Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Hungarian Electric Car Splits Into Two Smaller Cars

ScuttleMonkey posted more than 4 years ago | from the i-get-the-good-half-in-the-divorce dept.

Power 147

Lanxon writes to mention that Antro, a Hungarian car manufacturer, is developing a new electric car that can split into two smaller cars. Antro plans to have it on the market by 2012. "The environmentally-conscious company started research back in 2002 and, with backing from various local sponsors, has invested 1.5 million euros in market research and development of a working prototype. The Antro Solo concept is a three-passenger car, with a hybrid drive and solar cells on its roof that the company says could generate enough electricity for up to 20km a day at city speeds. Futuristic looking in itself, the grander plan for the car is much more audacious: Antro intends to allow users to be able to connect two Antro Solos to form a six-passenger Antro Duo. Or perhaps more interesting still, owners of a Duo could split the car into two smaller Solos should Mum have different weekend plans to Dad. Or if they divorce."

cancel ×

147 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Quasi futuristic styling (5, Funny)

sakdoctor (1087155) | more than 4 years ago | (#31261934)

People don't like futuristic looking stuff. If they did, we'd all be wearing white or silver jumpsuits.

Re:Quasi futuristic styling (3, Funny)

SEWilco (27983) | more than 4 years ago | (#31262092)

Someone isn't wearing their silver jumpsuit?

What, you don't? (0, Offtopic)

Moraelin (679338) | more than 4 years ago | (#31262094)

What, you mean, you don't? Hmm... maybe that's why they were looking at me like that in the last meeting ;)

Re:Quasi futuristic styling (3, Funny)

Anonymous Monkey (795756) | more than 4 years ago | (#31262102)

What, you don't like my jumpsuit...I'll switch to spandex then.

Re:Quasi futuristic styling (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31262500)

Wow, somebody with mod points went a little crazy with the offtopic option. I think +1 funny would be more appropriate, but no one asked me...

Re:Quasi futuristic styling (1)

Beardo the Bearded (321478) | more than 4 years ago | (#31263442)

That reminds me, it's time for yoga.

Bizarre, *not* futuristic. Futuristic cars look... (1)

Colin Smith (2679) | more than 4 years ago | (#31262356)

Something like this:

http://vne-resource.iol.co.za/30/picdb/1/7/105701 [iol.co.za]

With some minor detail changes, like the badge. Cos it's practical, affordable, easy to maintain, people can actually use it every day, put the shopping in the boot, the kids in the back seat, sit in a reasonably comfortable position, see what's going on in front and behind. etc.

It will not look anything like this:

http://www.geekologie.com/2007/12/07/future-car-1.jpg [geekologie.com]

I mean... WTF?
 

Re:Bizarre, *not* futuristic. Futuristic cars look (5, Interesting)

phoenix321 (734987) | more than 4 years ago | (#31263116)

Let's just say I hope we'll all be able to choose our own vehicles.

I hope there's at least one manufacturer bold enough to actually SELL the cars they are constantly presenting as proof-of-concept, pre-series, prototypes and all that.

There's a ton of incredibly beautiful, modern, futuristic or even plain future cars at major trade shows, but they never ever sell the damn things.

I don't want to *put* kids in the back, they can crawl into the backseat themselves. I don't want to put groceries in the *boot*, I can put them in whatever cargo compartment is aerodynamically perfect. I don't need to sit in the upright grandpa position, I love to lounge or slouch comfortably, thank you.

That said, I would prefer http://www.geekologie.com/2007/12/07/future-car-1.jpg [geekologie.com] all the time.

Because the other model frankly looks like all the others on the parking lot at the mall, bland, boring, traditional, practical, economical and above all like it was designed for or even by my grandmother.

We need Spice in design. And we need Moar.

Re:Quasi futuristic styling (3, Funny)

Tablizer (95088) | more than 4 years ago | (#31262558)

People don't like futuristic looking stuff. If they did, we'd all be wearing white or silver jumpsuits.

Lady Gaga is certainly putting the world on that track.
     

Re:Quasi futuristic styling (2, Insightful)

mcgrew (92797) | more than 4 years ago | (#31262694)

It's obvious you're young, since you have no idea what it's like to live in the future. People DO like futuristic looking stuff. If they didn't, your TV and radio would be plastic boxes made to look like wood and your car would be a station wagon with wood panels on the side.

