> One of the most common accidents for motorcyclists is falling while turning a corner.
Yes, due to loss of traction or excessive cornering speed. But those are both issues inherent to two-wheeled vehicles, and adding gyroscopes won't solve either.
So you gain the ability to ride in the rain without wearing rain gear, but you give up cargo space and visibility. Not to mention the fact that your head will now be in the perfect position to get rammed by a bumper, and the lower profile increases the likelihood that other drivers won't see you.
It's a nifty trick, but I don't see who this would appeal to. Most motorcyclists already have rain-proof gear, and non-motorcyclists will still think it's a death trap.
I'll address the possible appeal as a diehard daily motorcycle commuter; from 110f down to 20f, anything except ice and snow.
I invested in a decent sport touring bike with ABS and heated grips, plus riding gear. Yes it's warm and dry. There is some irritation where it takes a few minutes to put on all the gear (pants, boots, jacket, gloves, ear plugs, neck gator if cold, and helmet) over work clothes, take them off at work, repeat on the way home. Cargo can be an irritation, needing tying down. A bag of groceries or case of cans is okay but not much more. I need a better way to carry a laptop. Yes, I dropped the bike once, sudden braking at a stop sign. Yes, it's pretty common.
So an enclosed gyro vehicle would improve these issues for me: convenience and cargo. The tippy thing is a minor plus.
The downside: it takes away most of the fun of a bike. The fun is hard to qualify but it involves being outside, connected to the machine, shifting, leaning, braking, and in general micromanaging your outcome.
Am I likely to get one as a commuter? Maybe. A Miyata or Mini would fill a similar bill and buy more utility.
At least it still leans the right way! I think a big part of their pitch was fuel efficiency too, in theory you can get the weight pretty low, although you'll still be in goldwing territory. Also, hard luggage helps a bit on the bike too, but I still spend all winter getting dressed.
My thoughts exactly. Staying balanced on a motorcycle isn't even on the list of things that are dangerous about riding one. Once you get over about 10 mph, it's impossible to fall off one.
That's not exactly true, learning to corner properly on a motorcycle is probably the toughest skill to master. That being said, if you ride conservatively you can do just fine with only a little practice.
But yea, the most dangerous part of riding a bike, once you have even just a few months experience, is the other cars on the road (most of whom don't see you).
Yeah. My point is that balance isn't an issue on a bike. The rider might not be able to hold on, but a bike is perfectly capable of keeping itself upright. Sometimes even to the detriment of the rider.
Low speed accidents where a rider drops a bike isn't enough of a concern to design something like this, so I'm ignoring those for the above statement.
> But those are both issues inherent to two-wheeled vehicles, and adding gyroscopes won't solve either.
Did you see the part of the video where they pulled the bike sideways with another vehicle and the gyros kept it upright? If the gyro tech they're using is good enough then the issues you mention are exactly what it will solve. The project still seems to be in its infancy though. They need an investor to come in with some money so they can build more test machines and destroy them with high-speed cornering on slick surfaces and side impacts from larger vehicles.
Are you saying their bike will regain traction in a high speed turn by maintaining the lean angle? It'd be interesting to see how it handles that situation, because it would result in a pretty violent high-side on a normal motorcycle.
In that pull test the straps were attached to the bike below its center of gravity. Regaining traction in a turn would be like pulling it with the straps near the top instead, and it could cause some serious problems if the person inside isn't wearing a helmet when that happens at high speed.
You seem to be stuck with the idea that this would be like correcting a traditional motorcycle in a bad turn. This is not a human knee-jerk reaction to overcorrect we're talking about, it's a computer that is constantly making minor corrections on a very short interval, before, during and after the corner. The bike never gets that far out of balance, so there is no violent high-side.
It would maintain traction by not laying down and skipping across the pavement, keeping rubber against asphalt (likely to be better in the traction department than plastic/metal against asphalt). If the tech works properly the bike would slide in a fast corner similar to a car in the same situation.
I still think the project is really young, and their reported 2013 release date is super optimistic. This machine needs a lot more testing before it can be unleashed upon the roads.
Yes, but you still run wide into oncoming traffic or into that tree. It's not the laying down/sliding that kills you, it's the sudden stop.
I think it's rather telling the video doesn't show it negotiating a corner at a lean angle. Presumably that's quite a problem.
Having said all that, whereas I doubt I'd buy one as a motorcyclist, I might be tempted as a commuter if the price was reasonable (which, to be honest, it isn't).
> I think it's rather telling the video doesn't show it negotiating a corner at a lean angle. Presumably that's quite a problem.
