[alancalverd]

one of the unique features of the abovementioned model of Urbamobile is that under the load the ground clearance is almost constant and remains for the considered model at about 0.1 m.

Whilst it is unlikely that an urban road will have many obstructions > 10 cm on the roadway itself, it is important that a vehicle used in a congested environment can be driven onto the sidewalk for parking or unloading. The embarrassing "Top Gear" episode in which a Pagani Zonda suffered damage simply emerging from a garage onto a roadway, showed the importance of a steep chamfer from the leading edge of the bodywork (which must be at the US regulatory fender height) to the point of contact of the leading wheel. Not a great problem to overcome in this project but it will mean that the "skirt" must be reshaped or the wheels repositioned.

"Sideways" parking has always been an attractive proposition but difficult to achieve in practice. In this design it seems we have two wheels that can turn through 180 degrees to steer the car at +/- 90 degrees to the roadway. But in doing so you will have to scrub the other two tyres sideways, which is most undesirable and will lead to early failure. The problem was solved many years ago by "bubble cars" such as the Goggomobil, with a front-opening door and a square wheelbase: you can just park nose-on to the sidewalk. Great for a 2-seater but not feasible for a 4-seater. The Urbamobile has a front-opening door, so no need for +/- 90 degree steering, but we still haven't seen a seating layout for a 4-seater. Four Economy aircraft seats takes up 75 inches abreast so I guess it's feasible but already as wide as a Ford Focus without adding any bodywork.

[John-H]

Moderator here:

I would like to take this opportunity to remind both new and old members to read the forum acceptable use policy, wherein we state:

"The site is not for the promotion of business interests, or other personal ventures.  The only exception to this is where the advertisement is supplied by the owners of the forum to further their own business interests.

The site is not for evangelising your own pet theory.  It is perfectly acceptable that you should post your own theory up for discussion, but if all you want to do is promote your own idea and are not inviting critical debate about it, then that will not be acceptable."

It is also inappropriate to offer or request payment of any kind in this forum.

You should not have bothered yourself posting the above reminder, because it apparently applies to your colleague, who should be acquainted with it - without doubt - as well as you.

[alancalverd]

No problem for me. I haven't offered any new theories or products, just simple statements of fact and basic calculations based on what we have been shown and told. And when payment was offered, I suggested it should be made to the forum.

[VIC]

I found the video to be not the best-put-together, information-wise.  However, reading between the frames, I conclude that what the system is is an assembly of fully-automatic transportation modules that, apparently, are not owned by any specific driver, but that can be summoned like a taxicab, used, and then released.  And that they are not driven by their occupants, but move on the basis of some manner of automatic control, being so designed that traffic conflicts are automatically prevented.  Conceptually, this is actually a brilliant idea, and could well represent the future of transportation, having the effect of combining the convenience of the personal car with the efficiency of transit.  However, the engineering details appear to be not well worked out in the video.  It is unclear whether each such vehicle will be self-managed, or will be managed by a central city control.  There are engineering advantages to having them centrally controlled. A central computer can look over the entire city traffic situation, all the current destinations desired, and calculate the most efficient routes for all the vehicles.  As for the design of the vehicles themselves:  Rubber bumpers surrounding each may or may not be an essential feature; nor would I consider the round shape to be essential.  What is essential is that there be a high level of automation and technology. I would say that the auto industry today is taking the first tiny steps toward this sort of thing with the new accident-avoidence systems such as lane-departure warnings, automatic braking for a slow vehicle ahead, and even self-driving cars.  The natural evolution of this technology is, I believe, toward something like the Urbamobile; but I tend to think that the round shape is by no means inevitable or even necessarily the best option.  Regardless of what form the ultimate vehicles may obtain, I would envision that eventually, people would often choose not to own cars, but would simply summon one via their smartphone when needed, and it would automatically arrive, and then the people would enter their desired destination into a keyboard (or select it from an on-screen map), press a button, and then sit back and have coffee, read the Kindle, or sleep until the vehicle automatically arrived at the chosen destination.  The whole thing would operate through a centrally controlled automatic traffic system. There are certain issues, however, that need to be addressed. One is that people may have varying needs. One person may simply be commuting to work. Another may be going to the grocery store and have to haul a lot of groceries back. Another may be taking a bunch of kids to some game and may have sports equipment that must be hauled. For these reasons, a one-size-fits-all Urbamobile will not be satisfactory. Various different types will be needed.  As for the design of the vehicles themselves: I don't think this is well worked out in the video.  The two-wheel design has clear maneuverability advantages; however there is a big question in my mind as to stability.  You have to have some way of keeping the thing upright; and that will require somehow dealing with the balance of the load.  Also, braking quickly could be a problem.  Also, the system must be prepared to deal with emergency road conditions other than other Urbamobiles.  This could include errant bicyclists or pedestrians.  Again, fast braking may be required at times, which argue for more than two wheels.  Do we lose maneuverability if we have more than two wheels?  Not necessarily; if all the wheels are involved in steering, extreme maneuverability is still possible. I am unsure however whether we truly require this level of maneuverability.  Already, cars have been built that can parallel-park themselves, having the conventional arrangement of two nonsteering and two steering wheels on the ground.  As for extreme maneuverability in traffic, that too may be unnecessary if the traffic flow is managed in detail by a central computer. So in my opinion, the two-wheel, circular design proposed is by no means necessary to gain most of the advantages of this sort of transport.

