21 ms·
YC's latest moonshot bet is a startup building a $380K “flying motorcycle”
- ryeon 8y agothey could use a bit of tesla's marketing and website pizzazz
- chrisweekly 8y agoNo kidding. The yt video's production values are... unimpressive. https://youtu.be/URgznwTph6M https://youtu.be/URgznwTph6M
- mlurp 8y agoI know it's really hard to predict what people will or won't want in the future, but... Would people want this, even if it worked really well?
- hazz99 8y agoIf I had the disposable income, then hell yeah. This is something straight out of a sci fi movie.
- dmayman 8y agoWe’ll count you in... in the future!
- Rumudiez 8y agoIf they can get the cost down to <100K USD then I’d absolutely sign up for one, and I’m not even from the future!
- dmayman 8y agoHey maybe one day we can get it down to that kind of level
- ian0 8y agoYes! Even just for the fun component. But if it practically worked as a day to day driver it would absolutely revolutionise traffic in some cities, such as Jakarta with 18 million motorcycles all stuck in traffic. Cant imagine all the issues you'd have to work through to make that work though. It would be a good time to invest in roof-repair and insurance businesses.
- dmayman 8y agoOur Speeders will be safe and self separate way better than is possible with existing air traffic control systems.
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]
- sidlls 8y agoI'd want it if it didn't work so well to be honest. People in the Bay Area complain about how terrible public transport is. Try living in the midwest or southeast. I frequently dreamed of having my own personal Rocketman style jetpack or something to avoid that terrible commute. If I had the funds I'd buy one of these things without a second thought.
- gotocake 8y ago10-22 minutes of flight time doesn’t seem like it has commuter applications. I’d guess that for regulatory and safety purposes you wouldn’t be allowed to overfly a city, and you’d probably need to take off and land somewhere safe as well. This is for amusement, not flying over traffic.
- csa 8y agoIf we assume that your second sentence is solvable (and I think it will be over time), the 10-22 minute number at the speeds they are talking about is huge. For example, for someone who works at the Googleplex in Mountain View, 10 minutes gets you to Fremont (less oppressive housing market), 15-17 minutes gets you to Santa Cruz or SF/Oakland, and 22 minutes could get you to places as far away as Gilroy or Concord. All of these are spitball estimates, but they are directionally correct. “As the crow flies” distances are deceptively short, and the impact this could have on housing markets, commuter towns, and “suburbs” could be huge. One could imagine a scenario in which the savings on housing would easily make one of these bikes look downright cheap (e.g., house in Mountain View versus similar house in Fremont). While there are issues of whether one would want to live in Mountain View or Fremont, the fact is that the option will exist in a way that sucks less than spending ridiculous amounts of time on the Bay Area highways and interstates.
- GreaterFool 8y agoIf there were only few of those around and you could afford one and it had good range imagine how it would cut your commute. Fly to your cabin in the woods in no time (rather than sit in traffic for hours) to chill for a bit? Worth the money.
- Swizec 8y agoMotorcycles can already do that due to the wonders of lane splitting. Wouldn’t you need a pilot’s license for this? If it only flies so low that you don’t, isn’t it then suuuuper dangerous? I say the dangerous part as a former Boosted Board afficionado and current motorcycle rider
- bobthepanda 8y agoUntil every other idiot driver also gets one, and now you have distracted driving and other poor behavior, but in the skies. They said the exact same thing about cars when they first came out.
- dwighttk 8y agoAccidentally hit a guy wire on the way...
- barefoot 8y agoIf it worked well and was free from regulation significantly limiting its use then a guess is there would be a substantial market for something like this. Most importantly, we’ll never get to a future like what was imagined in the video if people are not taking honest shots at it. The fact that this is being given a chance is very exciting.
- dmayman 8y agoThank you. We have been working on it for a long time and believe in what we do. VTOL urban mobility will happen!
- dmayman 8y agoWe think they will. IF we can demonstrate it’s safe. Why not use a Speeder to get somewhere in 1/4 the time
- tomcam 8y agoNoise.