I would expect that it is eventually intended that it leans in a corner, it would just require a controlled reorientation of the gyroscopes, it looks as if they're mounted on gimbals already (to provide reactive counterbalance to any attempt to disorient it). I'm just guessing they need more money/time to research and engineer the right control system to handle the right gyro control for the measured lean based on data from accelerometers.
I can't see why you'd have a profiled (i.e. not flat) rear tyre if it was going to remain upright all of the time.
If they did engineer it to lean then I'd love the chance to terrify myself going down the Corkscrew at Laguna Seca on it...
Running corners too wide into oncoming traffic or trees is a concern, but not more than with cars, etc. If you're driving too fast, you're driving too fast. I don't see that it's more of a concern with this vehicle.
I assumed the same as you that cornering is still a problem since they didn't show it in the video. I think this project still needs a lot of work. The same project was on HN a couple of months ago and it was really no different except for the slightly more polished exterior. Basically they showed that gyros can keep a 2 wheel vehicle upright, but we haven't seen the thing in motion at all. This is why I think 2013 is way too optimistic for a release.
The price does seem a bit high, but it should come down over time.
I think high-siding happens when you, as the rider, try to correct, and end up over-correcting, for the soon to be low-side (you do get a choice at some point to push the bike into a "safer" low side and crash or risk the high side and maybe crash). From what is almost no grip comes massive grip. Over-correcting causes that excess momentum to swing the bike full up and sending you on a short trip in the air to finally make contact with the really hard ground.
I've done this a few times and did the over-correction thing helping me realize just how hard the ground really is (only on the race track - never on the road).
I do think a computer could monitor grip to a much finer accuracy and save the bike from a potential low side. In fact, with the electric motor, the computer could even adjust the spin rate, and thus angular momentum, of the wheels if need be.
A high-side requires chopping the throttle, maintaining lean angle and speed let the bike slide around the outside, and it won't regain traction until the rear is back in line. You can watch the pros drift corners all the time like that.
This actually uses control moment gyroscopes [1] in a scissored-pair configuration, the subject of my undergrad thesis. These differ from standard gyroscopes in that they are gimballed to produce a reaction torque. They are actually most commonly used on large spacecraft for attitude control, so the comment about "technology from the ISS" is quite relevant.
However, the statement that there are "two for redundancy" is dubious. The torque from a control moment gyro is not produced in a constant vector - the torque vector rotates with the gyroscope as it is gimballed. Thus, if there was only one gyro, some component of its output torque would be aligned with the yaw axis, which would create some rather unpleasant and dangerous effects. The scissored-pair configuration is required to cancel out the yaw torque.
I can't get if they are really serious about mass-producing an electric motorcycle. On technical side this company looks like it's run by an individual - Daniel. Team page [1] shows 6 employees not named as "Advisors". Out of who only two are technical (Daniel, the CTO and Kevin).
More worryingly Kevin's linkedin page shows he's not working at Lit Motors for last two months.
Looks like on technical side Daniel is pretty much alone. It's not necessarily bad, maybe they are just starting. I'm just worried they'll disappear.
Off topic rant, the BBC's Click strand drives me up the wall on occasions that I see any of it. We used to have the wonderful (if haphazard) Tomorrows World as primetime science viewing and now we're left with Click which is broadcast in a time slot for the terminally stoned and apparently produced by ex '... for dummies' editors.
And don't get me started on the abysmal Gadget Show.
What exactly is wrong with Click? Each programme is broadcast several times over the weekend, so there are plenty of opportunities to catch it.
I like that the presenters don't take technology too seriously - it's refreshing. And for the intended audience, the format is well balanced between 'dumbed down' and informative. I wouldn't expect anything more geeky, from Click or Tomorrow's World (which I remember well).
There's a BBC radio show (which is also now available as a podcast) called The Joy of Tech, which is quite alright (and way better than Click, IMHO) - http://www.bbc.co.uk/podcasts/series/jot
Enclosed two wheelers do solve the problems of, its too hot, too cold, to wet, and more. Yet the price point isn't sufficient to get me or many others out of cars let alone off of motorcycles.
Twenty four thousand is definitely out there but even twelve thousand will price it beyond the means of many. Many used bikes if not cars will fall under that price and unless gas is just astronomical it becomes a bit hard to justify its purchase. Its a great idea, don't get me wrong. However compared to existing transportation options its very pricey.
Safety wise, with good use of LED lighting one could make it stand out very well in traffic without blinding other drivers because its a bit diminutive for my liking.
