Project P.U.M.A.
By Chris Borroni-Bird
Director of Advanced Technology Vehicle Concepts
Imagine large cities like, Shanghai, New York and London without traffic congestion. Imagine working or socializing inside your vehicle while it drives you. This may seem far-fetched but the technology exists right now to make it possible.
GM has been on a journey to reinvent the automobile since 2001.The answer is a new DNA that combines electric drive with vehicles that can communicate wirelessly with each other. This convergence can transform personal mobility in a way that addresses energy, the environment, safety, congestion and parking in our cities and towns. The result is Project P.U.M.A., which stands for Personal Urban Mobility and Accessibility.
The P.U.M.A. prototype is developed by Segway and GM and combines lithium-ion batteries, motors in each wheel for propulsion, steering and braking, plus vehicle to vehicle (V2V) communications and autonomous driving. This prototype can carry two seated passengers, can travel at speeds up to 35 miles per hour with a range of up to 35 miles, and produces zero emissions. It is one quarter the size of an average sedan and one quarter as light – it can turn on a dime, is safe to drive, easy and fun to use, and it frees up parking space in urban environments.
I think P.U.M.A. is a great name for this type of vehicle. It seems to move in an almost biological manner because it balances on two wheels while actually sliding backwards and forwards in motion as it glides along its path. When coming to a stop, the vehicle tips forward, like it is politely bowing down to let the passengers out for their destination!
We’ve created a short video of the first generation project P.U.M.A. vehicle, showing how it moves and how it can talk to other vehicles on the road. Future generations will have unique designs that can be very expressive.
Now you have our vision for one possibility of what future mobility may look like, please let us know your thoughts.
52 Comments
Leave a Reply
(If you haven't left a comment here before, you may need to be approved by the site owner before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear on the entry. Thanks for waiting.)
The GM-Segway PUMA program may provide the quick answer to getting a million electric vehicles on the road as highlighted in the Fastlane discussion board last week. The Power Infrastructure needed would be easy to add, but one thing that concerns me is that a smaller personal vehicle like the PUMA is not geared towards fast transit (due to its limited 35 mph speed), and there will be a need for commuter routes specifically tailored to these type of units.
In California and other sun-belt areas there are probably good biking paths established that a PUMA could run on. The rest of the US would have to build up these light commuter routes to allow PUMA commuters and bicycles to share a common road. I suspect E-Bikes could run on these too.
Cool job on the PUMA, now make it an affordable reality and get the Department of Transportation involved in developing the commuter routes.
Can you make one of these standard equipment on the Volt? Put a nice carrying rack for it on the back of the Volt and make it easy to load and offload. It would also look cute as an option mounted on the back of that big ‘ol 2010 GMC Terrain.
Let’s see ~ you say the Volt will go “up to 40 miles” on a charge, if no power equipment is turned on, while the PUMA will have a range of 35 miles on a charge. How’s that work? Obviously weight is the major factor, but you seem to be getting a lot more bang for the buck with the PUMA.
This concept has the same problem that the Segway has: The idea would work well if everyone had one. Secondly,the Segway brand in my opinion is a major problem. the Segway was and is still a failure as a product for a number of reasons:
A: Its too expensive for the average person.
B: As a result, the very brand “Segway” has been branded into the public opinion of being the brand of eccentric wealthy geeks.
C: The practicality of the product is questionable given that if people really wanted to make a minimum impact, there are vastly cheaper options- like Bicycles, which can achieve the same mobility for a fraction of the cost.
But the bottom line is that the Segway was and is still a major flop and this concept shown here to me basically looks like a Segway with a bubble stuck on top with two little training wheels out front. Wrapping a Segway in a different wrapper will not sell them anymore than they are now.Why the company that produced these continues to make these out to be revolutionary vehicles is beyond me because the public is not buying it from both a social and financial perspective.
On top of that, the vehicle looks ridiculous. I’m speaking from gut reaction. I understand that it is a concept and as such is at present not geared towards consumers. But if such a product were to be introduced, it would need some serious design treatment to make it more mainstream and acceptable.
Have you ever seen the mall cops who drive Segways? People laugh at them. Can you imagine someone riding in one of these? I would have a hard time containing myself. This is definitely thinking outside the box though. Maybe something like this will be big down the road. Just cannot see it taking off now. How would one of these things hold up against a 3/4 ton truck running a red light?
Maybe the Federal Government can order up a National PRT System that blends these PUMA units with Light Rail or Suspended Rail systems. With all those tax dollars going out, the taxpayers should get something out of the deal!
