. The who system is a mess, transformers blowing etc. We need to either DRAMATICALLY improve the energy efficiency of buildings during the day, or increase the capacity and integration of the power distribution system with a ?national smart grid.? It also needs to be a SECURE network that can ward off cyber attacks unlike our current ?smartgrid? technology, otherwise we are just changing how we are susceptible to attack.
Problem 2:
The US is not the same. NYC area is very different from Texas, and there is no one answer to solving the whole countries transit problems. The roads are different, the costs are different, peoples habits are different and peoples tastes are different.
Problem 3:
No one thinks long term. As someone mentioned why not own 2 vehicles? In places like NYC it is not cost effective because parking is so $$$, but in other parts of the US where people have single family houses with parking why not. You have to factor in wearing out vehicles. If you drive enough that you need a new car say every 5 years. Why buy a big $30,000 vehicle every 5 years. Buy one big vehicle that you only use when you need it, and one cheaper thing like a smart car for ½ that price of $15,000. When you operate the second vehicle you are saving on fuel and such, but you are also saving on the depreciation. Owning the 2 vehicles at once over 10 years will cost you $45,000 vs. 60,000 from driving the full size vehicle into the ground. In real life you also have to factor in some added costs like property tax in places that have them on vehicles, or extra insurance. But then again in the real world where people are just commuting to and from work 90% of the time, and with 2 working people that have 2 vehicles anyway, they could have both people drive a cheaper car, and only have ONE bigger full featured vehicle. Revisions to tax reasons could also help make this a more desirable situation for people.
If you really don?t drive the big vehicle that much why not just own the cheap car and RENT when you need the big thing. No reason to buy something that 90% of the time you only use 10% of its abilities or capacity. That is like using tractor trailers to deliver you daily mail from the USPS instead of the mail person walking because 3 days a year they MAY have a big box to deliver.
The other option is instead of traditional renting have a car share program like Zipp cars that is catching on quite quickly in NYC. A version of that may work in other parts of the US for when people need more than the standard 2 or single passenger vehicle to get to and from work.
In the US you do not have unlimited freedom, your freedom stops when it encroaches on the freedoms of others. No it is not all about you, it is all about ALL of us being EQUAL. Why do cars and trucks that are used for the same reason NOT held to the same standard. Passenger cars all need to have bumpers and headlights that match up to make things safe, yet SUV?s don?t have to follow ANY of those standards. They are also not held to the same fuel economy standards either. The REASON people went to SUV?s over big cars if the US government made big cars really expensive to make. BMW has NEVER been compliant with EPA fuel economy standards. EVERY year BMW gets MILLIONS in fines for there cars not being compliant, and they just pay the fines and keep building the cars, and pass the cost on to the buyers. GM and Ford decided to give Americans the big vehicles they still wanted by skirting around the regulations and going with the cheaper solution and then heavily market it. By the US having the EPA they made the situation WORSE. Now we not only have gas guzzling vehicles, we now have TALL gas guzzling vehicles that DON?T have to meet the same safety standards as a passenger car. Many of Subaru cars have the high ride height just so they can get there sedans listed as a TRUCK. Heck the PT cruiser is listed a ?truck? for EPA reasons, which is a less strict class for fuel economy. The US should have just raised the tax on the price of GAS and let consumers demand sort it all out, instead there attempt to manipulate the public and companies with EPA regulations just made the situation WORSE and now made the road UNSAFE for anyone that WANTS a small car. The reason a Smart car is not safe is not because it is small, it is because of all the SUV?s that are big. When the new mini first came out in the US its crash tests were worlds better than the then current F150?s. Crashing into a brick wall in mini you probably would have walked away, crash into a brick wall in an F150 you would be lucky to be extracted alive from the car. If the 2 hit each other the reason the F150 passengers would do better is not because it was a better car on equal terms, it would be because the F150 RAN OVER the other car since it was not compliant with any of the bumper regulations in place to make driving safer since it was not a ?car? but a ?truck?
Problem 5:
Why shouldn?t a smart car be ?legal? it MEETS and EXCCEEDS the ridiculously complex crash test standards in the US. This country is keeping cars out because they refuse to standardize there crash standards with say the EU that has lots of small cars. They no longer have lax standards, they are quite strict in there testing. The problem is there tests are a little different from the US. In the US they STILL test cars to make sure the airbags protect people too stupid to wear a seatbelt. By designing airbags for this makes the cars LESS safe for people that DO wear seat belts. In the EU they test ONLY for belted occupants. They figure if you are too stupid or stubborn to wear a seat belt it is not the car companies job to protect you from yourself. This just adds $millions to the design of every car they try and sell in the US, so many companies don?t bother. It also dramatically limits choice and ?FREE MARKET? because the US government makes it cost prohibitive to bring cars here. There are literally hundreds of changes that need to be made on cars because of the US and the EU not because one car is ?better? than the other but because they refuse to come to a single standard.
- by bildan2 April 11, 2009 1:13 PM PDT
- Actually, I like the 2-wheeled thing. It might fit in a freight elevator so you could charge it in your 30th floor apartment.
- Like this Reply to this comment
-
Showing 2 of 2 pages (70 Comments)What makes it especially appealing is the possibility of autonomous operation. It could pick up my dry cleaning while I'm at work then me at the light rail station to take me home. Gotta think outside the box.