The Arcimoto SRK, A Perfect Fit For Relocalized Cities

My Nissan Leaf Forum

Help Support My Nissan Leaf Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.

GRA

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 19, 2011
Messages
14,018
Location
East side of San Francisco Bay
Via ievs:
The Arcimoto SRK, A Perfect Fit For Relocalized Cities
http://insideevs.com/the-arcimoto-srk-a-perfect-fit-for-relocalized-cities/

. . . Where once the open road offered freedom, it now offers congestion, mindless repetition of places, soul thieving examples of generic sprawl in and near our cities.

Where once we would spend time involved with little league, PTA’s, charities, houses of worship, or a passion of our choice, we now willingly make the decision to spend this time alone, isolated in a car for two, three or four hours a day.

Where once we had room for people in our cities, we now give more room to cars and less to people.

Our love for cars, mine included, is the epitome of a strength that when overdone turns into a weakness. Urban sprawl is the generic all-inclusive term for these shortcomings. What is emerging in our cities now is a desire to address these weaknesses by dialing down the singular focus on the car.

We more often are making the choice to live closer to where we work, choosing a dynamic neighborhood with a unique identity rich in consumer choices and mobility choices within a short distance. Advances in transportation options are now connecting us for the last few miles to home and work. City roads once the sole domain of cars, are now legally shared with bicycles and other modes of transit. . . .
Peder Norby is clearly a believer in New Urbanism (as am I).
 
GRA said:
Via ievs:
The Arcimoto SRK, A Perfect Fit For Relocalized Cities
http://insideevs.com/the-arcimoto-srk-a-perfect-fit-for-relocalized-cities/
So, in these "relocalized cities," when you take your car out, you can either carry your spouse, one child or some groceries (choose one). Perhaps in the future there are no children or spouses, just groceries?

My current BEV is fueled by about 6 PV panels and can carry five people plus groceries. I'll stick with that.
 
RegGuheert said:
GRA said:
Via ievs:
The Arcimoto SRK, A Perfect Fit For Relocalized Cities
http://insideevs.com/the-arcimoto-srk-a-perfect-fit-for-relocalized-cities/
So, in these "relocalized cities," when you take your car out, you can either carry your spouse, one child or some groceries (choose one). Perhaps in the future there are no children or spouses, just groceries?

My current BEV is fueled by about 6 PV panels and can carry five people plus groceries. I'll stick with that.
And in the car you commute in, how many people are typically in it? Depending on the year of the survey, somewhere between 75 and 85% of all car commutes in the U.S. are single occupant. Obviously, if you have kids and need to haul them around regularly, you might need one car with more capacity. OTOH, assuming car sharing (especially autonomous car-sharing) becomes the norm in urban areas, you'd just order up whichever car meets your needs for the trip - no need to own one. And if you live somewhere where everything's close enough that your kids can walk or bike on their errands or take convenient public transit (which is one of the primary goals of New Urbanism), there's no need to chauffeur them around. Of course, this goes against the trend of helicopter parents, terrified that something might happen to little Johnny or Jill if they aren't constantly there to protect them from the world's evils. Somehow, I and most kids in my generation managed to survive on our own with no more constraint than the need to be home for dinner or by dark. I do worry that kids today have no opportunity to learn self-reliance, because their parents won't let them.

Anyway, in my case I live within easy walking distance (<= .5 miles) of a grocery store and every other routine errand, and bike distance of work and most other errands and entertainments, requirements I set when choosing where to live 15 years ago, and the reason my car sits on my parking pad all week long and on many weekends - even if I chose to drive the 8.4 miles round trip to work instead of riding my bike, I'd still have no need for a four or five passenger vehicle capable of freeway speeds to do it in. If I need to go further afield in the region for any of those reasons, I'm also within walking distance of a rapid transit stop than can take me up to 30-50 miles in most directions, continuing on foot or bike as needed.