And one more thing that requires attention is how the system would deal with bad weather or emergencies such as a power outage.

This is a more serious conversation. However - I hope you won’t deem this remark offending - it seems that you saw only one video - "Urbamobile replaces the car":

Because, for example, a careful review of the video "Urbamobile has become a reality":

as well as a comprehensive review of other images and videos, as well as with all documentation and detailed descriptions of the Urbamobile and the Urbamobile Transportation System on urbamobile.com, -  as I became certain after examining all of the mentioned above myself, - should not leave any ambiguity, vagueness or unclearness concerning the questions that you asked.

Moreover, it seems quite clear that there is a real possibility in the near future to abandon cars completely and use henceforth only the Urbamobiles – friendly to environment, Internet-compatible, fully automatic, ideal for all digital technologies, functioning without a driver systematic individual universal transport, eliminating traffic jams and parking problems, which does not need traffic lights, signs, road markings, etc., the functioning of which won't need the police services, it will get rid of traffic accidents and related deaths or injuries. Also in principle The Urbamobile does not allow using transport in illegal purposes, for example - for street riots, crimes or terrorism actions.

There are detailed developments, including the patent for utility model, various applications, computer modeling, and other objective justifications and materials, which are quite comprehensible to non-specialist and which are offered for the public attention on urbamobile.com, and also on Indiegogo (campaign “Urbamobile replaces the car”).
It would be logical and correct to read all above, understand, and determine: if this is really possible - so let's get started moving in the direction of the Urbamobile, and the sooner - the better.

At least because every 10 seconds in the world one man dies in a road accident, and every 1-2 seconds another person gets injured in a road accident. The reason is - the human factor. Therefore, it would be better FOR ALL if the transport is not managed by people but is managed by the system.
But for the car - with its unpredictable complex forms, tending to absolute unsuitability for calculations and necessity to maintain minimum spacing between cars - the above is practically impossible.
On the contrary, for Urbamobile - which inventively constructed round shape allows you to shortchange it using only one point and permits driving in the simplest way with the possibility of contiguity - it is optimal.

It also seems that in the public interests is to maintain control in respect of the Urbamobile so that through transition to the national phase of patenting in PCT-members countries (that allows approaching to it until December 28, 2015) use patent law in the interests of consumers and to prevent the transformation of the Urbamobile into an instrument of unjust enrichment.

[chiralSPO]

At least because every 10 seconds in the world one man dies in a road accident, and every 1-2 seconds another person gets injured in a road accident. The reason is - the human factor. Therefore, it would be better FOR ALL if the transport is not managed by people but is managed by the system.
But for the car - with its unpredictable complex forms, tending to absolute unsuitability for calculations and necessity to maintain minimum spacing between cars - the above is practically impossible.
On the contrary, for Urbamobile - which inventively constructed round shape allows you to shortchange it using only one point and permits driving in the simplest way with the possibility of contiguity - it is optimal.