GM and Segway can build the car units and local power systems while a large Civil Engineering firm (who’s in dire straights) can be offered or bid for the role of building the rail systems, customer stations and master power plants using renewable or sustainable power sources. Add in labor which can be either Union or Non Union (for competative reasons) and you can drive a stake in all the major oil producing countries hearts.
Talk about revitalizing our manufacturing and engineering capabilities in the US! Best of all, a PRT system is a Service Industry which would employ thousands of people that would reinforce the tax base. If GM could grab a piece of the action they may have a secondary income for shoring up their primary business of making cars for consumers.
The segway failed because it was a stand up vehicle (ie no environmental protection) Build this with the body that was presented on the detriot news and this thing will sell like hotcakes in cities like San Francisco, the UK, and China. The senior citizens will be all over them for their retirement communities.
Give me a break fellas! This is what you’re working on? Have you noticed how the Segway flopped? Great idea to work with another failing company. Misery loves company I guess. What has happened to my GM?
“How would one of these things hold up against a 3/4 ton truck running a red light?”
How does a motorcyclist or bicyclist manage?
Do you think you can get Jeff Gordon in one? Put a “Chevy Impala SS” sticker on it and it could lead to an entirely new category of NASCAR racing.
I’m in agreement with most of the above comments. It’s a neat idea, but I don’t agree with it as a business move. According to an article I read, some ‘experts’ predicted that the PUMA would sell for approximately 1/4 the price of a car; which to me means around $5000.
For $5000 I could buy a *real* (used) car, and have much more practicality, capability, range, and the ability to drive at real-world speeds. Or I could buy a scooter or bike, and get the same performance for a fraction of the cost.
I can see how you want something small for zipping around if you live in very crowded areas, but I think it misses the mark. For how much it (supposedly) costs, it should be able to do more. Even then, I’d rather have a vehicle body surrounding me. I see this as more of a toy/novelty than a serious means of transportation.
As for the range question, the Volt is rated for real world driving…city roads, freeways, hot weather, cold weather, and speeds well above 35mph. The range on the PUMA is almost the same because it most likely is tested using completely different criteria. There’s no way it would even hope to complete the official ‘fuel economy’ tests, because it couldn’t even drive at those speeds! That and, as you noted, this vehicle probably weighs 1/4 of what the volt does.
Still, a cool idea, but with how closely GM has to be watching every cent of spending, I’d imagine this isn’t the best timing; unless they know some big game-changing information that would make this appear as a more attractive business move. Maybe there’s a large market for it overseas…?
Let’s see…..6,000 lb GMC Yukon vs 800 lb Hopped up Segway
Yeah, I’ll be sitting in the Yukon for THAT collision thanks!
It’s a great idea, but probably only in a legislated world where any vehicle over 2500 lbs is outlawed and nobody privately owns a vehicle anyway – we just “check one out” from the recharging station when we need to go somewhere. Oh wait, given Pelosi and Obama that future could be a LOT closer than even I think….
This is not what the American people want. This is what some politician has said we want and you are putting their hair brain ideas over you consumers. Why don’t you actually ask what we want and try to build it. I do not want to be shoved into an uncomfortable cracker box, I do not want an electric car that will only go 40-100 miles without some other type of power, and I do not want a car that costs me two years of an average persons pay.
I fear that all this R&D could be too late, and acctualy benifit the competition should GM go bankrupt.
GM has allways been a leader in R&D, it’s just that accountants have prevented anny real innovations from being offered to the public for fear of unprofitibility.
If this marks GM’s hard left turn than GOODSPEED, go all the way and promote this technology for the consumer. I can’t wait for the VOLT to hit the street, I pray that it’s efficientcy is better than the estimates so that finally Americans will apriciate all the R&D GM’s been doing.
if these can be built without air bags,crush zones and all the other stuff that adds to the cost and complexity of the automobile why not automobiles ????
We all use bikes. This thing is really cool. I do love it and the idea behind it. I believe the only way to make more appealing is to use in a true smal city car? Why not use the same technology to build a truly small electric city car? The only way for GM to get out of this financial mess is to bring faster innovative and fuel efficient products like the one with this technology in market. GM Can!
Driving one of these things on the streets on NY would be suicide.(The taxi drivers would run you over within a hour)I mean really,would you drive a pinto on the Autobahn?Segway has a great vision of the future,but its a vision with only segways on the roads.GMs focus should be on electric passenger vehicles to get people back and forth to work,with say 100 mile charge times and max speeds of 60 or 70 mph.Leave the segways for the tourist to use for site seeing.Just my thoughts.