If I hadn't bought my car for cash in 2003 (when my need for one was somewhat greater than it is now), and I had convenient car-sharing for the occasional local trip in bad weather or emergency, I could easily do without owning a car at all - I have a rent-a-car agency 1.5 miles away that will pick up and drop off for longer-term rental needs. My hope is that by the time AFVs get to the point that they can completely replace fossil-fueled ICEs, It will make more sense for me to give up car ownership. This is the way urban society is trending, because we simply can't spare the space or bear the costs of an increasing number of cars or their infrastructure. You can find a very up-to-date survey based on solid statistics of these trends in a selection of the world's cities (those with good data going back to 1960) in "The End of Automobile Dependence", by Peter Newman and Jeffrey Kenworthy (2015): http://islandpress.org/book/the-end-of-automobile-dependence This is the third (and last) of their trilogy tracking these trends, published in 1989, 1999, and last year.

Fortuitously, I see that today's Google's doodle honors the 100th anniversary of the birth of Jane Jacobs, whose books and articles, especially "The Death and Life of Great American Cities,", served as ideological inspiration for the New Urbanist planning movement, here and abroad: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jane_Jacobs
 
GRA said:
And in the car you commute in, how many people are typically in it?
Zero.
GRA said:
Depending on the year of the survey, somewhere between 75 and 85% of all car commutes in the U.S. are single occupant.
So in your ideal "New Urbanism," you don't eliminate commuting, you just move it into single-occupant cars? If not, then what role does the "Arcimoto SRK" serve?
GRA said:
Obviously, if you have kids and need to haul them around regularly, you might need one car with more capacity.
Yep. No use for a single- or dual-occupant vehicle.
GRA said:
And if you live somewhere where everything's close enough that your kids can walk or bike on their errands or take convenient public transit (which is one of the primary goals of New Urbanism), there's no need to chauffeur them around.
The goals of "New Urbanism" do not match my goals.
GRA said:
Of course, this goes against the trend of helicopter parents, terrified that something might happen to little Johnny or Jill if they aren't constantly there to protect them from the world's evils.
One of the primary roles of parents is to protect their children.
GRA said:
Somehow, I and most kids in my generation managed to survive on our own with no more constraint than the need to be home for dinner or by dark. I do worry that kids today have no opportunity to learn self-reliance, because their parents won't let them.
You must not have children.
GRA said:
Anyway, in my case I live within easy walking distance (<= .5 miles) of a grocery store and every other routine errand, and bike distance of work and most other errands and entertainments, requirements I set when choosing where to live 15 years ago, and the reason my car sits on my parking pad all week long and on many weekends - even if I chose to drive the 8.4 miles round trip to work instead of riding my bike, I'd still have no need for a four or five passenger vehicle capable of freeway speeds to do it in. If I need to go further afield in the region for any of those reasons, I'm also within walking distance of a rapid transit stop than can take me up to 30-50 miles in most directions, continuing on foot or bike as needed.
Sharing resources is more efficient than providing separate resources for each individual. As such, living alone is not as efficient as living with others.

BTW, if we build society around individuals, we only need it to last for one generation. ;)
GRA said:
If I hadn't bought my car for cash in 2003 (when my need for one was somewhat greater than it is now), and I had convenient car-sharing for the occasional local trip in bad weather or emergency, I could easily do without owning a car at all - I have a rent-a-car agency 1.5 miles away that will pick up and drop off for longer-term rental needs. My hope is that by the time AFVs get to the point that they can completely replace fossil-fueled ICEs, It will make more sense for me to give up car ownership.
So, again, there is no role for this vehicle in your nirvana.

Bottom line: It appears this vehicle has no role in the "New Urbanism." It seems like a commuter-only vehicle designed for "Old Urbanism." Unfortunately, it is a one-trick pony and nearly anyone purchasing such a vehicle will ALSO need to purchase another one. That includes the author of the article you linked.
 