I wouldn't be so sure. Working in GBP that bike would cost me £7K. Say I had it three years, I'm looking at it costing £2.3K a year. Given that with my current commuter bike (a BMW R1100RT) I already have an annual cost of £1250 in fuel alone. That's before considering all the other costs you get with owning a bike.
Add to this that this is considerably more comfortable, more weatherproof, and not a 10 year old like mine it seems a fair price.
I don't think that's a fair comparison. You're speaking about a 1100cc 90hp machine and comparing it with a small electric motor.
My commuter bike is a 250cc with 28hp. It has 9 years, carbed. Inside the city (less than 100kph) it gets about 3.2L / 100km and 280km per tank. It's cheap as fuck to fix and the bike itself was like 1K (used, around 3-4K new, it's shinny).
Maybe, maybe not. I don't think it will ever be cheaper than a commuter bike. More convenient of course, but not cheaper.
On most countries/states is also competing with small cars because you can't legally lane split. Right now I've got a loaner and it's a 4 seater, a Seat Mii. It consumes just a bit more than my bike and it's very small and cheap (around 6-7K new, cars are expensive around here).
I saw this vehicle at the eg conference (www.the-eg.com) in April. I recognize the marketing pitch - that it takes "a baby elephant to knock it over" - good message!
I think it will take a lot for regulators approve this vehicle, because it really is something quite new, and untested in the field. It does appear to be fantastically safer than "normal" motorcycles, and I would love to try one out.
What was never mentioned was how it performs on extremely slippery surfaces. This is where two-wheeled vehicles have a lot of trouble.
Also, one complaint about the BBC article itself - it uses "technology from the Space Station and Hubble Telescope: gyroscopes" - Really, BBC? :-)
I'd like to see how this behaves with the typical things that cause a bike to crash, for instance, the front end washing out on ice, or a locked front wheel, or loss of traction on an accelerating rear wheel.
Seems like the gyroscopes would help with a bunch of those — traction issues become less about keeping the bike upright and more about controlling where the bike goes.
I don't see anything about ABS in the FAQ, but that would avoid the problems of locked front or rear wheels.
Also, I imagine this has only one brake control, unlike a motorcycle, so you can't lock up one wheel by stomping on your rear brake but not grabbing the front brake.
I also wonder how effective the gyroscopes would be against a high-side crash. Would the having to adjust for hills limit their ability to prevent one?
Having a seatbelt seems like it might help with high-sides, too.
The bearded guy raised the point of needing to trust the vehicle to not fall over, and there was a lot of talk about how it looked and what kind of cool features were included.
But before I purchased it, I'd definitely want to have a test ride to see how it went, and perhaps some decent feedback from Top Gear - how does it really handle in a variety of situations?
I expect that even if the gyros stop while you're driving you wouldn't fall over because... well because that's how bikes work. It might change the way it handles though.
So I would only be worried about it falling over while stopped, which is not as bad I guess.
Here in Paris I see a lot of those motor tricycles that don't require motorbike license, so I think there's definitely a market for a not-so dangerous and simpler motorbike in congested urban areas.
By the way I hate it when the hostess introduces gyros like "space age technology". Yeah, my bike has bits of steel soldered together, you know, like the International Space Station!
Except gyros don't... stop. Sure, they require regular torque input to maintain constant angular velocity. However, they're typically constructed with all their considerable mass at the rim, so they have very high angular momentum. If power to the gyros fails for some reason, they will continue to spin, and continue to regulate balance, for quite some time. Certainly long enough to pull to the side of the road and deploy the kickstands.
It would be good engineering to tie some sort of gyro power failsafe into motive power and some sort of driver alert system, if it weren't even better engineering to just tie both of the "redundant" (I suspect that two horizontal gyros act to cancel any unwanted yaw torque that one would create by itself) gyros directly to accessory power. If the key is on, the gyros are either starting to spin or are spinning at normal speed. Like with any other vehicle, if you lose power at high speed, coast to a stop at the side of the road. At that point perhaps there is a non-powered mechanism to extend the kickstands?
> I expect that even if the gyros stop while you're driving you wouldn't fall over because... well because that's how bikes work.
I don't imagine the dynamics would be the same, after all, you're the gyro on a normal bike. If the vehicle was unloaded and you were going straight, you'd probably be able to keep enough manual balance control to come to a relatively controlled halt deploying the parking struts.
However, I imagine the gyros are going to be compensating for internal imbalance (shopping, baggage) in everyday scenarios, or be travelling around a corner, or in traffic, etc, so you might have less time than you think to regain control before toppling.
Don't the wheels themselves act like gyros at medium speed? But I get your point, losing the gyros out of the blue on the highway might create a very dangerous situation.
