GM and Segway's PUMA live reveal
by Sebastian Blanco on Apr 7th 2009 at 10:58AM 
Click above for a high-res gallery of the GM/Segway Project P.U.M.A.
You know how the oil companies are all trying to become energy companies now? The new PUMA (aka, the Personal Urban Mobility and Accessibility Project) from GM and Segway shows one way that auto companies could shift over to being transportation companies if they wanted to. At an unveiling of the enclosed Segway for two this morning in Manhattan, GM and Segway reps talked about how the PUMA represents a big evolution of the automobile. GM vice president of research and development Larry Burns said the PUMA "is about fundamentally reinventing the automobile"
Burns said that the PUMA is a descendant of the AUTOnomy skateboard platform (which gave us the Chevy Sequel) and is pretty much the anti-HUMMER. In fact, Burns called the HUMMER the "extreme overdesign in personal transport," hinting that the PUMA represents the opposite tack.
The battery-powered PUMA is wholly functional, and we're still trying to figure out if it's more or less dorky looking than a Segway. Whatever the case, we still kind of like the two- (or six-, depending on how you're counting) wheeled design and are looking forward to the fall, when the media will actually be able to test drive the little buggers and next year, when some models with body panels and stylish looks arrive - yes, the renderings that GM showed today do look a little like a Toyota i-swing with two wheels. The PUMA is 1/6th the size of a standard cars (and half the size of a smart fortwo) and should be about a third or a fourth the cost of a normal vehicle to operate, including insurance, running costs, etc.
Jim Norrod, CEO of Segway Inc. said that with two wheels, you get "unparralled" maneuverability. This thing can really turn on a dime. With a top speed of 35 mph, a 35-mile range, and the ability to recharge for 35 cents (or so GM says), there's got to be a market for city dwellers who think bikes are a good idea, but just too sweaty. For more, see GM's press release from last night.
UPDATE: Video from our friends at Engadget added after the jump.
[Source: GM]
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 3)
AlexNC 11:31AM (4/07/2009)
I like it. Not much use for me, but if I lived in a big city with no need for high speed travel, I would be all over this. They need to get some storage capacity though, for groceries, etc. That would help sell it a lot more.
Reply
~D. 11:28AM (4/07/2009)
....because THIS will save GM!
really? a Segway for people too lazy to stand up?
this goes 35, but doesn't have airbags or crumple zones (unless you are counting your own flabby, fragile body as a "crumple zone.") but this will be a revolution in human transport? just like the Segway was? is the lazy mall cop market that big?
The AUTOnomy skateboard chassis WAS revolutionary. I am a big fan, believe me. It may have been too ahead of it's time. It was that good; elegantly simplistic in concept, it was a whole new paradigm. this is just a waste of money for GM: halfheartedly serious and with no perspective about the future.
Reply
AlexNC 11:33AM (4/07/2009)
I can hit 30 mph on my bike, yet it doesn't have airbags and crumple zones. Scooters dont have airbags or crumple zones. Why compare it to a car?
~D. 12:46PM (4/07/2009)
the difference is, they are not competing with bicycles. they are going to pitch this against other tarted-up golf carts like the GEM. I love that you can hit 30mph on your bike, but that does not make it a serious replacement for a car in any other sense other than its ability to move you from point A to point B. and speaking of point, this vehicle is pointless, an answer to a question that no one asked. The Segway didn't "revolutionize transportation," it didn't compete with either bikes or cars, or even golf carts- so why make another? much like your bike, it can't carry any more than a car, it can't go faster than traffic at a crawl, it isn't safer than a car...etc. and the best thing about a car? I DON'T HAVE TO PEDAL TO WORK.
~D. 12:53PM (4/07/2009)
I mean REALLY...
what kind of Epcott vision of the future do they envision where consumers will buy this thing as anything more than a curiosity. do you really think a mother is going to strap a child seat into this thing and toodle down the bikepath to the grocery store? NO. this kind of out-of-the-box wackyness is great when we were rolling around in tech boom money, but nowadays it just gives green thinking a bad name. Red Staters are just going to laugh at this as a bunch of glassy-eyed hippie BS and point to it as a reason we're out of touch with consumers and their needs & concerns.
oldraven 3:30PM (4/07/2009)
Where were you when Toyota debuted their three personal pods, and Suzuki theirs? You and those like you didn't give a crap, because the product didn't say GM on it. This is meant to replace cars... that people don't need. As in, if you don't need a car, but need a way to get around ON THE STREET (unlike the sidewalk bound Segway), yet still want weather protection, this is your option. Seriously, just keep watching Tokyo. The Pods are coming, weather you like it or not, and it would be better for North America if GM doesn't simply wait for the imports to bring them here and leave them in the dust.
dhofmann 6:30PM (4/07/2009)
It doesn't need airbags or crumple zones. It's designed to drive itself to avoid crashes.
