Potential Energy

GM and Segway Develop Rickshaw Prototype

Segway is trying to reinvent urban transportation--again.

Kevin Bullis 04/07/2009

  • 15 Comments
The PUMA. Credit: Segway

GM and Segway have teamed up to develop a new prototype vehicle as part of their efforts to "reinvent the automobile," the companies say, but it's not clear that their new vehicle will do better than the original Segway personal transport.

Unlike the original self-balancing two-wheeler, the new vehicle will be enclosed and designed to transport two people seated side by side, rather than one person standing up. It will also be equipped with GPS, wireless technology, and sensors, which could eventually allow an onboard computer to take over some driving tasks.

The vehicle is designed for the city dweller, particularly those who don't bother owning a car because of the twin frustrations of parking and traffic congestion. GM expects this market to grow as people continue to move from the country into cities, and these problems get worse. The vehicle won't be allowed on the highways, since it will be limited to a top speed of 35 miles per hour. It will also have a range of about 35 miles. It's supposed to cost one-fourth as much as a conventional car to operate. The companies haven't disclosed the price of the vehicle, but they do have a catchy name: PUMA, for Personal Urban Mobility and Accessibility.

Of course, it's hard not to be skeptical. The original Segway transport was supposed to transform cities. Instead, many cities banned them, and it's been relegated to niche applications. It's given mall security guards a fun, and undoubtedly extremely useful, toy, for example. But will the redesign, and the added automation, make the PUMA more successful?

As with the first Segway, the question is, if you want a small vehicle that's easy to park, why not just buy a bike or a scooter? If you don't want to drive, and you live in the sort of city that this is targeted to, why not just take public transportation? Why risk a ride in an automated vehicle? The prototype, pictured in New York, looks pretty vulnerable next to the city's taxis.

GM says that the enclosed design and side-by-side seating will make the vehicle more attractive than electric scooters, as will its automated driving feature, which presumably would be difficult to implement without the PUMA's automatic balancing. But low-speed neighborhood electric vehicles, which are available now, or new highway-capable tiny electric vehicles, like Toyota's FT-EV concept, can also be enclosed. GM says that the PUMA will be smaller and able to turn "on a dime," so it should be easy to park. The computer automation is also easier, since a computer moderates the steering and acceleration already.

So GM's proposition is that there is a market for a vehicle in between a scooter and a small electric vehicle, especially if it's automated. But realistically, the automation will be a long time coming. Even if the technology works flawlessly, it seems unlikely that regulators will let such vehicles roam the cities, at least not unless there are dedicated lanes or overhead tracks, and those could be a tough sell. It also seems unlikely that consumers will trust such automation at first--again, unless the vehicles are running on tracks or on dedicated streets, like the Personal Rapid Transit systems being built at Heathrow Airport and in a new "green city" in Abu Dhabi.

If we leave out the vision of automation, is there enough left? It seems at the very least that GM has a tough marketing job ahead of it, as it essentially tries to create a new category of vehicle.

video
Print

Close Comments

To comment, please sign in or register

Forgot my password

financialtools1

1 Comment

  • 1044 Days Ago
  • 04/07/2009

Electric Board

In my opinion, the only way for G.M. to ever build and sell electric cars is for the Board to be totally " re-done ", a total new Board without Oil Industry or Hedge-Fund representatives,and will that ever happen with the Auto Task Force leadership in place today : No ! 

Reply

durs

44 Comments

  • 1044 Days Ago
  • 04/07/2009

GM Rickshaw

Perhaps Rick Wagoner can be hired to pull one of these.

Reply

jmaximus9

86 Comments

  • 1043 Days Ago
  • 04/08/2009

Reason why

This is reason enough in my book to fire Wagoner? We need useful products not useless joke vehicles.  Nobody uses the regular Segway, let alone this waste of R&D.  Its only possible use would be as a replacement for the wheelchair.

Reply

IggyDalrymple

22 Comments

  • 1043 Days Ago
  • 04/08/2009

Re: Reason why

<This is reason enough in my book to fire Wagoner? We need useful products not useless joke vehicles.  Nobody uses the regular Segway, let alone this waste of R&D.  Its only possible use would be as a replacement for the wheelchair.>

All the more reason you should be chairman of the Central Planning Committee, comrade.

Reply

bugme

29 Comments

  • 1043 Days Ago
  • 04/08/2009

rap summary

there's a new concept in the automotive business
it's 2 seated, 2 wheeled, and too ambitious
General Motors fearing their time is over
is desperate to meet their innovation quota

partnered with Segway trying to make headway
came up with something just a little more deadly
works like the other one except that you sit
and ride around praying that you don't get hit

To listen to me rap my opinion, visit:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=64rpjlcf23Q

Reply

daaberg

6 Comments

  • 1043 Days Ago
  • 04/08/2009

are they nuts?

have not the GM/Segway people ever heard of golf carts?   Some towns have legalized golf carts for highway travel, already... and presumably if an improved battery pack were put on golf carts, their range could also be at least 35 miles.