That’s GM vision — imagine the big market for these at some of the more exclusive and expensive country clubs around the country. We already have electric golf carts of course, but once the first high-roller shows up in one of these, everyone will have to have one.
There could also be a big market for them at some of the fancier retirement communities. Would go well in Palm Springs or Sun City — if you can figure out how to air-condition them.
Motorman said ~ “if these can be built without air bags,crush zones and all the other stuff that adds to the cost and complexity of the automobile why not automobiles ????”
Very good point Motorman.
If a PUMA can be certified to hit the streets of New York w/o airbags, and all the other stuff you mentioned, how can they keep a Tata Nano off those same streets? …or even a regular golf cart? If everyone who drove a car onto Manhattan each day was driving a golf cart or PUMA instead, think how much congestion would go down.
A two seater Segway with a Chevy emblem? Will the luxury model get a Caddy emblem and leather seats?
Good for GM !! But watch out GM, some folks won’t approve of this concept because……… it wasn’t Toyota or Honda that came up with it first. But now that GM has shared their plans you can bet they both will be working on the technology. This will be great for retirement communities, colleges, congested cities and enviromentally friendly towns. I’ll bet other countries will grasp this idea faster then the US. We’ll squabble about everything while a good idea slips through our hands because as a country we don’t know how to stand together.
I want to ask GM a question others have asked before but have gotten no reply. Since you see this new EV a real future possibility to be put into production then WHY would you not produce an all battery only VOLT?? Drop the ICE, fuel tank, and other unneeded related components that’ll reduce mass and will give you longer range on electricity only. This will increase the volume of the battery bringing the price down for both vehicles. Give the consumer a choice and let them decide which better fits their lifestyle. Tesla and other EV vehicles are all ready grabbing the credit for such vehicles. And the headlines will read ” The EV a vehicle GM abandoned with EV1″. Actually ABC WORLD NEWS with Charlie Gibson already made the comment while test driving the TESLA.
I have no reason not to love GM because that’s all I’ve ever driven. No problems mechanically and high milage before I buy another product from GM. I hope you weather through this storm but If I may say, GM has to start appealing to the public with much much better public relations. Stop putting all your focus in the Detroit area and get to work on the east and west coast. And, start challenging some of these media outlets like Consumers Union better known as Consumers Report. Everyone needs to get on the internet and understand this advocate group. What they stand for enviromentally and what the credintials of those who sit on the Board of Directors. I stopped my subscription when I did my own investigation when they kept saying the Prius was # 1 and GM didn’t fair very well over all. I think they put GM in second to last. By the way, CR changed their criteria to fit their wanted results. Why don’t you do your homework GM and ask them for their techinical results. You do nothing to combat this propaganda that goes out to over 4 million subscribers. Everytime their biased auto reports come out you lose sells and the Japanese gain.If your head is in the sand so far you don’t think that hasn’t been a major role in your demise then you need to go bankruptcy. I’d go as far as to wonder who is “donating” to their cause. Don’t forget what the media did to you about the trucks with the side saddle gas tanks. Now you got me going!!
Please make all your GM supporters out here proud and do the best you can. This countries darkest days will come if we Americans lose our auto industries. The Obama Administration will commit political suicide if these companies go down because of their interference in an industry so complex they know nothing about.
Thanks for letting me throw my 2 cents in for what it’s worth I’ll be watching for more updates.
CZ
This is a great concept. This shows that GM has been working toward zero carbon emissions. The issue with everything today is one of “instant gratification”. Everyone wants everything fixed tomorrow. Well, wake up! It isn’t going to happen overnight. GM has been working steadily for the last few years to get the “ducks in a row” for the VOLT release. To put out a new car requires a TON of work on the back side (let alone an electric car like the VOLT). Think of all the work needed, parts to dealers, training techs, salespeople etc. You can’t launch it overnight, so you have to have babysteps. This is a babystep toward that goal. GM is doing it’s part. BUY AMERICAN…support America.
If you aren’t buying American….you are part of the problem.
I have often been critical on here ……. of GM’s ability to think outside the box as it pertains to transportation. This is a step in the right direction regardless of whether PUMA is viable. And, I doubt it is unless you can bring the cost down substantially. If GM can’t sell this for the price of a moped, ie, arbitrarily around $3500-5000 or less, it won’t stick. I doubt that will happen. The Segway is a unique vehicle but unique is irrelevant in a utilitarian world we are entering.