I agree with your big-picture arguments, for the most part. There is a lot of room for improvement in the transportation industry, and making small improvements can have profound effects on society as a whole.

However, it is not clear to me why this new design would be safer than present technologies. Having several feet of crushable car in front and behind provides a significant layer of protection that would be very hard to achieve in a vehicle of your design.

I agree that having AI guide the vehicles (of whatever shape) will likely eventually be safer than having people drive (especially if the vehicles can talk to each other), but you still need to have a physically safe and robust system because it isn't all the human factor, for instance:

If there were a crash, or the need to go from 150 kph to a complete stop ASAP, how stable is the new design. Does it have good airbags/seatbelts?

I also question the circular footprint as the optimal shape. In addition to crashability and aerodynamics, elongating the vehicle in the direction of travel improves control (this is partly why boats, cars, bikes, planes, helicopters, rockets, and blimps are all elongated; compare the maneuverability of a blimp to that of a hot air balloon with a propeller. And sure, a unicycle can turn on a dime, but I would never think of it as being more maneuverable than a bike). Also, having 10 cm clearance and going 150 kph sounds very scary (you should see the potholes we get, not to mention the snow and ice in winter...)

[alancalverd]

Also in principle The Urbamobile does not allow using transport in illegal purposes, for example - for street riots, crimes or terrorism actions.

Now that is worth a patent: a device that can tell whether the gun I am carrying is for shooting good guys or bad guys. Never mind urban transport, let's get that into production immediately. Or do you really want your car controlled by the Thought Police?

[Info-drops]

Also in principle The Urbamobile does not allow using transport in illegal purposes, for example - for street riots, crimes or terrorism actions.

Now that is worth a patent: a device that can tell whether the gun I am carrying is for shooting good guys or bad guys. Never mind urban transport, let's get that into production immediately. Or do you really want your car controlled by the Thought Police?

Equipping weapons with the system of objective video recording of any circumstances of its use in combination with the remote control and blocking, for example – when there is an attempt to be used by terrorists – is worth a patent.
Such production of a vehicle of circular shape that enables the vehicle to be operated in the simplest way – using rotation with the possibility of contiguity – like the Urbamobile – is worth a patent.
Based on unique advantages of the Urbamobile the Urbamobile Transportation System, effectively does not allow using transport in illegal purposes, for example – for street riots, crimes or terrorism – is worth a patent.
All of this – specifically in the public interests – would be of great benefit to be implemented not just immediately, but even earlier.

[alancalverd]

Equipping weapons with the system of objective video recording of any circumstances of its use in combination with the remote control and blocking, for example – when there is an attempt to be used by terrorists – is worth a patent.

Your suggestion of means for the universal and automatic retrofitting of every Kalashnikov with this wondrous device would be interesting. Who decides whether it is being used by a terrorist or a legitimate freedom fighter? When you have solved the problem for guns, you might move on to knives and home-made explosives.

And a device that automatically records and broadcasts the effect of using a weapon is every terrorist's dream - it releases the cameraman from his duties, doubles the available killing manpower, and guarantees the best viewpoint for the world audience.

[Info-drops]

Equipping weapons with the system of objective video recording of any circumstances of its use in combination with the remote control and blocking, for example – when there is an attempt to be used by terrorists – is worth a patent.

Your suggestion of means for the universal and automatic retrofitting of every Kalashnikov with this wondrous device would be interesting. Who decides whether it is being used by a terrorist or a legitimate freedom fighter? When you have solved the problem for guns, you might move on to knives and home-made explosives.

And a device that automatically records and broadcasts the effect of using a weapon is every terrorist's dream - it releases the cameraman from his duties, doubles the available killing manpower, and guarantees the best viewpoint for the world audience.

“Legitimate freedom fighter” - who is this?
Obviously the one for whom the Thought Police will establish the absence of the following dream:
“And a device that automatically records and broadcasts the effect of using a weapon is every terrorist's dream - it releases the cameraman from his duties, doubles the available killing manpower, and guarantees the best viewpoint for the world audience.”
By the way, where does such awareness of “legitimate freedom fighters”, their arms and even about their dreams come from?