- davidivadavid 8y agoYeah, I'm not sure about that but the tech can be used with different approaches. Owning the jetpack outright seems like a sort of "high octane for rich people entertainment" play, which you could compare to the Tesla roadster approach. You could even have some bungee jumping/jet ski equivalent of it where you rent it for a couple hours. Longer term, maybe you could have a jetpack/drone Uber-type merge, where you can have your jetpack delivered on demand, go where you want in a quick and entertaining way, and dispose of it until you need one for the ride back.
- chrisweekly 8y agoThis feels like it was published 3 weeks early.
- crispytx 8y agoFounder of WingsuitGP here, take a look at my application YC!
- 11thEarlOfMar 8y ago"The Speeder is “at least” two years of development time away from ending up in customer hands." vs. "Joby Aviation has spent the last decade developing their own electric motors and their current VTOL design from the ground up." [0] I'd guess that it's at least two years after development has completed in order to get through final certifications for whichever regulatory agencies have a say in this. [0] https://techcrunch.com/2018/07/08/the-electric-aircraft-is-taking-off/ https://techcrunch.com/2018/07/08/the-electric-aircraft-is-t...
- dmayman 8y agoThe 1/3rd scale prototype is flying. In a number of ways what we’re doing is simpler than JA. We’re confident we can achieve our time goals.
- themodelplumber 8y ago> The 1/3rd scale prototype is flying I remember this lesson from watching _Flight of the Phoenix_. :-) Congratulations!
- salimmadjd 8y agoI love so many things about this, yet at the same time I don't get the positioning of this product. 1 - Is this is a product for consumers who buy $300-500K super sports cars? 2 - Is this targeted to the consumers who buy private planes? 3 - Is this for search and rescue market? Group 1 - I don't know. Why not buy a drone-based technology that runs on batteries that might be cheaper and perhaps more reliable. Yes, it may not have the same energy density of batteries, but you can get your 20 min of thrill, super charge it and fly again for another 20 min. Group 2 - I don't see this being comfortable, they'll buy a single engine plane with seats for 4 that is more comfortable and you don't freeze, or for more adventures people a trike at a fraction of a cost would do fine. Group 3 - For search and rescue, you probably go as a team of 2-3 people and if you're rescuing people you need to bring them back. So you'll need a fleet of these. I understand helicopters are expensive, but once you add a few of these, then you're compete with a true and tested helicopter model. Maybe at the end of the day, they'll make this autonomous, put a few missiles on it and then sell it to the pentagon. It's agile and fast and probably can make an argument for its tactical advantages. edit: typo
- dm8 8y agoWhile most people are focused on how it will work for commute and day to day activities, even if it doesn't work for those use cases, it is great for theme parks, adventure rides type of use cases. People spend millions of $$ every year on those "weird" roller coaster rides and theme parks.
- dmayman 8y agoWe opened our experience center in socal Nov 2018. Can come test out a real JetPack. Think the ifly model.
- qohen 8y agoFor anyone wondering about the price[0]: Experience Day fees start from only $10,000 per person per day with possible discounts for groups and full training costs approximately $60,000. [0] https://jetpackaviation.com/fly-a-jetpack/ https://jetpackaviation.com/fly-a-jetpack/
- flocial 8y agoThe $150,000 investment seems like a great deal for marketing. If the product ends up being feasible that's an added bonus.
- egypturnash 8y agoI am looking forwards to the legal circus after some rich idiot buys one of these and runs out of fuel over someone else's house.
- ngngngng 8y agoDrones are pretty good at landing themselves these days if there's a need. I can't imagine one of these couldn't enforce a height limit when it's low on fuel and then land itself when it's nearly empty.