“Let’s see…..6,000 lb GMC Yukon vs 800 lb Hopped up Segway
Yeah, I’ll be sitting in the Yukon for THAT collision thanks! ”
Thank you for pointing out that Yukon drivers have a greater responsibility and a greater liability for safe driving.
The answer to that is much stricter driver licensing requirements for vehicles over 4,000 lb GVWR like the Yukon, so unskilled drivers won’t be such a hazard (I’m licensed to drive 80,000 lb vehicles, you get no sympathy, at all, from me).
The P.U.M.A. is the answer to a problem that was solved more than 50 years ago. It was called the Fend Flitzer, and is typical of a class of vehicle often called “cabin scooters,” best represented in the public mind by the Messerschmitt KR 175 and KR 200.
The most recent semi-successful example of the type (that I can recall) was the Corbin Sparrow, a single-seat electric vehicle, made from 2000 to 2002, with a 70 mph top speed and a max 60 mile range- all this with lead-acid batteries. It’s now being made by another company.
I think the development dollars spent on the P.U.M.A. could have been better spent working with Brink Dynamics and their tilting “Carver” three-wheel vehicle (now in limited production in Europe, not available in the US), or Armec and their “Citi Mobil” prototype single-seat tilter. Bringing the Carver to the US would make a lot more sense, you could actually sell them; the Citi Mobil would do just about everything the P.U.M.A. can do without the expensive, complex -wheel balancing mechanism.
“For $5000 I could buy a *real* (used) car, and have much more practicality, capability, range, and the ability to drive at real-world speeds”
This explains why the US is in the shape it is in
So, from where does the money come for this research fantasy?
This is an example of what we meant when we said GM should invest in its core brands when it got side tracked with Saturn. Where is the best selling Oldmobile Cutlass Supreme? Where is the best selling Riviera design? GM knows how to design and make beautiful cars. This is what we want GM to do. We don’t want America to be a land of rickshaws.
Instead of investing in PUMA’s or whatever, GM ought to be mastering the practical sedan so that it can sell cars and make profit instead of letting the Camry and Accord dominate this simple market.
The Malibu and the 2010 LaCrosse is what we want GM to do. No more of these delays.
As a GM enthusiast, I simply cannot believe that GM is spending time of smart roads and all the other techno-geek nonsense when the foreign competition is taking your business in the sedan market. Is this what was going on when GM left the Cutlass Supreme customer of the 80s looking for a stylish car? Designing bubbles and eggs for non existent customers? Who is making you do this, is it the government?
GM has been helping engineer wonderous ideas that no one is appreciating. Do you hear the media commending GM for being the highly advanced company it is? What will comand their attention is when GM beats the socks off the foreign competition on the sales battefield of the practical sedan. Turn the genius’s that work in Detroit to to making the best practical sedans and show us your stuff.
We don’t want to imagine socializing in our vehicles while they drive themselves. We want to drive our own vehicles. We don’t want cars that take batteries like toys.
Let’s see a topic informing of us Hydroxy gas and the ways to make combustable hydrogen gas boosters to increase fuel economy. We know it can be done and GM is one that should be doing it, Lets see a V-8 engine that gets 30+ mpg. This is what will energize the customer to GM’s beckoned call.
That black/yellow safety tape around the head frame of the door is a particularly nice touch. That should give the driver comfort during the first nose-to-nose encounter with a 6,000 lb Escalade or Tahoe.
OK, my first impression was to laugh so hard that milk came shooting out of my nose.
BUT after watching the video explanation and looking at a “completed vehicle” picture on the Segway website, the idea is starting to sink in and actually make sense.
It’s all about application and this is a CITY vehicle which takes the place of cabs, buses, bikes and walking. Now I like it!
Question: What happens when you are cruising at 25-mph and have a main battery, wheel bearing seizure, computer failure or some other catastrophic failure? Does the PUMA turn into a bowling ball and start mowing down pedestrians? With 3 or more wheels, you just slide to a stop even if the wheels stop moving.
It’s really going to boil down to perceived value and safety and fear of the unknown creates NO. That’s why there is some negative press with anything really new.
Beaugrand®™©
I don’t disagree that people driving large vehicles have more responsibility to look out for those around them. That being the case still doesn’t change the physics involved in a crash between two objects. If you don’t like the Yukon example, how about a FedEx or UPS delivery truck smashing into one of these things turning out of an alley or some similar situation? The whole point is that accidents are unintentional and at times inevitable. The sheer difference in mass and resulting energy transfer would be enough to obliterate this little invention, much in the same way that your 80,000 lb rig hitting a Chevy Aveo results in a pancaked Aveo and a small dent to your bumper.