Jump suits are not futuristic; "futuristic" does not equal "dorky".

Re:Quasi futuristic styling (1)

Fritz T. Coyote (1087965) | more than 4 years ago | (#31263240)

If they didn't, your TV and radio would be plastic boxes made to look like wood and your car would be a station wagon with wood panels on the side.

On the other hand, my TV is not an enormous picture tube in a 'space-age' frame ... instead it is a bunch of LCDs (LC What?) with more computing power than NASA had back in 1964 mounted in a plain black plastic frame.

My car has no tail fins or torpedo-like bumpers or gas turbine engine....but it is sort of a station wagon (OK, it's a hatchback) with some swoopy bits of bodywork (Spoiler, diffuser, slippery shape based on aerodynamic engineering instead of fantasy, with a front end designed to protect struck pedetrians, and not impale them) a really exotic powerplant (DOHC fuel injected Turbocharged engine made of alloys and plastics)...
but it still runs on gasoline and it does not fly.

The Future has a tendency to not look like what the dreamers dream.

'They promised us flying cars'

Re:Quasi futuristic styling (1)

lordshipmayhem (1063660) | more than 4 years ago | (#31262764)

People don't like futuristic looking stuff. If they did, we'd all be wearing white or silver jumpsuits.

you wear clothes?

How quaint.

:P

Re:Quasi futuristic styling (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31262938)

But if we were all wearing white or silver jumpsuits, it wouldn't be futuristic any more, now would it...

The futuristic stuff is awesome, the only problem is that it keeps becoming the present... and then it's not so cool.

Lowsy no-good present, always ruining my cool futuristic outfits...

Re:Quasi futuristic styling (1)

Rei (128717) | more than 4 years ago | (#31262974)

Sounds like someone's just grumpy because Lastday is coming up.

Re:Quasi futuristic styling (1)

Mikkeles (698461) | more than 4 years ago | (#31263086)

For an alternate view of a splittable car, see Malcolm [imdb.com] .

Re:Quasi futuristic styling (1)

Hurricane78 (562437) | more than 4 years ago | (#31263384)

Futuristic? The first thing it reminded me of, was the main car model they had in Idiocracy.
I wish I had a Dilldozer (or Assblaster) to drive over that wheelchair with a car body. ;)

(Btw: Idiocracy pictures seem to be exceptionally rare. :/)

It looks like a computer mouse (1)

Chicken_Kickers (1062164) | more than 4 years ago | (#31264104)

It looks like a computer mouse, or a shoe. Looking at the picture of the car at the Wired website, it seems that the car has a large surface area covered with glass. This means that the car will turn into a hot glasshouse during the day. Opening the windows or switching on the air-con would be inefficient/use up a lot of power. Another concern is the structural integrity of the car. A head on collision will shatter the glass windscreen/roof directly on the passengers. I assume, that should the car ever go into production, it would by necessity, look like a conventional car.

It's the 70ies (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31264260)

That car is coming straight out of the 70ies. It's reminiscent of a star trek story where they travel back in time to our civilisation in the 70ies (or 80ies) -- to get in contact with extinct whales or so.

To the battle bridge! (4, Funny)

Hatta (162192) | more than 4 years ago | (#31261958)

Great, so now you can separate the saucer section and let the civilians escape while the crew remains on the battle bridge to distract the Romulans.

Re:To the battle bridge! (4, Funny)

zappepcs (820751) | more than 4 years ago | (#31262082)

This needs to be reported to the EU, it's the DUTCH electric car that is supposed to go halfsies

Re:To the battle bridge! (1)

Tablizer (95088) | more than 4 years ago | (#31262514)

Great, so now you can separate the saucer section and let the civilians escape while the crew remains on the battle bridge to distract the Romulans.

"Hey, why are all us red-shirts to go to the back seat?...Pinto what?"
   

Or if they divorce (1)

Monkeedude1212 (1560403) | more than 4 years ago | (#31261960)

I wonder how long it took them to come up with that one.

Re:Or if they divorce (5, Funny)

Tablizer (95088) | more than 4 years ago | (#31262586)

I wonder how long it took them to come up with that one.