- dmayman 8y agoAbsolutely right
- repiret 8y agoAssuming it would be operating under 14 CFR Part 91 like the rest of general aviation, I think the law is quite clear: 91.119: "Except when necessary for takeoff or landing, no person may operate an aircraft below the following altitudes: (a)Anywhere. An altitude allowing, if a power unit fails, an emergency landing without undue hazard to persons or property on the surface." 91.151: "(a) No person may begin a flight in an airplane under VFR conditions unless (considering wind and forecast weather conditions) there is enough fuel to fly to the first point of intended landing and, assuming normal cruising speed - (1) During the day, to fly after that for at least 30 minutes; or (2) At night, to fly after that for at least 45 minutes. (b) No person may begin a flight in a rotorcraft under VFR conditions unless (considering wind and forecast weather conditions) there is enough fuel to fly to the first point of intended landing and, assuming normal cruising speed, to fly after that for at least 20 minutes." And it's not like it hasn't happened before. Small aircraft land on houses with enough regularity that I would expect the law to be well settled. See [1] and [2] for recent examples. [1]: https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/family-4-people-killed-when-plane-crashed-calif-house-are-n968646 https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/family-4-people-killed-... [2]: https://abcnews.go.com/US/911-call-captures-race-free-woman-trapped-wall/story?id=61306645 https://abcnews.go.com/US/911-call-captures-race-free-woman-...
- rmason 8y agoThey promised my generation flying cars growing up. They never, not a single time talked about flying motorcycles. I don't mean to be negative but here's a few questions: What happens when you hit turbulence? What happens if you get caught in a rainstorm? What happens if you fly into a flock of birds? What happens when you fly into lightning on a clear day? None of those have to be fatal in an airplane, but potentially could be on this machine.
- nrb 8y agoTo your point, all of those can be fatal for existing light aircraft.
- npunt 8y agoTrue. To build on OPs point though, these aren't exactly comparable. Specifically, light aircraft: * are piloted by people who have to be certified pilots, which takes considerable training * are flown at higher altitudes than what this product's marketing is suggesting * are much more expensive to own/operate * are only allowed to take off from specific places (regional airports) that tend to be away from high population density areas * can use the lift from wings to potentially glide to safety if engine failures occur This concept looks like it works best for short hops between high population density areas, and is at a price point and training level (read: none) that would mean many more potential vehicles would be in the air. So it's not only the above issues but also a matter of degree.
- nrb 8y agoOh, I totally agree. I was attempting to make the point that purpose-built aircraft with more highly trained pilots still succumb to this. A random on a flying motorcycle doesn’t stand a chance.
- npunt 8y agoYa it seems like risk profile isn't very clear, nor do major risks have sufficient mitigations. I feel like the easier place to start is a low-speed automated cargo delivery system that runs on pre-defined flight paths and only in certain weather conditions. Even then you're dealing with pretty decent risk profile given the failure mode of anything flying is rather dangerous. I'm not against flying things in cities per se, just want to see the discussion go more like 1) flying things are good for X Y Z reasons, 2) major issues to address before we get there include A B C, 3) here's how we're solving those to unlock this new opportunity. Maybe that discussion is happening in other places, but I'd love to see these safety factors better addressed by anyone building these types of things, else it doesn't build much confidence in the viability of the company.
- pkaye 8y agoI wish there was a "moonshot" for something like The Kidney Project (https://pharm.ucsf.edu/kidney https://pharm.ucsf.edu/kidney) A project to produce an artificial kidney. It was kept alive by small donations by kidney patients over the years. Now maybe on better footing and closer to human testing. But still nothing funded like these pie in the sky moonshot project that people will care nothing about in a few years.
- snowmaker 8y agoIf you want to start it and apply to YC, we'd be very interested.
- bitcoinmoney 8y agoYou for real?
- snowmaker 8y agoAbsolutely. I work for YC. An artificial kidney would transform the lives of millions of people on dialysis. It's worth trying to build one even if the chance of success is only 1%.
- chaosprophet 8y agoCould YC pro-actively get in touch with the folks already working on the project? Sounds like they would be your best bet at success.
- myrandomcomment 8y agoIt is the same as betting on SpaceX in some ways. You have to take a few moonshot bets.
- dmayman 8y agoYou bet. Thanks!