Just what the green loons and the the Obama parasite administration crave.
A modern RICKSHAW for the proletarians !?!.
“The sheer difference in mass and resulting energy transfer would be enough to obliterate this little invention, much in the same way that your 80,000 lb rig hitting a Chevy Aveo results in a pancaked Aveo and a small dent to your bumper.”
I can tell you from what I’ve witnessed first hand, BIGGER IS NOT SAFER. I’ve seen it more than once- the compact car is hit by the big truck, truck driver loses control and flips his vehicle over, resulting in both drivers being killed. Except in minor collisions, those big trucks aren’t safer in a crash, they are more dangerous, because of the sheer weight behind the driver that can crush him like a bug, and because the CG of big trucks is usually six or eight FEET above the road surface, thus making them far more prone to rolling over.
To a much lesser extent this applies to SUVs as well. The CG on a loaded Suburban or Tahoe can be three or four feet above the road surface, whereas the CG for a passenger car is significantly lower, thus making them far less likely to roll over.
My point is that I’ve logged over 1,000,000 miles without squashing a single car. On the other hand, the worst, most irresponsible drivers I’ve seen in all the “lower 48″ states are the large SUV drivers- the bigger the SUV, the worse the driver, it seems. I sincerely believe they need much stricter licensing for SUV drivers, purely from a safety point of view. It’s irresponsible that manufacturers haven’t insisted that drivers of light trucks need more training then drivers of lighter cars- I suspect that would discourage sales. I’m not singling out GM here, because this applies to all SUV manufacturers. In the pursuit of profits they have created a situation where such size disparity exists on the roads, and have resisted attempts to require stricter licensing- rather, consumers have been fed a pack of lies about how SUVs are “safer” because of their size. They aren’t, in fact: because of the propensity to roll over, they are more dangerous to the occupants than a regular car, and because of their size and weight, and the general lack of skill of the driver, far more dangerous to other vehicles.
I also have a devastating counter to the “that’s what the consumers want” argument that isn’t popular here.
I think the media is laughing because the design looks so rickety like a tiny rickshaw. I think it Toyota had done this, they would have had a white glossy and plastic bubble top. Everyone would have applauded. Again GM does not have good followthrough on it’s design and does not keep the cool sleek modern minimalism alive form the concepts. Just look at the disastrous volt design compared to how great it could have looked – a la Tesla Model S mini version. Such a lost opportunity for a historic car is the Volt.
Beaugrand®™©
“In the pursuit of profits they have created a situation where such size disparity exists on the roads, and have resisted attempts to require stricter licensing- rather, consumers have been fed a pack of lies about how SUVs are “safer” because of their size. They aren’t, in fact: because of the propensity to roll over, they are more dangerous to the occupants than a regular car, and because of their size and weight, and the general lack of skill of the driver, far more dangerous to other vehicles.”
Would it be safe to say that SUV drivers probably aren’t any better or worse, the mistakes are just magnified given the size of the vehicle and the CG? I know that I personally do things in my MINI Cooper S that would be suicidal in my GMC Acadia.
I also agree that the high CG leads to more rollovers. The biggest problem there though is relative roof strength to total vehicle weight. In other words, the roofs on those 6,000 lb Yukons aren’t meant to endure the roll forces (in all directions) that ensue when a 6,000 lb SUV meets concrete with the wheels wrong way up. Thankfully, IIHS and other bodies are starting to institute mandatory roof strength testing and setting some minimum requirements.
I think the real answer to both the safety and fuel economy issues is to regulate and charge based upon GVWR. If you want a vehicle with a GVWR over 5000 lbs you should provide proof of need: either you need it for work or to tow your boat. This would eliminate 99.9% of the “suburbanites” who drive Suburbans or Yukon XL Denalis as most never tow a thing and don’t really need that GVWR. I drive an Acadia (mostly because my wife was uncomfortable with the size of the Yukon XL Denali) and it seats 7 plus luggage with nearly every creature comfort you can think of. 99% of buyers would never need anything more out of a vehicle in terms of capacity or capability, and it could be put on a serious diet in order to drop the weight under the 5000 lb mark. This would also improve fuel economy dramatically as well as reduce the forces involved in collisions.
Beaugrand, on new license classes for heavy vehicles, yes, I agree with you.
HotCarNut: “Would it be safe to say that SUV drivers probably aren’t any better or worse,…?”