This is a common misconception about why bikes stay balanced.
Generally the gyroscopic force caused by the spinning wheels is not enough to counteract other forces.
What actually keeps the bike upright is the steering. When you steer the bike slightly left (by pulling the left handlebar), the bike will lean to the right (because of the apparent force caused by inertia). Thus, if you are "falling" on the left side, steering left will bring you back upright.
You normally don't think of it in this terms, partially because once you learn riding a bike it all becomes automatic for you, and partially because the geometry of the bike which causes it to steer in the direction of a lean.
In any case, if you find a way to make it steer in the lean, then it will be self stable.
This is also why you can be stable on a bike at very low speed. The amount of steering becomes very apparent. You might be surprised how long you can stay balanced at extremely low speed if you just allow yourself to change direction.
Yes they do, but the primary reason bicycles (as well as motorbikes) have stability is because of trail - the contact point of the front wheel is behind the steering axis.
A banked-over bicycle naturally tends to turn into the corner because of trail, and that turning-in torques the bike back towards upright - turning the handlebars towards the centre of the curve moves the bottom of the bike towards the centre of the curve, and that pulls the bike upright.
The larger the trail, the more stable the bike is. Sportsbikes tend to have shorter trail so that they turn in faster, cruisers tend to have longer trails so they are more stable on long straight roads.
Loss of gyros would be far more noticeable at low speeds (less than 20mph) than high speeds IMO.
While trail and gyroscopic forces both influence steering and stability, neither are required. It has been shown that a bike can still be self-balancing even without trail or gyroscopic forces, though positive trail and gyroscopic forces do make it easier to balance and more stable (see http://bicycle.tudelft.nl/stablebicycle/StableBicyclev34Revi...).
ithkuil's comment is the more accurate description of what is going on.
ithkuil is saying the same thing as me, in a different way. I'm talking about how bikes are self-stable, he is talking about how bikes are stable with active input. Trail creates a steering feedback system. You need feedback from lean into the steering in order to create something self-stable, and trail is the simplest way of doing that.
People are usually a destabilizing factor on bikes. Very common to see bikes that lose a rider in motorcycle racing to actually continue quite stable on their own.
I'd like to see how easily someone can drive a bike with a steering wheel that also suddenly loses the gyro stability. I'd wager the average person would crash before they had time to sort it out. Even doing something as simple as changing the fork height and angle of the handle bars on a normal bike can be enough to you to wreck in a corner (speaking from experience).
I'd go for a motor trend review. Top gear has been caught sandbagging electric vehicles in the past. I love the show for it's entertainment value, but they aren't always a neutral party.
I agree here. Top Gear gives entertaining reviews, and they touch on the good or bad parts of the car, but not in an incredibly well-rounded way. They have a tendency to home in on one or two positives or negatives and ride that for the laughs. I really would love to see what they say, but I wouldn't use it as my only or even my main review source. Especially considering their history of deceptive entertainment when it comes to electric cars.
> The bearded guy raised the point of needing to trust the vehicle to not fall over
I guess this will be only an issue to people who own a motorcycle already. I on the other hand as someone who never rode a motorcycle would have no problem with the C1. (But maybe that's because I know how reliable gyros are?)
A motorcycle turns by 'falling over'. For me, that and the acceleration are the main attractions. Can't imagine this will get many motorcyclists to convert.
This is my biggest question also. How does the thing turn at high velocity with those gyros. Either the gyros has to make the bike fall before the front wheel actually starts turning or you have to manually countersteer which the gyros will try to counter. I find it hard to believe that the gyros will handle the "centrifugal" forces by themselves if you do a sharp turn in high speed.
Did nobody notice that they never show anyone driving the thing more than 5 meters at a time and only straight forward?
And when the reporter is "trying" to knock the thing over she hardly touches it.
I would like to see a video with some rougher scenarios before i believe in this thing.
It has a steering wheel. Can you imagine counter-steering with a steering wheel? Swerving to avoid something on the road? Gyros would greatly reduce agility if they were not deeply tied into the steering, so I wonder if the steering isn't a direct mechanical linkage.
Not sure, maybe. I think they'll be trying to target people who likes MCs but are too afraid to hop in one, so it would make sense to have the counter steering mechanically done instead of giving you the full control... I also couldn't find anything about speed and power.
I presume that it's actually a fly-by-wire (drive-by-wire?) system where the steering wheel directs a controller to 'do the right thing' with a combination of steering and gyro changes, rather than directly controlling the front wheel as in a normal motorcycle.