One day while driving, an engineer's wife was nagging the shit out of him...
       

Re:Or if they divorce (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31263382)

No, that was what caused the first ejector seat to be invented.

KISS (2, Insightful)

TheKidWho (705796) | more than 4 years ago | (#31261976)

Keep It Simple Stupid.

Re:KISS (4, Insightful)

Hurricane78 (562437) | more than 4 years ago | (#31263450)

But what if you are NOT stupid?

That rule fell for its own error in logic a looong time ago.
The error was, that the ideal is efficiency! Simplifying it to “simplicity” is on oversimplification, causing loss of purpose. Because too simple means harder again. Because in that case, you actually lose efficiency.

Clippy is a perfect example. If one is really dumb (no offense), one will find Clippy useful. But every normal human being will loathe that thing.

The same happens to everything, if you apply KISS long enough. It’s only a matter of time.
Which is why I went back to efficiency a long time ago.

Please stop parroting that old wives tale. It’s deprecated. Thank you. :)

Re:KISS (2, Insightful)

Attila Dimedici (1036002) | more than 4 years ago | (#31263592)

But what if you are NOT stupid?

Then you already kept it simple, so you don't need the reminder.

Malcom? (2, Informative)

shogun (657) | more than 4 years ago | (#31261988)

Sounds like they watched this old Australian film: Malcolm [wikipedia.org]

Re:Malcom? (0)

mcgrew (92797) | more than 4 years ago | (#31262740)

There was an episode of Candid Camera (sometime in the lat '50s or early '60s) that had a volkswagon cut in half down the middle, that could detach with each half going around an obsticle and then reattach. The looks on people's faces when they saw this thing on the street was hilarious.

Even though I was a kid, I marvelled at the nerdy engineering it must of taken to rig that thing up. It was awesome.

Re:Malcom? (1)

Razalhague (1497249) | more than 4 years ago | (#31262794)

I like the MythBusters method [youtube.com] more.

Splitting into two? That's nothing. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31262002)

Call me when they make a car capable of reproduction by binary fission.

Bifurcation (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31262018)

What I always wanted in a car!

What Happens If Only Half Gets Stolen? (1, Funny)

WrongSizeGlass (838941) | more than 4 years ago | (#31262034)

Grand Theft Half Auto?

Re:What Happens If Only Half Gets Stolen? (5, Funny)

Tablizer (95088) | more than 4 years ago | (#31262650)

Grand Theft Half Auto?

I worked on crime statistics reporting software before. Changing all those reports to use Float instead of Integer is gonna be a pain.
   

Re:What Happens If Only Half Gets Stolen? (1)

tepples (727027) | more than 4 years ago | (#31262906)

Just represent a half a car as a motorcycle and you should be fine.

Anonymous Coward (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31262042)

Just like over the border in Yugoslavia with the Yugo and its wagon model the Wego. Great minds think alike !

Family Time (4, Funny)

SEWilco (27983) | more than 4 years ago | (#31262060)

"You doing OK back there, kids?"
"Kids?"
"Oh, where have they gone off to now?"

Re:Family Time (1)

517714 (762276) | more than 4 years ago | (#31263292)

The family that pushes together ...

http://www.solo-duo.hu/main.php?page=2

I guess the rear window defoggers are there to keep your hands warm when pushing.

Safety? (2, Insightful)

tsa (15680) | more than 4 years ago | (#31262106)

Not only is a car that splits in two a ridiculous idea, both cars will most probably never comply with the required safety standards in Europe and the US.

Re:Safety? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31262240)

That was my first concern. Without the duo (two full cars connected), this means that three versions need to be safety tested.

The two singles, separately, and the whole unit altogether. Something tells me that the splitting mechanism will not be as safe as they might hope in collisions.

Color me unimpressed.

Re:Safety? (1)

Tablizer (95088) | more than 4 years ago | (#31262468)

Not only is a car that splits in two a ridiculous idea, both cars will most probably never comply with the required safety standards in Europe and the US.

Getting a double car to pass is a matter of simply bribing with double the usual amount.
   

Re:Safety? (2, Funny)

tsa (15680) | more than 4 years ago | (#31263352)

In the US, yes, but in Europe things are a bit different. Corruption isn't legal here.