In my opinion, they are often worse, then they don’t understand the limitations of the vehicle and then their mistakes are magnified. When I say “often worse,” I’m quite serious. I’ve never seen a soccer mom actually turn and look out the back window of her leviathan when in reverse to see what she’s about to crush. My wife had to keep a kid from getting killed a couple days ago because he didn’t jump out of the way when the SUV’s backup lights went on. And Suzie Selle-Foane just kept on coming.
—
Chris Borroni-Bird,
Is there no one at GM who ever says to his boss, “You know, this isn’t such a great idea and here’s why?”
When one looks at this thing, the first two things one thinks are:
1) It’s not going to be allowed on the sidewalk where it would be safe for the operator (except in the capitals of certain third-world countries where everybody drives on the sidewalk, anyway… hey, I’ve done it myself).
2) Nobody’s going to want to drive it in the street. Not even in Europe. It looks unsafe (a charge often levelled against the Smart, which has a decent roll cage), there’s no weather protection of any value and it can’t make freeway speeds (which is also sort of a “thank goodness”).
Anybody who’s willing to operate this thing in spite of the safety factor is already on a bike, moped, scooter or motorcycle and the first three are far cheaper than this and the fourth goes way faster.
Ergo, there is essentially no market. Why didn’t you stop your boss… or why didn’t somebody stop you?
If you are, somehow, compelled to do something this small, why not go with a more stable and simple tricycle arrangement (2 in front, one drive wheel in the rear) and focus on the economy, performance and safety instead of futzing around with the balancing act.
By the way, correct me if I’m wrong but I figure this thing will be a real hoot to panic-stop. The CG must be well abovethe axles. Another reason it’s a “thank goodness” that it can’t go over 35mph. A longer wheelbase tricycle should help with that problem.
“- the bigger the SUV, the worse the driver, it seems. I sincerely believe they need much stricter licensing for SUV drivers, purely from a safety point of view.”
Good idea Beaugrand. I’ve always felt that SUV owners should have to pass an annual checkride — something like the annual checkride pilot’s must take — in order to retain the right to own and drive an SUV. At the minimum they should have to demonstrate they know how to take their SUVs off-road and actually use their AWD capability. They should also have to drive their SUVs off-road at mandated minimum intervals in order to maintain their “SUV currency.”
Too many are on the road in SUVs who have no idea how to really control the weight and power they have at their command.
The last time I was driving on Manhattan two years ago, I hit a pothole on 2nd Avenue that would swallow one of these PUMAs.
The problem with this forum is that it only really attracts the attention of North American car enthusiasts.
Project PUMA is clearly not a car nor a replacement to the car. It is also likely that it wouldn’t be suited to most existing North American cities.
I would like to see what people living in the big cities of China, India and some of the rest of the world’s mega-cities think.
I founded and moderate a Yahoo discussion group devoted to vehicles of this type at http://autos.groups.yahoo.com/group/CabinScooters/
By our classification, the P.U.M.A. is a “Type I” Cabin Scooter.
A Cabin Scooter is defined as a vehicle with 3, or fewer wheels in contact with the ground (thus the Bede-designed LiteStar is a Cabin Scooter, as is the Peraves Eco and Monotrace), with an enclosed cabin, and legally registerable as a motorcycle or moped.
Other websites of interest are the Bruce Weiner Microcar Museum at http://autos.groups.yahoo.com/group/CabinScooters/
Elvis Payne’s 3-wheeler website
http://www.3wheelers.com/
and the Vintage Microcar Club
http://www.microcar.org/index.html
And proof that high mileage and high performance aren’t mutually exclusive, the tandem 2-seater Trivette (”Type IV Cabin Scooter”), designed and built by the late Bob Keyes:
http://www.thetrivette.com/
I think the funds might have been better spent designing a better golf cart, which is, basically, what this is.
OOPS.
The url for the Bruce Weiner Microcar Museum is http://microcarmuseum.com/
“I think the funds might have been better spent designing a better golf cart, which is, basically, what this is.”
Agree Beaugrand. It’s difficult to see what is better about this than you could get from an improved golf cart. Without someway of carrying a briefcase, a case for a laptop, a backpack, a few grocery bags, and your dry cleaning the PUMA doesn’t appear to have much functionality.
An improved golf cart could do that — and do it less expensively. Of course an improved golf cart would have either three or four wheels, and wouldn’t have the “gee-whiz, look what we did” factor that comes from all the gyros and processors needed to make a PUMA balance.