~D. 9:24AM (4/08/2009)
The both of you are wrong.
OMG! THE POD-CARS ARE COMING!!! in fact, i see a swarm of them right out my window...oh wait...those are cars...and will always be cars.
We all love alot of the kooky toys they show off at the Tokyo show, the pod cars and skinny A-segment vehicles, but just like the models in the quasi-futuristic tinfoil-colored miniskirts, we will NEVER see these things on the roads here in America. and it has nothing to do with any kind of resentment towards GM, and everything to do with the fact that they are not in the position to be publicly blowing wads of cash on Epcott nonsense like this. They should be focusing all their effort and energy on designing and building cars...you know...that people will BUY.
and yes, it needs passenger safety if they want to compete with cars on the roads, not because the law says so, but because NOBODY WILL PURPOSELY BUY A DEATHTRAP! at least a motorcycle looks cool, as opposed to this dorky thing.
oldraven 9:48AM (4/08/2009)
Do you seriously think there are now low speed electrics on the roads in America as we speak? Come on, man. Why do you think it was news that certain states weren't allowing registration of three wheeled vehicles for the road? Because people who OWNED the three wheelers were trying to register them.
Damn.
Brian R. 12:50PM (4/08/2009)
By your logic, we shouldn't be driving cars through DC either...
Seriously, enough with the fat jokes. I know many a fat car driver, and cars have cup holders and storage for more junk food.
I love that the battle cry for anything different is "fat ass".... truly mind boggling. Way to go forward thinking.
Gary 11:33AM (4/07/2009)
Is it too late to get our money back?
Anyone in congress... ? anyone?
Reply
John Rowell 12:36PM (4/07/2009)
What's the matter? Today is neither April 1st nor Friday.
Reply
mapoftazifosho 12:46PM (4/07/2009)
Sorry, that is farking embarassing...GM
Look at what Toyota had to present to the public and they didn't have a press conference...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9IT7qK1hrro&NR=1
Reply
GoodCheer 1:53PM (4/07/2009)
Holy Crap!
Next step Davros.
Davros.. anybody, Davros... ?
Luke 2:12AM (4/08/2009)
On the contrary, Toyota has had many press conferences on that, and a number of other even more minor concepts.
spacegravity4me 6:33PM (4/10/2009)
My point exactly!
Chris M 6:49PM (4/08/2009)
Just as I thought, Toyota has already done the "motorized wheelchair" better and more practical and a lot cheaper to boot!
Does GM and Segway really think there is a market for 2 seat motorized wheelchairs that are too big to go through a doorway?
And if you really needed 2 or more seats, wouldn't a standard NEV be cheaper and safer?
Doug 5:04AM (4/09/2009)
@GoodCheer
Exterminate! Exterminate!!!
Epyx 12:53PM (4/07/2009)
OK, at first this seems rather stupid but there are some applications that would make perfect sense for such a vehicle.
I used to travel 20 miles to work and back everyday. I live in the suburbs and my workplace was also in the suburbs. I traveled all back roads to work and rarely used my car for anything other than commuting (I now work in the city and take the trolley to work, and rarely use my car). When I was driving to work I NEVER had a passenger and rarely needed any more storage space than what the passenger seat offered.
I could have easily used such a vehicle to commute with no compromise to my car, less some safety (but arguably more than a motorcycle). If this would have a fully enclosed capsule (like the rendering) it could be used in 4 season weather (snow?) and the addition of wipers/heat/a/c would allow for comfort and foul weather use (unlike a motorcycle).
Cost would be a huge factor - IT HAS TO BE LESS THAN A CAR to have any shot of viability. I expect the most I would pay is $5K but even that is a stretch. $2500 would be an easy decision with a 1-2 year ROI, based on fuel savings.
Limited, but not worthless. Value is the big variable.
Reply
Chris M 7:10PM (4/08/2009)
Did you notice that this motorized wheelchair had 2 seats side by side? Kinda silly if you only need one. especially when it's too wide to go through most doors. .
Considering that a 1 person Segway costs $5K and this is much bigger, with a speed, range and battery capacity similar to a NEV, you're looking at a price tag near $20K!