Re:Safety? (1)

Tablizer (95088) | more than 4 years ago | (#31263810)

Since when did laws stop it?

Re:Safety? (1)

Dare nMc (468959) | more than 4 years ago | (#31262592)

in US a 3 wheeled vehicle is usually considered a motorcycle legally. As far as I can tell a motorcycle has no crash standard (other than it is bad to be the motorcyclist in a crash.)
So I would say the opposite, this is a way to avoid crash safety standards in US (sell the trikes only of course.)

Re:Safety? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31262652)

I don't know how things are in Europe, but a car must be built like a tank and get low mileage to clear the regulatory environment in the US. Seriously, I had a Toyota Camry (4 cyl, manual transmission) that could get over 40 mpg on the highway in 1988. That same car today gets around 26 mpg. And it's all because of the US focus on weight for safety and NOx emissions.

Re:Safety? (1)

M8e (1008767) | more than 4 years ago | (#31262976)

Yeah, but vehicles don't need to be "cars", some can be registred as other things (mopeds, motorcycle(quad-bikes), tractors...) depending on weight, topspeed, engine volume/power etc.

There is a chance that thing could be registred as an motorcycle and the second part would be an mc-trailer or an "side"car.

Re:Safety? (1)

Qzukk (229616) | more than 4 years ago | (#31263564)

a car must be built like a tank and get low mileage to clear the regulatory environment in the US.

Ford was probably right when they said Americans wouldn't pay a dollar more for safety. Ford just pissed everyone off by throwing it in their face.

The car looks wormy (1)

longhairedgnome (610579) | more than 4 years ago | (#31262120)

It's hard to take Antro when the car looks like a worm [solo-duo.hu] .

If you loved the car (1)

longhairedgnome (610579) | more than 4 years ago | (#31262210)

You'll shit bricks over their concept scooter [solo-duo.hu] .

Re:If you loved the car (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31262604)

Thats nothing, check out their hovercraft:
It is full of eels!

Oh that's useful... (2, Insightful)

jbb999 (758019) | more than 4 years ago | (#31262238)

So it can do "up to 20km" per day. Well we all know that means that any you actually get will only manage 15km as the 20 will be without stopping, with no lights or radio on etc... And on a dark rainy winters days lets say that will drop to 10 km. And you've got to get there and back so that's 5km away you can get if you want to come home. Plus who will risk running out of power half way home? So you'll never risk more than about 3km away from home. SO great, a car that if you charge it up all day, you can get to places almost 2 miles away. Handy :)

Re:Oh that's useful... (4, Informative)

CrimsonAvenger (580665) | more than 4 years ago | (#31262410)

No.

It can do up to 20km per day with just the charge it can get from the solar panels. Its internal power source is a "conventional" hybrid.

No gas tank size is specified, so it's not clear just how far it can go without refueling.

Re:Oh that's useful... (2, Informative)

Migraineman (632203) | more than 4 years ago | (#31263110)

I'm dubious. Let's be generous and say that the roof is 2 sq.m. Insolation at the earth's surface is about 1 kW/sq.m, meaning you've got a whopping 2kW you can collect. With really good and really expensive solar cells, you're looking at 30% efficiency (yeah, space-grade go to 40%, but are brutally expensive.) So your 2kW becomes about 650W usable. That's less than 1hp continuous.

So if you have a super-efficient drivetrain, and you never exceed 20kph, and you only drive on flat terrain, and you always have the solar cells pointed directly at the sun ... you can drive 20km per day using just solar. Maybe.

I've done the "solar cells on the roof" calculations more times than I care to recall. The power contribution from the small available area is insignificant compared to a 10-30kW power requirement for a vehicle. Any time I hear "solar cells on the roof," I know it's done to make people feel good. If they're using less-efficient but much-cheaper single junction polycrystalline silicon cells, your conversion efficiency is only around 5%. Your 2kW incident power becomes 100W usable. To put that in perspective, a healthy person can go to the gym, put the exercise bike in "power" mode, and crank out 70W for several hours.

Re:Oh that's useful... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31264200)

To put that in perspective, a healthy person can go to the gym, put the exercise bike in "power" mode, and crank out 70W for several hours.

I've got an idea for a new car...