[John-H]

I agree with your big-picture arguments, for the most part. There is a lot of room for improvement in the transportation industry, and making small improvements can have profound effects on society as a whole.

However, it is not clear to me why this new design would be safer than present technologies. Having several feet of crushable car in front and behind provides a significant layer of protection that would be very hard to achieve in a vehicle of your design.

I agree that having AI guide the vehicles (of whatever shape) will likely eventually be safer than having people drive (especially if the vehicles can talk to each other), but you still need to have a physically safe and robust system because it isn't all the human factor, for instance:

…

If there were a crash, or the need to go from 150 kph to a complete stop ASAP, how stable is the new design. Does it have good airbags/seatbelts?

I also question the circular footprint as the optimal shape. In addition to crashability and aerodynamics, elongating the vehicle in the direction of travel improves control (this is partly why boats, cars, bikes, planes, helicopters, rockets, and blimps are all elongated; compare the maneuverability of a blimp to that of a hot air balloon with a propeller. And sure, a unicycle can turn on a dime, but I would never think of it as being more maneuverable than a bike). Also, having 10 cm clearance and going 150 kph sounds very scary (you should see the potholes we get, not to mention the snow and ice in winter...)

Transport safety, in fact, is achieved only by its systematic and fully automatic organization. For the car - it's impossible. For the Urbamobile - which inventively constructed round shape allows you to shortchange it using only one point and permits driving in the simplest way with the possibility of contiguity - it is optimal. In principle - we are talking specifically about the universal size and shape of the perimeter and the characteristics of its outer surface, the presence of which in the Urbamobile makes it possible to create a fully automatic universal Urbamobile Transportation System. For cars and any other transportation systems it is practically impossible.
It is the systematic organization of transport that could make it possible, in principle, to exclude the possibility of a collision with a wild animal, or car body full of cows tilting over toward you.
Even a fall of a boulder on Urbamobile could be less dangerous because the physical durability of the Urbamobile’s interior that has a cylindrical shape is certainly much higher than that of the car.
It is the cylindrical shape of the interior that ensures optimum installation of seatbelts and airbags.
It is the cylindrical shape of the interior that ensures optimum activation of seatbelts and airbags.
This being said, the speculations concerning the allegedly excessively high aerodynamic drag actually look pretty prejudiced, nonobjective, and clearly aren’t aimed at comprehensive analysis of all the positive and negative aspects of the problem.
As for the maneuverability of unicycle, it is certainly higher than that of a bicycle with two wheels. To dispel apprehensions about the fact that “having 10 cm clearance and going 150 kph sounds very scary (you should see the potholes we get, not to mention the snow and ice in winter...)”, I recommend to analyze, for example, the technical characteristics of LAMBORGHINI cars. Taking into account that “the potholes we get, not to mention the snow and ice in winter ...” are sometimes found even in Italy, not to mention the other - the more northern - countries where cars that have the mentioned above characteristics, as judged by their popularity are also quite successfully used.

So it turns out:
“I agree with your big-picture arguments, for the most part. There is a lot of room for improvement in the transportation industry, and making small improvements can have profound effects on society as a whole.”

I agree too. But this is not enough to “have a profound impact on society in general”. The arguments justifying the feasibility of replacing cars with Urbamobiles are obvious. So it is necessary to do it. And the sooner - the better.
At the same time, I encourage everyone who is interested in this forum to more actively continue the critical discussion of Urbamobile and the Urbamobile Transportation System, so that the understanding of the fundamental correctness of this solution won’t be perceived as propaganda of a somebody’s pet idea, advertisement of a product or someone's business project.

[alancalverd]

“Legitimate freedom fighter” - who is this?