- dtparr 8y agoWhat's the fail safe for aircraft with this kind of thrust? Planes can glide after a loss of power, helos autorotate, do these just fall out of the sky on a nice ballistic arc? Maybe one of those whole plane parachutes?
- gotocake 8y agoSuch a parachute would be prohibitive in term of weight, so no. I suppose the pilot could wear a personal parachute, and hope to ditch far from people or property, but I think the odds are... "In the very unlikely event that all four engines fail, we’ll go straight into the ground like a fucking dart." -Billy Connolly
- dmayman 8y agoSpot on. Two parachutes for over 150ft. One for Speeder and one for pilot. Under 150ft see earlier answer.
- dmayman 8y agoBallistic parachutes above approx 150ft. Working on two alternative solutions for the “red zone” ie zero - 150 ft. All the eVTOLs makers need to solve same issue and we plan to offer it to them.
- black6 8y agoIt looks like the the rider/pilot is expected to ride hunched over the ducted fan (?) intakes. I suppose it offers a lower center of gravity and is safer than the open rotors of the "flying motorbikes" the Dubai police were testing to much marketing fanfare, but... it still looks wrong from a human factors standpoint. Edit: turbine intakes, FTA.
- dmayman 8y agoIt’s not too different to riding a motorcycle. You can rest across the engine intake protection grills and not uncomfortable.
- dwighttk 8y agoThey are requiring drone pilots to be licensed and these guys think an ultralight version of this won’t require a license.
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]
- dmayman 8y agoYes no licence needed to fly our ultralight version JB10 and JB11 Jetpacks. Same rules apply to ultralight version of the Speeder.
- repiret 8y agoHow do the jetpacks comply with 14 CFR 103.1(e)(4) which requires powered ultralights to have "a power-off stall speed which does not exceed 24 knots calibrated airspeed"?
- dmayman 8y agoSame way our jetpacks were accepted. Our stall speed is zero and with an engine out we can still control our flight path.
- protomyth 8y agoBoeing is going in with an air taxi https://www.flyingmag.com/boeing-air-taxi-prototype-test-flight https://www.flyingmag.com/boeing-air-taxi-prototype-test-fli... They are already talking about cargo is more likely than passengers. Ever the same story in transportation.
- npunt 8y agoThese don't look safe, even assuming perfect mechanical reliability, because humans will be piloting them over major population centers. Humans are generally dumb and inattentive, and this particular vehicle looks like it would attract especially dumb humans who'd use them to try dumb things. Since they won't need any piloting certification, this is basically offloading risk onto everyone on the streets below. I'd feel more comfortable if this were automated only. Then I'd at least be assured there'd be an organization held accountable, rather than a risk-seeking human who'd be dead anyway if it crashed. If it were automated and had perfect mechanical reliability, then the only real issue is the noise pollution. Which still is going to be an issue, because these jets put out significant noise, and I haven't seen anything in the last 10-20 years since Moller's flying car prototypes to suggest that progress is being made there. I love scifi as much as the next person here, but there's a lot of problems to solve before we put loud flying missiles in the hands of untrained adrenaline junkies flying over population centers.
- dmayman 8y agoJust as for $1500 drones we will have a fly by wire system that precludes controlled flight into terrain or other obstacles.
- natch 8y agoSystems do not preclude controlled flight into terrain. They simply purport to. These are different things. And before you say "in that case it's not controlled" well yes it is.
- ehnto 8y agoThat's why I don't think we would ever have flying cars either. We can barely handle driving on flat surfaces and I suspect most people on the road only get by idly emulating simple line following machines rather than actually engaging the whole situation. It takes a third party to orchestrate busy sections of our current flying vehicles, planes, so I can't see any alternative to full automation of a mass of flying cars.
- 8y ago
- johngalt 8y agoA flying motorcycle would be better executed as a motorglider/powered sailplane with detachable wings.
