Fortune ranks GM's PUMA as #1 business blunder of 2009 [w/POLL]
by Sebastian Blanco on Jul 2nd 2009 at 12:46PM 
PUMA - Click above for high-res image gallery
Someone at Fortune noticed that 2009 is now officially half over, and thought it was a good time to look back and pick out the absolute dumbest business moments of the year thus far. Screeching in at 35-mph is the GM PUMA (aka, the Personal Urban Mobility and Accessibility Project) that the General debuted with Segway just before the New York Auto Show. Fortune called the vehicle "ridiculous" enough to beat out Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner's non-detailed plans to loosen up credit, Tropicana's botched bottle redesign and those $200,000 season seats at the new Yankee Stadium.
Fortune's declaration begs a question: do AutoblogGreen readers agree that the PUMA is so absolutely terrible? It might not have been the best decision, but was it really worse than that $35,000 toilet installed for Merrill CEO John Thain?
Learn more about the PUMA (and see a video) here.
[Source: Fortune]
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 2)
Chris 12:59PM (7/02/2009)
That "story" has little merit.
Reply
Ike 9:57AM (7/03/2009)
Perhaps you need to consider that there are plenty of cities in Europe which NEED a vehicle like this: plus-zero temperatures all-year round, and ridiculous amounts of traffic at any given time. North America is NOT the ideal market, however, the United States and Canada, with their populations combined, represent a VERY insignificant fraction of the global population. When you run a company that markets a product, your product has to be the answer to a problem somewhere in the world. Just because the U.S. might not use this product doesn't mean it cannot become a resounding success. Take for example Mag-Lev trains. Big elsewhere, but we don't really use them in North America...
CaramelZappa 1:01PM (7/02/2009)
I think there are worse blunders, but did they really think people would buy this thing? People aren't going to buy it for any practical reason because no matter what the case there are better options, and same goes for people wanting one for fun. What a waste of time.
Reply
CapNGain 1:34PM (7/02/2009)
Yes, it is worse than the $35000 toilet. After all, to flush a big company down the toilet in a short amount of time, you need a really big toilet, and that much ceramic material costs $$$$.
Putting the above humour aside, although I doubt the Puma will be a commercial success, or widely adopted, GM does need to do more of this "thinking outside the box". Had they done so earlier, they might not be in the trouble they are today.
An interesting aside... I was looking at Vespa ICE-based scooters, and noticed that 150cc and 250cc motors get less than 100 mpg, while a 2700lb 4 passenger Prius can get 45mpg. My conclusion is simply upgrading the scooter motors using state-of-the-art car technology could result in awesome mileage/range vehicles, with ultra-low emissions.
Reply
guyledouche 1:37PM (7/02/2009)
Piaggio is already working on a hybrid scooter. Should be released soon I believe.
steve 1:39PM (7/02/2009)
Regarding the scooter mileage thing, I suspect its more to do with the Cd ( drag coeficient) of a scooter ( very bad) vs a prius ( very good)
The relative mass is misleading as that only requires more power to accelerate it, or move it up hills, and doesnt contribute to overall fuel consumption in as big a way as drag does.
paulwesterberg 3:01PM (7/02/2009)
Even at moderate speeds, most cycling energy is spent in overcoming aerodynamic drag, which increases with the square of speed; since the power required is the speed times the force (here drag), the power needs increase approximately with the cube of speed.
It takes 300W for a 90 kg bike + rider at 11m/s (25 mph or 40 km/h) on the flats (83% of effort to overcome aerodynamic drag) or 4.3m/s (9.5 mph or 15 km/h) on a 7% grade (42% of effort to overcome aerodynamic drag).
Road bicycle tires are very skinny and hard because of the high psi. This reduces road friction/drag to negligible amounts.
I road my bike to work today. I weigh about 81k and probably out put around 250w to ride at around 20mph. A gallon of gas contains 34kWh or 34,000Wh. A scooter with a 100% efficient motor should be able to drive for 136hours using 250W per hour at 20mph. This would be equivalent to 2720mpg.
Teams competing in the shell eco marathon used highly aerodynamic vehicles with very tiny motors achieved 2843 mpg.