Way off topic, but a good question. When the mujahadeen were fighting the soviet army in Afghanistan, they were legitimate freedom fighters - otherwise the USA would not have supplied them with intelligence and weapons. Of course as soon as they won, they became fanatical oppressors - otherwise the USA would not have sent soldiers in to fight them. Quite unlike the IRA, who were disgraceful terrorists until they won seats in a power-sharing executive in Stormont, and are now respectable politicians. Chechen rebels, Che Guevara, Mao Tse-Tung, and indeed almost anyone who promotes a political ideal with a gun, may be a legitimate freedom fighter or murderous scum depending on the prevailing fashion among the chattering classes.

By the way, where does such awareness of “legitimate freedom fighters”, their arms and even about their dreams come from?

Newspapers, radio, television, and occasional conversations with earth people including some who have fought with and against such individuals.

It now seems that the Metropolitan Police are apologising for infiltrating ecological protest groups. My advice to a budding transport engineer is not to allow politicians to switch your vehicles on or off.   

[alancalverd]

This being said, the speculations concerning the allegedly excessively high aerodynamic drag actually look pretty prejudiced, nonobjective,

No, they come from elementary textbooks on aerodynamics. In the immortal words of Scotty "Ye canna fight the laws of physics, Captain."

[alancalverd]

Back to road engineering for a moment. A Routemaster bus is narrower (2.44m) and carries up to 72 passengers. That's 18 times as many people in only 3.5 times the road space. Seems like a better solution, and you can buy one today. Some even have wi-fi!

[Info-drops]

« Reply #50 on: Today at 01:02:20 »
Say ThanksQuote (selected)
Quote from: Info-drops on 20/11/2015 15:49:04
“Legitimate freedom fighter” - who is this?
Way off topic, but a good question. When the mujahadeen were fighting the soviet army in Afghanistan, they were legitimate freedom fighters - otherwise the USA would not have supplied them with intelligence and weapons. Of course as soon as they won, they became fanatical oppressors - otherwise the USA would not have sent soldiers in to fight them. Quite unlike the IRA, who were disgraceful terrorists until they won seats in a power-sharing executive in Stormont, and are now respectable politicians. Chechen rebels, Che Guevara, Mao Tse-Tung, and indeed almost anyone who promotes a political ideal with a gun, may be a legitimate freedom fighter or murderous scum depending on the prevailing fashion among the chattering classes.

Quote
By the way, where does such awareness of “legitimate freedom fighters”, their arms and even about their dreams come from?
Newspapers, radio, television, and occasional conversations with earth people including some who have fought with and against such individuals.

It now seems that the Metropolitan Police are apologising for infiltrating ecological protest groups. My advice to a budding transport engineer is not to allow politicians to switch your vehicles on or off.
« Last Edit: Today at 10:46:54 by alancalverd »

Children can afford thinking such a way.
However, growing up, you realize that the world is becoming less compatible and increasingly close – mistakes made by people in one place, have a strong impact on other areas.
The more urgent becomes the creation of systems in which the role of human factor will be minimized. To such systems belongs undoubtedly the Urbamobile Transportation System!
It is a pity that instead of discussing ways of gradual introduction of this invention and urgent places of its application on the Earth, the opponent enough only for ironic comments.

[John-H]

« Reply #51 on: Today at 01:05:54 »
Say ThanksQuote (selected)
Quote from: John-H on 20/11/2015 15:57:45
This being said, the speculations concerning the allegedly excessively high aerodynamic drag actually look pretty prejudiced, nonobjective,
No, they come from elementary textbooks on aerodynamics. In the immortal words of Scotty "Ye canna fight the laws of physics, Captain."

No. Unfortunately, - as said the hero of another series - “You just don't know how to count, our little Generalissimo ...”.
If by the time when must be born Scotty people stubbornly do not accept the new because they just don't understand it, we will have no “star treks” but will sit on Earth in a very long, endless traffic jam - literally and figuratively.

[alancalverd]

It is a pity that instead of discussing ways of gradual introduction of this invention and urgent places of its application on the Earth,

And there you have shown another weakness. You can't gradually introduce a product that is incompatible with everything else on the road. Take a simple, passive annoyance like a speed hump. The regulation height is 10 cm, so a 10 cm  ground clearance will just suffice as long as the vehicle has absolutely rigid suspension and solid tyres - most uncomfortable. With the diamond layout you show for the wheelbase, you can't avoid hitting the speed hump,so the whole machine will oscillate vertically and scrape its bottom on the hump.