Re:Oh that's useful... (1)

Mashdar (876825) | more than 4 years ago | (#31262424)

Well at least now I have an excuse to fill the garage with things other than my car. Before I just felt like a fool.

Here it comes... (1)

Last_Available_Usern (756093) | more than 4 years ago | (#31262242)

Constructicons joke in 4...3...2..

Imagine a Beowulf Cluster of these cars (2, Funny)

amliebsch (724858) | more than 4 years ago | (#31262250)

It would be a bus!

Clown car? (1)

SnarfQuest (469614) | more than 4 years ago | (#31262256)

On reading this, does anyone else think of a circus car that splits in half, with clowns falling out both sections?

Or those cars in the movies that break in half, with the front half going one way and the guys in the back frantically trying to keep the back part going in the same direction.

Allen Funt, is that you?? (3, Funny)

Reziac (43301) | more than 4 years ago | (#31262258)

Candid Camera did a prototype of such a vehicle a long, long time ago...

Follow that car!
[car splits in half and goes separate ways]
Which one??

Re:Allen Funt, is that you?? (1)

Rick17JJ (744063) | more than 4 years ago | (#31264124)

I remember watching that episode of the Candid Camera TV show decades ago. The car would be driving along and then suddenly split in two, with one half of the car turning left and one half turning right. I have forgotten the details of the episode, but presumably the hidden camera recorded peoples reactions or attempts to explain what they had seen to other people.

Great for parallel parking (1)

Fast Thick Pants (1081517) | more than 4 years ago | (#31262288)

There are always half a dozen spots about a foot too small on my block... so break up the car and park each half separately! Brilliant!

Or for paying half on tolls... (1)

MiniMike (234881) | more than 4 years ago | (#31262480)

Heading toward a toll booth in a Solo? Find another, hook up, split the toll, and go on your way! Might work at parking meters too.

Re:Or for paying half on tolls... (1)

Fast Thick Pants (1081517) | more than 4 years ago | (#31263374)

Brilliant! These are *extremely practical* ideas. Unfortunately, upon examining the design of these things (http://www.solo-duo.hu/main.php?category=126 [solo-duo.hu] ) I believe that when attaching two Solos, you'd end up with two leftover Solo rear ends -- basically just the back window and a free axle. I doubt there's any way to stow those inside the combined vehicle; I guess they expect you to keep them at home in your car-hole.

Consult the Dirty Hungarian Phrasebook (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31262306)

I tried to find this vehicle in my Dirty Hungarian Phrasebook, to no avail.
I guess it is full of eels like the hovercraft, though probably electric eels.

That makes my nipples explode with delight.

Anyone else think of Top Gear? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31262360)

I hope that doesn't mean the Duo has two steering wheels, else it's gonna be James May's entry in the Top Gear Limousine competition all over again.

3 / 2 =? (1)

Mashdar (876825) | more than 4 years ago | (#31262400)

So you get two 1.5 passenger cars? Cool! I wonder what plane you use to divide your #3.

Re:3 / 2 =? (1)

Monkeedude1212 (1560403) | more than 4 years ago | (#31262506)

No, 1 car is 3 passengers, the duo is 6 passengers. Derrrrr

Re:3 / 2 =? (1)

ubercam (1025540) | more than 4 years ago | (#31262598)

No.

It's a 3 passenger car. You can hook two 3 passenger cars together to make a 6 passenger car...

I know this is Slashdot and RTFA is usually verboten, but has RTFS become that difficult?

Re:3 / 2 =? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31263664)

lol, reading fail.

So pointless (1)

Eggbloke (1698408) | more than 4 years ago | (#31262440)

Yet so cool

I have solar power in my car (1)

CdBee (742846) | more than 4 years ago | (#31262498)

the idea is hardly new - I permanently mounted a pair of 18-volt, 5-watt amorphous solar cells on the rear parcel-shelf to top up the battery when its parked and subsidise the electricity used when running.

the car is a diesel Ford Mondeo (Mercury Mystique in USA) so I don't get any traction power from my solar cells, but it makes starting up a lot easier and does cause a measurable improvement in fuel economy.

However: given that 10 watts of solar power cost me £80 (UK GBP) I have some reservations about whether really useful amounts of power can be generated without dramaticallly increasing the cost of the car.. and with an electric car unlike my old diesel lump, isn't there a risk that the extra weight of solar cells would cancel out the gains ?