RegGuheert said:
GRA said:
And in the car you commute in, how many people are typically in it?
Zero.
So, do you mean that you work from home, walk/bike/use transit, or are retired?

RegGuheert said:
GRA said:
Depending on the year of the survey, somewhere between 75 and 85% of all car commutes in the U.S. are single occupant.
So in your ideal "New Urbanism," you don't eliminate commuting, you just move it into single-occupant cars? If not, then what role does the "Arcimoto SRK" serve?
You move commuting into walking, biking, transit, virtual, plus cars sized to take up only as much road and parking space as their actual occupancy or a bit more.

RegGuheert said:
GRA said:
Obviously, if you have kids and need to haul them around regularly, you might need one car with more capacity.
Yep. No use for a single- or dual-occupant vehicle.
Of course, depending on how far you have to haul them, you don't necessarily require a car: https://www.google.com/search?q=bakfiets+with+kids+in+snow&rlz=1CASMAD_enUS691US691&biw=1280&bih=689&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwi6yvin0sHMAhUM0mMKHYB7CJMQsAQIGw#imgrc=_

RegGuheert said:
GRA said:
And if you live somewhere where everything's close enough that your kids can walk or bike on their errands or take convenient public transit (which is one of the primary goals of New Urbanism), there's no need to chauffeur them around.
The goals of "New Urbanism" do not match my goals.
That's fine. The number of people whose goal it does match is increasing, and they are the ones who will reap the benefits of those changes. For those who wish to live in car-dependent suburbs, they will (probably) still be able to do so, albeit it will likely be more expensive as higher energy and other resource costs necessary to support their lifestyles get distributed between fewer people.

RegGuheert said:
GRA said:
Of course, this goes against the trend of helicopter parents, terrified that something might happen to little Johnny or Jill if they aren't constantly there to protect them from the world's evils.
One of the primary roles of parents is to protect their children.
Certainly. But it's also necessary to protect them by preparing them for life on their own as adults, and IME a lot of them seem to be doing a poor job of that. See below.

RegGuheert said:
GRA said:
Somehow, I and most kids in my generation managed to survive on our own with no more constraint than the need to be home for dinner or by dark. I do worry that kids today have no opportunity to learn self-reliance, because their parents won't let them.
You must not have children.
Not of my own, no. OTOH, I was a scoutmaster for many years, and got to see just how sheltered and lacking in self-reliance and self-confidence many kids were. While I did my best, it's hard to overcome a lifetime's worth of over-protectiveness in 1.5 hours a week and maybe one weekend away from the parents a month. And those were the parents who were at least willing to let their kids out of their sight for 48 hours or even as much as two whole weeks (a week at summer camp immediately followed by a week-long backpack). The differences between them and my generation of free-range kids was pretty stark. http://www.freerangekids.com/faq/

RegGuheert said:
GRA said:
Anyway, in my case I live within easy walking distance (<= .5 miles) of a grocery store and every other routine errand, and bike distance of work and most other errands and entertainments, requirements I set when choosing where to live 15 years ago, and the reason my car sits on my parking pad all week long and on many weekends - even if I chose to drive the 8.4 miles round trip to work instead of riding my bike, I'd still have no need for a four or five passenger vehicle capable of freeway speeds to do it in. If I need to go further afield in the region for any of those reasons, I'm also within walking distance of a rapid transit stop than can take me up to 30-50 miles in most directions, continuing on foot or bike as needed.
Sharing resources is more efficient than providing separate resources for each individual. As such, living alone is not as efficient as living with others.
Certainly true, and having lived with others all the rest of my life, I figure I've earned some time to myself. OTOH, most of the people I've lived with have been far more wasteful of resources than I am, and unwilling to take the more extreme measures I will. I mean, how many people unplug their microwaves when they aren't being used, to save the miniscule amount of energy the display draws? Living by myself, I can go apeshit with energy and resource efficiency measures to my heart's content (such as choosing to live in a small, well insulated studio within walking distance of everything instead of a 3 bedroom house that required me to drive everywhere) without having to argue about it or compromise.