The PUMA may be technically sweet, but the designers shouldn’t get too enmeshed in that. First they need to consider the function and utility of what they want to accomplish. If they did, I think they would find an improved golf cart would do just as well.
Laramie,
What about the family of 6 or 7 that has a boat or something similar to tow? They might never need to go off road, but yet, a pickup truck won’t work, and neither will a car. Just because in your little world, you want people to prove they go off road in their SUV although there are other uses for one. Oh, and soccer moms – My parents have a Ford Expedition (there were many times 4 people in it and a boat behind it) and Buick Lucerne. My dad drive about 30 miles to work everyday, and my mom drives about a mile. She might get labled as a soccer mom to you, but would you rather my dad drive the Expedition so that the “tough working dad” has the SUV and my mom isn’t labeled as a soccer mom? And no, it’s not practical for them to buy a third car purely for commuting while letting the SUV sit.
Beaugrand,
SUV’s are safer than small cars. Look up the fatality statistics. Yes, they are more prone to rolling over, but that doesn’t mean they automatically do in every crash. I’ve seen plenty of wrecked SUV’s with no rollover evidence. And you say that vehicles over 4000lbs should require additional licencing. Because, of course, a 3800lb car wouldn’t still decimate a Pinto. Like I said before I’ll put up my 2500HD against pretty much anything on the road short of a commercial truck.
And as long as we’re putting these regulations on cars. Let’s have tests for everything we own. Do you really need a 3 bedroom house? Your two kids and sleep in the same bedroom. Or do you really need lakefront property. Let me see you make a full slalom pass to prove you need it. If you don’t make it, you’re forced to move off the lake. Do you need to fly to see your friends across the country? Unless there is a life or death situation, you are no longer allowed to travel outside of a 50 mile radius of your house. Do you really need a fishing boat with a 200HP outboard just to sit there using your trolling motor 99% of the time. Unless you enter fishing competitions, you are no longer allowed to have anything bigger than a 5HP motor. Yeah, lets just put regulations everything. The more goverment we have the better!
“And as long as we’re putting these regulations on cars. Let’s have tests for everything we own. Do you really need a 3 bedroom house? Your two kids and sleep in the same bedroom. Or do you really need lakefront property.”
Tim,
A certification test to own an SUV would be to prove someone is competent and capable of handling that type of car, not a certification of “needing” one. Pilots of different types of airplanes have to be “type certified” ~ for example, a pilot who has flown only a lightweight, single-engine plane has to receive special training and be certified before moving on to a heavier, multi-engine aircraft. It should be the same for SUVs.
The way it is now, some 17-year old wisp of a girl who just passed driver’s training and got her license can drive a 6,000 lb SUV without demonstrating any ability to handle it.
“Type certification” before being allowed to drive a SUV would obviously also have a strong safety factor to it.
The government gives you money and this is what you do with it? You modify an old fad? Shame on you! Shame on you!
“I’ll put up my 2500HD against pretty much anything on the road short of a commercial truck.”
Thank you for proving my point. That’s exactly the “my SUV can outbash your little car” mentality we don’t need sharing the road with- anything. Clearly, SUV driver licensing needs to include a test for psychological stability.
“The way it is now, some 17-year old wisp of a girl who just passed driver’s training and got her license can drive a 6,000 lb SUV without demonstrating any ability to handle it.”
Actually, in some states the minimum age is 15-1/2. At minimum the SUV driver should pass the extra Chauffeur’s license written test and take a “type” road test to qualify. My point is that GM could score some points with Congress by encouraging safer drivers.
Beaugrand,
And, ironically enough, parents will put their 16-year old into a 6K lb vehicle to keep their little inexperienced and irresponsible darling safe as he or she crushes an entire family. And that’s OK.
And, also for safety, they give the kid a cell phone. Oh, yeah, a 6K lb vehicle plus an inexperienced and immature driver on the cell phone… that’s a marriage made in heaven. Or, more likely, a marriage designed to send people to heaven.
Where are your marketing people?
I know some of the folks that worked on this project and they are good, sharp engineers and planners. I wish I knew someone connected with its marketing. Since I don’t, I’ll post my message to marketing here.
WHAT WERE YOU THINKING?
As the above posts show, the American automobile driver will reject this proof of concept out-of-hand. The average American driver is not aware of any of the problems that this Proof Of Concept solves. We, by and large, live in suburbs where congestion is brief and uncommon. We have shopping centers with acres of free parking.