You don't get this kind of mileage on a scooter because the motor is very inefficient, poor aerodynamics waste energy, riders often travel faster than 20mph further increasing drag, riders accelerate very quickly and energy is wasted at traffic lights and during deceleration.
guyledouche 1:35PM (7/02/2009)
Not much of what Fortune says holds water anymore. They tend to be quite biased and closed minded. I think that is a brash and way overblown statement. Is the PUMA practical? Maybe not for everyone, but I could definitely see uses for it in urban settings, rentals, sight seeing, resorts, etc...
Innovation and thinking outside the box is always good imho. Without it we would still riding horses around and smelling like sh*t every day. I also doubt that GM broke the bank to make that prototype happen.
Reply
Andres 1:36PM (7/02/2009)
Fortune magazine. The worst magazine ever. Love the Puma vehicle, LOVE it.
Reply
augustus 3:55PM (7/02/2009)
"Love it" as in "I like the idea"
OR
"Love it" as in "I am going to buy it"
Because there is a huge difference between the two.
win39 1:43PM (7/02/2009)
What is it? Too big for personal transport like a Segway or wheel chair. Can't take it on an elevator. It has to be parked. There are no special parking areas for scooters, motorcycles or other alternative vehicles where I live. It must be a vehicle. Takes up a car parking space. Can't commute because it is not freeway legal. Can't drive in California on streets with higher speed limits. Too wide to stay to the side like a bicycle.
An electric bicycle makes more sense for the non-sweaty set.
I hope more than just the CEO of GM had to go. This is just a brain dead investment of capital for a failing corporation.
Reply
Eletruk 2:00PM (7/02/2009)
Nobody ever said PUMA (or P.U.M.A.) was intended to be an actual product. It's an R&D project. If you have seen all the videos associated with it, the PUMA also had infrastructure to support it, special traffic lanes, etc. Obviously this is more a thought exercise than a product rollout. The prototype is barely useable as it is, it offers little or no rain protection, and no crash protection, and of all the videos I've seen, only one person person seems to have the pilot training to operate it. Sure it would be a blast to drive around, but as it is, it's basically a sit-down Segway.
Reply
augustus 3:54PM (7/02/2009)
GM doesn't have the money or time for thought projects like this. They need to focus their limited resources on making things that people can and will buy.
mike 7:01PM (7/02/2009)
That's because it is not a prototype.
It's an engineering mule.
- mike
Hank 2:21PM (7/02/2009)
The problem with the Puma is its connection to GM at a time people wouldn't take a brick of 24K gold if it had "GM" stamped on it, the timing, and Meridith on the TODAY Show making it clear she thought it was a death trap.
Oh, and that they introduced it in the US instead of Tokyo or Frankfurt.
Reply
polo 3:55PM (7/02/2009)
The problem is they gave it a seat instead of a flat board. This thing looks much better suited for carrying bodies strapped to a board.
I could see these being popular in Iraq. The streets would be filled with injured troops and mercenaries strapped to these things. No more need for medi-vac, just have on of these buggers lug em off.
Reply
augustus 3:56PM (7/02/2009)
Not quite IED resistant.
Tim 4:08PM (7/02/2009)
GM finally tries to think more than one step ahead and the media kicks them in the balls. Typical media B.S.!
Like Fortune Magazine, my first impression was to laugh so hard that milk came shooting out of my nose.
BUT, the more I look at this early prototype PUMA based on the intended URBAN application, the better I think the idea actually is.
The average car only has one occupant at any given time. You can park 6 PUMAs in the space of ONE regular car and get 2 PUMAs side by side in each car lane!
This PUMA could put a HUGE dent in traffic congestion while dramatically reducing commute times, energy use and pollution.
It costs only 35 cents to go 35-mph for 35 miles.
This may be the answer once this early prototype is "fleshed-out" with full body, doors etc. It all will boil down to the COST to purchase and operate and the SAFETY both perceived and actual.
I give GM two thumbs-up and kudos for thinking so far out of the box. GM is doing what we all wanted them to do… be bold!
Reply
Alan 5:33PM (7/10/2009)
Excellent reply, personally I would buy one as is - if I could, if the price was reasonable.
Alan in Canada
mike 7:00PM (7/02/2009)
Articles like that make me wonder about other articles from the company about subjects I know nothing about and so am taking their word for.
They did not even seem to realize that the body as shown was not for production but simply an engineering mule.
To me this thing looks brilliant.... once you see the video of it performing.
It would be awesome in cities or towns.
- mike
Reply