RegGuheert said:
BTW, if we build society around individuals, we only need it to last for one generation. ;)
While no one's suggesting that we do so, considering the damage we've done to the earth and each other, in my more pessimistic moments I'm not at all sure that's a bad idea as far as humans are concerned.

RegGuheert said:
GRA said:
If I hadn't bought my car for cash in 2003 (when my need for one was somewhat greater than it is now), and I had convenient car-sharing for the occasional local trip in bad weather or emergency, I could easily do without owning a car at all - I have a rent-a-car agency 1.5 miles away that will pick up and drop off for longer-term rental needs. My hope is that by the time AFVs get to the point that they can completely replace fossil-fueled ICEs, It will make more sense for me to give up car ownership.
So, again, there is no role for this vehicle in your nirvana.
For me, no. If I lived somewhere a bit less convenient, I might need something like this to haul groceries or the occasional friend, and as I get older and lose mobility something like this may move from being a convenience to a need. But everyone isn't me, and there's room for vehicles with a variety of carrying capacities, as well as a variety of transportation modes.

The problem at the moment is that many people size cars for their most extreme capability because they might someday, somehow have a use for it. I remember reading a stat some years ago that of all the people buying big truck-based 4WD SUVs, only 6% of them had ever put the car in 4WD. Ever. I have a friend who's used 4WD on his Pathfinder precisely once in 15 years, to get out of a muddy parking lot. He and his wife have one child, but both drive 5 passenger vehicles in spite of the fact that one and usually both of them is always commuting solo. Clearly, downsizing of at least one of their vehicles is possible.

Realistically, given where I live I could certainly do without AWD in my cars; it's there solely for convenience/to save me from irritation/expensive replacements/fines. I encounter snow often enough on my ski trips that I either need to chain up or else have AWD w/snow tires. I've never had any issue with putting chains on when _I_ think I need them, the problem is that the authorities have to consider the lowest common denominator (i.e. the tourist with no experience on snow) when setting chain controls. Having wrecked a set of tires and chains many years ago driving around on almost entirely bare pavement for much of a week, merely because of a couple of small patches of ice that could easily be safely driven by anyone paying the slightest attention and driving accordingly, I'm not willing to repeat the experience again in conditions which are trivial. Having AWD has probably cost me 2-4 mpg over the years, so I counter balance that by driving as little as possible, and trip chain whenever possible for those times I have to drive.

RegGuheert said:
Bottom line: It appears this vehicle has no role in the "New Urbanism." It seems like a commuter-only vehicle designed for "Old Urbanism." Unfortunately, it is a one-trick pony and nearly anyone purchasing such a vehicle will ALSO need to purchase another one. That includes the author of the article you linked.
I'm not sure how you arrive at your conclusion. There are plenty of singles and childless couples in the U.S. and elsewhere; in fact, single-person households now make up the largest U.S. demographic group. Whether people choose to buy/lease such a car or get one when they need it via car share is up to them. Cars aren't going away, but in New Urbanism they are more balanced with other modes of transportation. If you want a car you can have one. But if you don't, you can get around just fine.
 
I don't see why a primarily urban vehicle with a relatively large tadpole footprint can't have a cabin that at least almost fills that footprint, with at least 2.75 seats and more cargo room. When you are using plastics for the shell then interior room isn't that expensive to add. It's true that traditional car drivers haul around a lot of empty space, but this vehicle seems to occupy much more space than it contains. That helps handling (mainly at higher speeds) but I don't see why New Urbanism should be about taking curves at 60MPH...
 
I like having crumple zones. 3 wheel vehicles are exempt from all sorts of safety regulations, basically treated to be motorcycles. Without all those tests to pass they can readily be much more efficient. In a world ever more filled with SUV's I will opt for 4 wheel vehicles that have a chance of suvivability in a modest crash.
 