This POC should have been revealed in a congested foreign city, one with trucks, autos, motorcycles, bicycles, and pedestrians all competing for too little pavement. A place where sidewalks are crowded with parked scooters and bikes. A place where the air is a sickly brown haze and people stand in line to earn in a week what we may earn in an hour. It should not have been promoted as an alternative to an automobile, but an aspirational vehicle for bicycle and motorcycle riders.
Those are the places and the people that can appreciate each of the benefits of the PUMA.
Sorry if that sounds harsh. I was eager to see this revealed but so very disappointed with the way it was done.
Best wishes,
Val
Beaugrand said,
Thank you for proving my point. That’s exactly the “my SUV can outbash your little car” mentality we don’t need sharing the road with- anything.
Right, because I plan on hitting everything I can just to prove that I’ll survive it. I’m still going to avoid accidents as if I was in a tiny car, but at least I know I’m safer if I do happen to hit something.
You put put that same statement on other safetly improvements as well. With seat belts, airbags, crumple zones and more importantly, stability control, people probably feel invinceable driving cars now a days, and probably makes them a worse driver knowing electronics will save them. I guess we should get rid of those too as to make sure people will die if they get into an accident so that they will pay more attention to the road. Maybe you need a phycological test to prove that you won’t rely on electronic nannies to save you before you purchase a car with ESC?
Laramie,
I understand your argument about needing one. I guess I was thinking about my other examples because the whole PUMA thing (and small cars in general) is getting more attention because of the whole green movement. If everyone is so concrened about “needs” vs. “wants” there are many more things other than just cars that are “wants” and not needs. I was just pointing those out because people usually only attack the automobile.
“You put put that same statement on other safetly improvements as well. With seat belts, airbags, crumple zones and more importantly, stability control, people probably feel invinceable driving cars now a days, and probably makes them a worse driver knowing electronics will save them. I guess we should get rid of those too as to make sure people will die if they get into an accident so that they will pay more attention to the road. Maybe you need a phycological test to prove that you won’t rely on electronic nannies to save you before you purchase a car with ESC?”
My Gold Wing doesn’t have seat belts, airbags, crumple zones or stability control. None of those would save me from the semi-comatose cellphone-yakking penile-deficient dweebs in their oversize SUVs anyway; the same dweebs are a hazard to big trucks. Because of their inherent ability to inflict more deadly damage, I just think SUV drivers need stricter licensing to share the road with other vehicles, and manufacturers bear a responsibility to encourage safer operation.
“I just think SUV drivers need stricter licensing to share the road with other vehicles, and manufacturers bear a responsibility to encourage safer operation.”
Sounds like a good idea. If GM were smart, they would jump on the safety bandwagon and institute a policy of selling their SUVs only to people who are “type-certified” to drive a SUV, meaning they have demonstrated a practical degree of competence in handling a 6,000 lb vehicle.
Most state require motorcycle drivers receive special training, it would be easy to adopt a similar program for SUVs.
“If GM were smart, they would jump on the safety bandwagon and institute a policy of selling their SUVs only to people who are “type-certified” to drive a SUV, meaning they have demonstrated a practical degree of competence in handling a 6,000 lb vehicle.”
This isn’t a program that would work at the dealership level; it would have to be done at the state licensing level. States regulate commercial truck purchases by requiring strict enforcement of driver licensing, rather than stipulating requirements for owning. Almost anyone can buy a class 8 truck, only those properly licensed can actually drive it.
In my state, I have to have a “Chauffeur’s License” to drive any vehicle for pay; this requires an extra 50 questions on the written driver’s test. It’s a minimal requirement that simply means reading and understanding the driver’s manual.
I also have to have a CDL for driving any vehicle over 26,000 lbs GVWR; this requires more written tests more often, as well as an annual road test with a company instructor.
I used to be qualified to haul all manner of explosives, but I’ve reached an age where excitement isn’t required in my life, nor do I enjoy the paperwork. I’m still qualified to pull tankers, reefers, flatbeds and dry vans- each requiring additional tests and training. And I have the motorcycle endorsement.
That’s all to be expected for driving a commercial truck, but I think it’s odd that I have to pass more requirements for riding a motorcycle than for driving a 26,000 lb motor home or a 8,500 lb SUV.
Project Puma’s principles are good but if it rains you get wet and it wont work until city’s ban cars altogether imagine a bus hitting you in that !
“- the bigger the SUV, the worse the driver, it seems. I sincerely believe they need much stricter licensing for SUV drivers, purely from a safety point of view.”
SUV Owners shouldnt be allowed near urban area’s in them ! Park and ride is the way forward