Reply

  • 1043 Days Ago
  • 04/08/2009

Re: are they nuts?

You are right,  why to balance a wheel when it could be simply done by a minor n simple design change, a small tilting wheel to make a tricycle, that will  reduce the need to put all those Gyro and software, reduce weight and power consumption. navigation anyways will be better for any transport smaller then car. So why do all the R&D and wait for few years when the alternative tricycle transport can be ready in months.

Reply

Advertisement

Gaetano Marano

246 Comments

  • 1043 Days Ago
  • 04/08/2009

>>> it's a NONSENSE car >>>

.

it's a NONSENSE to adopt the very expensive self-balancing Segway technology to just save the costs of two further wheels!

also, a FOUR wheels electric car can be made in China for $1000 while this GM/Segway "T-booth/Rickshaw" car should cost $8000 or more!

.

Reply

  • 1043 Days Ago
  • 04/08/2009

Urban Transport need new approch

80 % of the cars present in this Planet are singly occupied. Office goers travel single and that constitute our 70 % travel. Everyone has 2 - 3 cars per home, why can't we can have a transport which is 2 person capacity, half the size of Tata's NANO, half the NANO cost and double fuel efficient, less road space. Till the time the futuristic Urban Transport becomes a reality , the companies can convert the traditional Production lines into a 2 seater compact car.
For such you dont need boot space, as going office doesn't require that. But this is only possible when government pressurize it. 
What you all feel about this.
Idea Ref: revaindia dot com.

Reply

Guest (marqueymarc)

  • 1043 Days Ago
  • 04/08/2009

NYC=Potholes...

What happens when one of these things, or worse a Segway, hits a big pothole?   I can't imagine anything other than the thing going hurtling forward and flipping over that conveniently shaped roll-cage.

But seriously, what happens to a Segway which hits a deep pothole?  Can't be pretty.

Reply

ranadrew

31 Comments

  • 1043 Days Ago
  • 04/08/2009

agreed

We need solutions not gimmick products.

Reply

larrykueneman

3 Comments

  • 1043 Days Ago
  • 04/08/2009

Point of view

From his photo Kevin Bullis appears less than 40 years old.  Were he a 77 year-old like me with polio-damaged legs,he would see why the new Segway design is a step up -- you sit down to ride it. This could be an incredible in-town source of transportation.  Just look out for that bus.

Reply

delayen

6 Comments

  • 1043 Days Ago
  • 04/08/2009

Irony

It's ironic that the person who is trying to "revolutionize" the way us commonfolk transport ourselves about town in deathtraps like  the segway or puma "that don't need seatbelts" is the same person that flies to his own private island in his own private helicopter. Nice!

I bet he was also on that private GM jet that went to DC to milk us for tax dollars that will pay for this supposed "forward thinking". Doesn't it make you feel warm and fuzzy knowing that you funded this POS project? Gotta give credit where it's due though. Kamen is a great salesperson, and he's just found another sucker with deep pockets!

Reply

mkogrady

425 Comments

  • 1042 Days Ago
  • 04/09/2009

Acceptable Form

The modified Segway Rickshaw is a first step for GM and Segway, and future models could be improved considerably. However, given the limited places these could be of use will limit their market appeal considerably.

The commuter form of choice for short distance electric propulsion will most likely be electrified bikes of some type. Many cities already have paths and parking for bikes, and adding charging stations will be pretty easy. Lee Ioccocca had this biz-plan a couple years ago but it looked like it dropped out of sight.

However, quick web searches pull up all sorts of E-Bike programs that are a fraction of the price of the Segway, the Segway-R (for Rickshaw) or any higher end electric car programs. For short trips of 20 miles or less, an E Bike will work. If you add extended battery packs you can go further of course. If the battery poops out, you can always pedal.

Looking back on the POS cars my kids bought for their first vehicles, I should have steered them towards something like this.

Reply

  • 1041 Days Ago
  • 04/10/2009

Re: Acceptable Form

Ace Motors electric motorcycle runs 200 km on a 6-8 hour charge. It Costs 600$ in India. There are already better two - three wheeler Design options like Mercedes-Benz F 300. Why spend millions on a technology R&D when you know its scope is limited. No off roading can be done. And speed restriction on curves in case of automated driving will limit its scope.

Reply

Bio

Kevin Bullis is Technology Review’s energy editor.

Subscribe to the Potential Energy RSS Feed

Advertisement
Advertisement

Facebook

Advertisement