Moof said:
I like having crumple zones. 3 wheel vehicles are exempt from all sorts of safety regulations, basically treated to be motorcycles. Without all those tests to pass they can readily be much more efficient. In a world ever more filled with SUV's I will opt for 4 wheel vehicles that have a chance of survivability in a modest crash.
Technology may well come to the rescue here, with the spread of automatic braking, adaptive cruise control and other safety features like blind spot/lane departure warning leading to fully autonomous driving, added to the other accident prevention features like Electronic Stability/Traction Control and ABS that have become standard over the years, and the improved crash avoidance they give (94% of accidents are attributed to driver error):
Automatic braking systems were shown in a new study to reduce rear-end crashes by about 40 percent on average, adding momentum to a push by safety groups, regulators and some automakers to equip all new cars with the technology. . . .

The study further concluded that if all vehicles could warn drivers of an imminent collision and automatically apply the brakes, some 700,000 crashes could have been averted in 2013 -- or roughly 13 percent of all police-reported crashes that year.

For the 2015 model year, just 1 percent of vehicles included automatic braking as a standard feature, while 26 percent offered it as an option, according to IIHS. . . Last year, in a pact brokered by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration and IIHS, a group of 10 automakers agreed to eventually make automatic braking systems a standard feature on all new cars. Other manufacturers have since joined the pact. . . .
http://www.autonews.com/article/20160128/OEM06/160129871/automatic-braking-reduces-rear-end-crashes-iihs-study-finds

it should be possible eventually (once most of the fleet is so fitted) to eliminate the majority of the extra weight and space that has been devoted over the years to crash survivability. It's much better to avoid the crash entirely.
 
NeilBlanchard said:
The Arcimoto SRK is a LOT safer than a motorcycle.
It is a lot less safe than a car. The back passenger has almost zero protection from being rear-ended.

A lot of folks are counting their autonomous eggs before they hatch. Even if every car sold today was autonomous we would have to wait about 20-25 years before manual cars were a rare sight. Today the average age of cars on the road in the USA is 11.5 years. So maybe in 25-30 years we can scale back crumple zones. Until all cars are crash proof and incapable of manual override I don't see that happening.
 
NeilBlanchard said:
The Arcimoto SRK is a LOT safer than a motorcycle.

It would appear to be a lot less safe than a Smart ED, which will carry two people and groceries, has heat and A/C, a race car type crash protection shell, and lots of other features the Arcimoto lacks. It also appears to have nearly the same footprint, if you discount the empty-but-unusable space around the rear of the Arcimoto. A Smart ED on sale, with the government and state incentives, can be as little as $10k. Unless the Arcimoto costs half that after incentives, I don't see it winning over the Smart.
 
LeftieBiker said:
Are you comparing the real world range of the Smart with the advertised range of the Arc?

At least for now until Arcimoto gets an official EPA range rating. They are claiming 130 miles range with their 20Kwh battery option. That sounds about right considering this thing probably only weighs about 1200 lbs.
 
LeftieBiker said:
NeilBlanchard said:
The Arcimoto SRK is a LOT safer than a motorcycle.

It would appear to be a lot less safe than a Smart ED, which will carry two people and groceries, has heat and A/C, a race car type crash protection shell, and lots of other features the Arcimoto lacks. It also appears to have nearly the same footprint, if you discount the empty-but-unusable space around the rear of the Arcimoto. A Smart ED on sale, with the government and state incentives, can be as little as $10k. Unless the Arcimoto costs half that after incentives, I don't see it winning over the Smart.
I don't think one of them winning over the other is important - either configuration will be fine. The important thing is to reduce the amount of space and resources taken up by cars that are usually driven solo, and occasionally with two people in them. There are advantages and disadvantages to both side by side and tandem layouts, but that's of secondary importance.
 
Back
Top