Good idea, poor execution. (3, Interesting)

gurps_npc (621217) | more than 4 years ago | (#31262568)

Forgot the "people that own two can combine them into one car" side by side.

Instead go with length wise connections and "People on the highway for long trips that want to save money on gasoline can connect multiple vehicles into a train."

This would reduce gas/energy consumption by at least 28% (as per Mythbusters 2007 , episode 80, drafting 2 ft behind a big rig reduced gas consumption by 28% Connecting ).

No it won't work in the cities where people get off the the highway often, but out west where people ride for miles, a little bit of comm networking and boom you can easily have people joining up into road trains, saving gas.

Re:Good idea, poor execution. (1)

mpe (36238) | more than 4 years ago | (#31262870)

Instead go with length wise connections and "People on the highway for long trips that want to save money on gasoline can connect multiple vehicles into a train."

Indeed trains are the only kind of vehicle where such splitting and combining is common, even routine.


No it won't work in the cities where people get off the the highway often, but out west where people ride for miles, a little bit of comm networking and boom you can easily have people joining up into road trains, saving gas.

You'd probably want physical couplings otherwise engine and/or brake failure is likely to cause a lot of problems. Similarly you'd want to very careful how you communicated data. e.g. to be able to have one "train" safely overtake another.

Re:Good idea, poor execution. (1)

Fritz T. Coyote (1087965) | more than 4 years ago | (#31263342)

a little bit of comm networking and boom you can easily have people joining up into road trains,

10-4 Good Buddy, Looks like we got us a Convoy.

General comments (3, Informative)

CrimsonAvenger (580665) | more than 4 years ago | (#31262602)

1. >129 mpg by design. I'll be interested in seeing whether it can actually reach that.

2. Seats three. Center seat is slightly forward, and it looks like the steering wheel is in the center. Which will make getting in and out a royal pain for the driver.

3. Nominally, it's 3.2 m long. When two of them are mated up, the combination is 4.8 m long. Where's the other 1.6 m going? Is the front of the second car going to fill up the rear of the lead car? Or does the combination look like the two cars are humping?

I'm not seeing any room in that design for crumple zones, roll bars, that sort of thing. Which makes me suspect it could never pass safety standards in the USA.

How in hell do you change the tires on this thing?

If they can get it past safety standards, and the price is reasonable, and it doesn't turn out to have the general quality of the Yugo, it might be a moderately useful vehicle for a family.

Re:General comments (2, Informative)

pavon (30274) | more than 4 years ago | (#31262952)

This flash sideshow [solo-duo.hu] has pictures of the car when mated. It looks like the backend of both cars are removed, and they are joined together but-to-but.

It seems very impractical to me. First, it looks like it would take quite a bit of effort to join the cars that way. Second you are loosing much of your luggage space when you join the two cars. So why wouldn't you just drive two cars rather than joining them into one? Is there really that much of an efficiency improvement doing this?

Re:General comments (1)

CrimsonAvenger (580665) | more than 4 years ago | (#31263654)

Is there really that much of an efficiency improvement doing this?

If their numbers are to be believed, yes. the duo gets better mileage than two solos.

It looks like the backend of both cars are removed, and they are joined together but-to-but.

Hmm, that's not so useful. Sounds like a non-trivial job to make the switch. Which means, for the most part, it won't ever get made. Seriously lessens the utility of the thing as a family car(s).

Re:General comments (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31263020)

3. Nominally, it's 3.2 m long. When two of them are mated up, the combination is 4.8 m long. Where's the other 1.6 m going? Is the front of the second car going to fill up the rear of the lead car? Or does the combination look like the two cars are humping?

From the pic I would guess that the trunk area (including rear wheel) is removable. Then you remove the rears of both cars and they mate back to back.

Voltron Car (1)

Jason Levine (196982) | more than 4 years ago | (#31262700)

"Everyone buckled in? Ok. Activate interlock! Dynotherms connected! Infracells up! Mega thrusters are go! Let's go Antro Duo!"

Stupid questions (1)

Locke2005 (849178) | more than 4 years ago | (#31262724)

If you're going to make little cars that can be linked together to make larger cars, why stop at two? And didn't this concept used to be known as a "train"?