As a non-native speaker, "bike" confuses me. This is some sort of motorcycle ... what do you call a bike nowadays that this didn't confuse anyone else?
Notably, C-1 is a code name, not the final product name.
I'm curious how the gyros interact with turning. Presumably they have a limited ability to change orientation (necessary for say hills at the very least). It sounds like the steering wheel is hooked to the front wheel mechanically (from the FAQ: ”… with mechanical backups to allow the driver to steer and stop the car even in a catastrophic failure of all systems”). Does that mean you have to countersteer like in a motorcycle? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Countersteering)
I could imagine the steering wheel manipulating the gyroscopes to initiate leans rather than turning the front wheel. I'm unsure how effective that would be, especially at low speeds.
EDIT: I looked at some of the videos on their website. It seems like the steering wheel does turn the front wheel, and the gyros are free to tilt to accommodate hills. The video shows them tilting toward each other on a lean — I think that means they rotate in opposite directions? Not my area of expertise.
As a motorcyclist, I'd like the tech to be put into more traditional motorcycle bodies. The idea of not being able to be knocked off, or fall over on an icy road, appeals - but the look of this really doesn't. It reminds me of the similarly named BMW C1 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BMW_C1).
I don't think they're going for the biker market. After all, it has a steering wheel, not bike handles. That alone hints that it probably drives somewhat like a car.
The interview suggests that they are after both markets, and this is obviously a prototype vehicle - there's no reason why they couldn't produce both a car replacement and a more stable motorbike as separate vehicle.
A cool-looking vehicle, but wonder how much more weight it has compared to the regular motorcycles? I think embedding a cell phone at the center of steering wheel is a sure-fire way to distract driver attention and cause accidents.
Is there potential for something like this to be safer than a car during a collision, ignoring the fact that it can stay upright? I presume that a car going 30 miles an hour is going to have more of an impact than a baby elephant pushing, so i don't like the idea of being enclosed in a soft shell which is just going to fall over and go under a car.
Is it easier to fit small vehicles like this with things like roll cages, or more encompassing air bags? Or will a car always have a safety edge because of crumple zones etc?
The baby elephant message is cute - i'll know i'm safe if I go to a safari park.
I'm much more interested in what happens if an SUV at speed hits the bike (or, I guess, an adult elephant at speed). I see more SUVs on a day-to-day basis than baby elephants.
What happens to standard, unenclosed and gyro-less motorcycle in a collision at speed with an SUV? I suppose they are introducing the possibility of being trapped/crushed instead of being thrown or run over, but my sense is the rhetoric about elephants is intended to entice non-riders who wouldn't want to try and handle a motorcycle.
Why would a gyro abruptly stop? If there's some sort of collision with enough force to crumple the gyro casing, which appears to be buried deep in the vehicle and can be made of very strong material, you have a lot bigger problems than the gyros stopping.
Still if the traction system in cars fails you dont fall over and and lie on the street immobile. They have a second one for fail safety, but i think there could relatively easily be a case where both fail, like no energy for whatever reason.
Gyros spin very fast on very efficient bearings. A rotating mass will not stop immediately unless forced to do so. So even when power fails completely, the gyro will continue to rotate for quite some time (several minutes probably) and fulfill it's purpose - well, unless something penetrates the gyro housing and blocks the spinning wheel. But then I guess your problem is not limited to falling over.
Another issue with fast spinning disks is that they can rupture and send splinters flying, but it's rather unlikely that both gyros fail in the same catastrophic way at the same time.
It does not appear to me that the second gyro is intended to add reliability. Watch how the gyros move in the video: the rotors rotate in opposite directions and the frames twist in opposite directions to apply force to the vehicle chassis. That is necessary so that vehicle pitch motion is not coupled into vehicle roll motion by the gyro. So if one gyro were to fail, the vehicle would rock side-to-side every time it went over a speedbump.
I didn't downvote you, but it is physically impossible for spinning gyros, with their massive angular momentum, to suddenly stop without a sudden massive impulse of countervailing torque. Barring catastrophic (i.e. the driver is already dead) damage to the vehicle, there is no mechanism that can apply such torque.
Yes, due to loss of traction or excessive cornering speed. But those are both issues inherent to two-wheeled vehicles, and adding gyroscopes won't solve either.
So you gain the ability to ride in the rain without wearing rain gear, but you give up cargo space and visibility. Not to mention the fact that your head will now be in the perfect position to get rammed by a bumper, and the lower profile increases the likelihood that other drivers won't see you.
It's a nifty trick, but I don't see who this would appeal to. Most motorcyclists already have rain-proof gear, and non-motorcyclists will still think it's a death trap.