- areoform 8y agoI suspect that what they're offering is not only feasible but achievable with modern technology. The glut of cheap sensors and research into dynamic, multi-axis control thanks to drones makes it easier for something like this to come into being. However, I am skeptical about their ability to build something that can fly for a long distance due to the low energy density of current technology. Even with a gas powered turbine system, their efficiency is capped at around 30%? Theoretically, heat recovery can boost that to 85%, but that equipment is heavy and it's complicated to mount https://www.wbdg.org/resources/microturbines https://www.wbdg.org/resources/microturbines . I don't know the answer to this question but I do hope that they find out! Good luck guys! You're solving some really Hard problems here.
- dmayman 8y agoThank you, yes we really are but it’s cool to do. We should achieve up to 30mins endurance with exiting engines and if we move to a turbofan than 2-3 x that is possible
- eevilspock 8y agoWith our environment going to hell, we don't need this. So much for the argument that capitalism entrusts wealth in the hands of a few for the benefit of all, or that wealth correlates to merit in any meaningful sense.
- dmayman 8y agoHow do you do the economics on the value of the lives this can and will save?
- RoteWaterfall 8y agoPlease explain how this will save lives.
- rimliu 8y agoI assume this will be worse in that department than motorcycles. And I assume they kill way more lives than save.
- dannylandau 8y agoKudos to the team!
- toomanybeersies 8y agoGlenn Martin and Martin Jetpack [0] (Glenn left the company in 2015 though) has been trying to build and bring to market something similar for the past decade (development has been going on decades before that). There's apparent commercial, private, and government interest in the device, but somehow that hasn't actually manifested into a finished and delivered product. When Glenn spoke to a group of potential investors (which I was somehow a part of) back in 2011 you'd think that they were on the cusp of having a finished product and a stack of orders from the US DOD, a variety of commercial organisations, and dozens of rich people who want a personal aircraft. Technically Martin Jetpack still exists, but it has failed to bring anything to market, despite having millions of dollars poured into the company [1] I struggle to see how Jetpack Aviation is going to achieve what Glenn and his company failed to do. They don't even have a flying prototype or a physical mockup, only some cool CAD models that look like they were made by some high school kid who's watched Star Wars a few too many times. Jetpacks and flying motorbikes look cool, but on a practical basis they just aren't useful. They don't fly high enough or fast enough, and they can't operate in high wind or poor weather. For military/government use they aren't suitable and there just aren't enough rich people who want an expensive flying toy to sustain the market. [0] http://www.martinjetpack.com/ http://www.martinjetpack.com/ [1] https://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=12132568 https://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&...
- msie 8y agoThis company is different. Their jetpack is way more portable than martin’s and Ive seen several videos of successful flights. I think making a motorbike won’t be that hard for them.
- dmayman 8y agoOur tech could not be more different to the MJP. Theirs was a gasoline engine powering a pair of ducted fans. Too many single points of failure and never able to keep the engine cool, not possible to fly much faster than 60mph. Ours is 1/3rd the size, will fly at 4x the speed. We’ve flown our jetpacks all over the world. We already have a development agreement with the US Navy. They are perfect for overt (perhaps not covert) military ops - insertion and extraction and getting medics into position. Why risk a Blackhawk and crew??!! Why not for governments and EMS. If we can get EMS medics to heart attack and stroke victims just 1 min quicker the number of lives saved is 100,000 - 200,000/yr just in USA. Isn’t that worth taking a shot at? I don’t understand the point about flying high enough. We can fly at over 15,000ft
- Jerry2 8y agoWhen I was younger, I had a motorcycle accident. I survived but barely and required close to two years of rehabilitation. You won't survive an accident in this thing.
- CamperBob2 8y agoDid your motorcycle have all kinds of advanced gyros, inertial sensors, radar/lidar sensors, and control loops? Seems like your comment is a bit like someone in the 1900s pointing at an early car and saying, "I fell off a horse once and nearly broke my neck. You won't survive an accident in that contraption." He wouldn't have been entirely wrong, but he wouldn't have been right, either. His comment would have added nothing useful to the discourse.