Since the urbamobile has colllision avoidance, how does it manage in heavy traffic? Does it nudge its way forward until it is almost touching the vehicle in front? OK, let's allow that. Now the bloke in front realises that there's a problem - there's an ambulance or police car trying to cross the traffic flow, so he decides to reverse. Does the urbamobile reverse too, or does it think the bloke in front is deliberately trying to ram you (it makes a good fake insurance claim) and just sit tight and call the police? So let's try something different: in slow traffic we will stay 1 metre behind the car in front. Now a pedestrian walks into that space: do we try to reverse to retain 1 m clearance? How does the machine know the difference between stationary traffic (1 m clearance) and parking (no clearance required if the vehicle in front is an urbamobile, but 30cm is a minimum if the guy in front wants to unpark an ordinary car).       

Now let's move to an ordinary road. Some twit has just overtaken the urbamobile and wants to pull in ahead of it. How does the urbamobile know this? Does it always give way? There's an ambulance coming towards us on the other side of the road: common sense tells me to give way and let the overtaker in quickly even if he isn't signalling that intention: does the urbamobile slow down every tme someone goes past, just in case he might need to pull in? That really won't please the people behind, will it?   

But before we get to these engineering questions, you still haven't answered the basic ones: will the machine be privately owned, rented for the journey, or what?

So far, all you have shown us is a picture of something that looks like the disabled toilet on a train, told us that it is the answer to a problem that we don't actually have, and ignored the fact that there are better machines already in use. Now you want everyone to make way for it. That's no way to sell a product. 

[John-H]

Back to road engineering for a moment. A Routemaster bus is narrower (2.44m) and carries up to 72 passengers. That's 18 times as many people in only 3.5 times the road space. Seems like a better solution, and you can buy one today. Some even have wi-fi!

Do not worry, Scotty. There are more «Seems like a better solution». For example, a double-deck railway wagon of a train.
Reasonable and responsible person here: At the same time,

« Reply #37 on: 15/11/2015 22:58:05 »
I would like to take this opportunity to remind both new and old members to read the forum acceptable use policy, wherein we state:

In the scientific discussion we should not be like some “legitimate freedom fighters” who know how to break, but do not know how to make.
We shouldn’t reason about what else could be said or suggested simply for debates going on.
We should worry about what else must be said or suggested so that as many as possible people could really participate in making the world better. For example, - by supporting in every possible way the popularization of the idea of a speedy replacement of cars by Urbamobiles and full and widespread transition to application of Urbamobile Transportation System.
After all, neither car, nor bus, nor railway, nor any other modern transport can provide people with such advantages and opportunities that are offered and are given by the Urbamobile.

[alancalverd]

After all, neither car, nor bus, nor railway, nor any other modern transport can provide people with such advantages and opportunities that are offered and are given by the Urbamobile.

So far, you haven't shown any advantages or opportunities. You have drawn a large, clumsy and inefficient vehicle that is not compatible with other traffic, and told us nothing about who owns it, how it works, how much it costs....

[John-H]

After all, neither car, nor bus, nor railway, nor any other modern transport can provide people with such advantages and opportunities that are offered and are given by the Urbamobile.

So far, you haven't shown any advantages or opportunities. You have drawn a large, clumsy and inefficient vehicle that is not compatible with other traffic, and told us nothing about who owns it, how it works, how much it costs....

… you haven't shown any advantages or opportunities. You have drawn....

- who do you mean by saying “You”? After all, it is obvious that EVERYONE is interested in speedy implementation of Urbamobile!

a large, clumsy and inefficient vehicle that is not compatible with other traffic

– and in this case what are you talking about? Surely it is obvious that it doesn’t and can’t apply to Urbamobile.

told us nothing about who owns it, how it works, how much it costs

All of the above questions are described and shown in detail on urbamobile.com.

[peppercorn]

Posting under multiple names is against forum policy...

 [ Invalid Attachment ]

Please only post as Hoggart from now on, or you may risk being banned.