Comments on: Car on a Stick by Ross Lovegrove

By: McK

McK — Wed, 30 Jan 2008 21:02:31 +0000

Car on a Stick? Is that what we call a target for missiles thrown by drunk adolescents? There is one reason why this would not work and it is not a design/technology flaw: In most metropolitan centres, in most developed nations of the world, a Car on a Stick would be destroyed by vandals within hours. Indeed, any city where these would not be vandalised would be so damn boring, you wouldn’t want to go there.

In the future… people will walk. Period.

By: Jodi

Jodi — Tue, 29 Jan 2008 15:09:01 +0000

just had a really amusing image in my head… so they carry four people… But hang on… surely during rush hour, you could squeeze say, 15 people in them??? Come on, at a push, we Londoners know exactly how to make use of every single available space offered up - i am sure I have performed mouse-like skeletal contortions on the tube over the years…. Think the central carriages on the Central line at 8.30am but in full view of everyone on the streets of london.. squashed faces, stinky bubbles… brawls in a bubble

By: Jodi

Jodi — Tue, 29 Jan 2008 15:01:24 +0000

I like the idea that the pod is multi functional… BUT can you imagine lots (hundreds!!!)of these on the roads? With all the other modes of transport that one needs in a city… If you hate the bendy bus then this seems to take things to and entirely new level… So, they carry 4 passengers…FOUR!!! all wanting to to go to different places and shops on Oxford street..breaking down with no-one about to fix them…… i can only imagine a road that ends up looking something like bubble wrap! I am all for interesting solutions for the future of urban transport - especially ones that consider environmental issues… BUT I cannot see these working at all… Surely well designed (with solar panels?) trams that carry many more people may be a better option than a small bubble? I dunno….. beats me…

I love my bike!

By: Billy

Billy — Mon, 28 Jan 2008 03:00:24 +0000

I guess this does not need a crumple zone or seat belts because it cannot crash. But then again I wouldnt want to be seen dead in one!

By: Daniel Brown

Daniel Brown — Sun, 27 Jan 2008 15:52:54 +0000

Never noticed before how much the ground level of the gherkin looks like the tokyo prada store (or vice-versa, which came first escapes me)

By: charles

charles — Sat, 26 Jan 2008 07:29:48 +0000

I had great time with this project while I was high.
It felt as if it were the greatest satirical invention.

By: eyes

eyes — Fri, 25 Jan 2008 19:00:12 +0000

I think the public car concept much like the public bike system Velib in Paris is a great initiative. Unfortunately the car on a stick vision proposed here is a very poor physical manifestation of futuristic public transport.

By: ben

ben — Fri, 25 Jan 2008 14:37:59 +0000

One last thought,
I think the concept of organic essentialism is fantastic and that not one person should be expected to resolve the world’s problems in the field of transportation. Hopefully some one will give Ross’s aesthetic/conservation of form sensibilities a chance to become realised is some sort of vehicle in the future. I don’t believe this is contradictory to my previous post. The formal DNA is good, the product is not.

By: JQL

JQL — Fri, 25 Jan 2008 13:33:03 +0000

Of course this design has many flaws. I don’t think Ross wants to give us the solution to our problems. It’s just a nice idea. Not so significant but fun. It isn’t even design, it’s just concept. However I think Ben is absolutely right. There is a need for deeper research. Too much images too much unfinished ideas make us think only in the next incredible thing and we loose our focus on the important aspects of design.

By: carl

carl — Fri, 25 Jan 2008 12:29:53 +0000

@Moose:
1. lets hope we’ve moved beyond this waste of space and resources within the next 20 years.
2. i think they mention voice control? but really wouldn’t it be nice to remove the steering wheel? maybe something more gesture based or mind controlled when its available.
3. probably. i dont think there is a way around that one in this design.
4. yes. its the parking function to give the car the “public furniture” aspect using the lights below.

over all i love this concept. its small, efficient, multipurpose. it has everything it needs, nothing more or less. i wish i were elaborated upon a bit more to eliminate questions such as interfacing and purpose of functions. i think its a perfect design concept. now all we need is a more selfless and sensible population and this sucker would be in mass production.