Re:Stupid questions (1)

Xugumad (39311) | more than 4 years ago | (#31262954)

I saw a prototype computer-controlled "car train" once, where they used front and rear magnets to maintain (very close) distance between a chain of cars. From what I remember, worked perfectly, but people had a nervous breakdown that they were going to crash into the next car...

Licensing and Insurance! (1)

number17 (952777) | more than 4 years ago | (#31262768)

Splitting the car would mean having license plates and insurance for two vehicles. It would be like owning two smart cars and having one tow the other.

Not new (1)

lordshipmayhem (1063660) | more than 4 years ago | (#31262772)

I had a car that could split in two. The mechanism by which it did this feat was called "rust".

That was quicker than I thought (1)

undecim (1237470) | more than 4 years ago | (#31262798)

I knew scientists were working on bring quantum mechanics to "big" items, but I never thought a car that can travel two paths at once would have happened in my lifetime.

Didn't I see this before? (1)

www.sorehands.com (142825) | more than 4 years ago | (#31262912)

Wasn't it in the New Adventures of Speed Racer? Of course, it was first in the Fantastic 4, but even though it was called the Fantasticar, it was not really a car.

Joined Efficiency? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31263002)

Does a duo take less energy to run than two solos?

Cartoons (1)

CODiNE (27417) | more than 4 years ago | (#31263062)

I don't know if it's still published but when I was a kid I found an old CarToons magazine which was sort of like MAD Magazine but full of cars.

There was one story with this style vehicle in it, basically the whole world was a mesh of interconnected freeways. There were no more buildings, everyone was constantly mobile. The family home was sort of like an RV with several pod cars that would pop out when the kids wanted to go out. You'd pull up to a McDonald's, pay at the window and get you junk food all without stopping. When couple's would date they'd connect their pods and make out. Off the roads it was a bit like Logan's Run with nature being "contaminated" and deadly. So the plot is that 2 kids are making out, run their pods off the road. After get lost in the forest they run out of gas and have to walk around. They discover fruits and vegetables, live like hippies for a while and love it. Then the feds track them down and forcefully reintroduce them to society (Clockwork Orange style).

It was a nice magazine... excuse me while I go get a Big Mac.

We already have a car that splits in half... (1)

Raptor851 (1557585) | more than 4 years ago | (#31263094)

I believe they're known as a Ferrari...

An Abomination (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31263112)

A car that can split into two cars is clearly banned in Leviticus. Expect the tea-baggers to be up in arms.

Here's a photo: (3, Funny)

Hurricane78 (562437) | more than 4 years ago | (#31263244)

The article does not contain a photo. So here it comes [pictureisunrelated.com] .

Re:Here's a photo: (1)

Beardo the Bearded (321478) | more than 4 years ago | (#31263508)

I'm posting this so I can look at the picture at home.

Toyota's R&D (1)

PPH (736903) | more than 4 years ago | (#31263372)

Similar concept. The brake pedal goes with one half, the accelerator with the other.

Back to the safety drawing board? (1)

KharmaWidow (1504025) | more than 4 years ago | (#31263412)

After 30+ years of improving impact and collision safety by the US and world auto industry, how much of that is lost in these new designs?

I've been looking for that (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31263546)

I want my mouse back

Team Knight Rider Car (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31263576)

Two Motor Cycles become http://knightrideronline.com/tkr/motor.jpg

a Combo vehicle http://knightrideronline.com/tkr/morph.jpg

And yes, it was a stupid show.

Wonder twin car powers, activate! (2, Funny)

podom (139468) | more than 4 years ago | (#31263680)

Form of...oh, just a bigger car.

"Meet George Jetson!" (1)

HTH NE1 (675604) | more than 4 years ago | (#31263870)

If it split into four, the car could split off smaller cars for, "His boy Elroy," "Daughter Judy," and "Jane, his wife."

Pictures or it didn't happen (1)

fotoguzzi (230256) | more than 4 years ago | (#31264056)

I know I'm new here, but why the hell wouldn't there be a picture of the car splitting in half? It would be like a Ginsu knife commercial where they never slice the tomato. It would be like a documentary on the Harrier Jet where it never hovers.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>