- blhack 8y agoUm, yes, actually. Humans are capable of all of those things. The problem usually arises when they decide to do something stupid, or somebody else decides to do something stupid and it involves them.
- ux-app 8y agoAutomobiles were death traps for approx 80 years, it's just that the utility outweighed the risk. Not sure the same can be said about flying bikes.
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]
- CamperBob2 8y agoSigh. You're right, my mistake. I'm apparently on the wrong site.
- benj111 8y agoSo if you lie on top of a ducted fan like that, how is it not going to impede airflow? Also what happens if you have a loose thing on your person that gets sucked into the fan. The image looks nice and Sci fi, but that design isn't practical.
- dmayman 8y agoThe airflow works, we’ve modelled it. Pilot needs to wear similar jacket to current standard motorcycle jacket. No loose change in pockets
- benj111 8y agoThanks for your reply. If you've tested it and works, I retract the last paragraph, still looks Sci fi though. Have you tested for a coin strike? For a plane you're going to have an upper bound for what your going to get in the engine, because it has to be picked up by the engine. This design, anything could fall in, potentially quite dense.
- lewis500 8y agoWhy isn't it a flying three-wheeler?
- preyingman 8y agoYC: it's bullshit that you manually pushed this post back to the top of the site after it started dropping down the front page (due to having way more comments than points). It's fine if you're going to treat posts about YC companies as ads that are immune from voting and other site mechanics, but then you need to label them as ads.
- dang 8y agoI understand the concern, but we don't push YC stories to the top or anything like that. This one set off the flamewar detector, a.k.a. the overheated discussion detector. That triggers an email to moderators, who (assuming they're not all sleeping) review the thread. When it isn't a flamewar, we take the penalty off. It's standard HN moderation, and the overwhelmingly majority of these cases, well over 95% I'm sure, have nothing to do with YC. The reason we added that review step is that there were lots of complaints about stories getting demoted when they shouldn't. It's hard for software to distinguish between a genuine flamewar and a good vigorous discussion, so we added a human review.
- tomcam 8y agoYC pays for this site. Why on earth shouldn’t they be able to re-position posts manually? As near as I can tell they have at least two full-time moderators who do a spectacular job, even though they don’t understand my sense of humor ;) Where do you get off on telling them what to do with their own property?
- rimliu 8y agoTBH, moderators do a crappy job and go on power-trips way too often.
- tomcam 8y agoListen, my sense of humor and personal politics appear to be exactly opposite of most HN readers, and of the moderators. In my view, I am frequently down voted because people don’t seem to get my sense of humor or because they tend to be precious liberal snowflakes. I view that as my problem. I am a guest here, and it’s important for me to behave according to the customs of their house. But I feel the overall product is amazingly good considering they deliver it to us at the low low price of free, and with essentially no advertising distractions. That’s a pretty precious thing in my humble opinion.
- fold_left 8y agoSupposing that they succeed, become more affordable, and most people commute to work with them - would pollution and air quality levels be better or worse?
- jxub 8y agoI guess worse, as avgas has higher lead content and contaminates more. However, they have room to experiment with different types of propellants and engines. Let's hope the sky doesn't become a tragedy of the commons in the same way motorways did.
- onion2k 8y agoMaybe I have a different definition of the word, but I wouldn't describe this as a moonshot. A "moonshot" is something incredibly hard to do that will have a huge impact on society if you manage it. Building a (really cool) $380k toy won't impact very many people at all.
- jchallis 8y agoRespectfully disagree. One, it normalizes truly radical engineering projects (look higher in the thread to see building an artificial kidney). If YC signals it sees a jet bike as acceptable, imagine all of the ideas that seem just a bit too crazy that become possible. Two, toys are generally the first or second version of truly radical technologies. Compared to a motorcycle, yes this looks extremely dangerous. Compared to a helicopter - down right low risk.
- onion2k 8y agoCompared to a helicopter - down right low risk. How is this lower risk than a helicopter? If a helicopter fails it doesn't just drop out of the sky; it can autorotate relatively safely to the ground. Autorotor flight is a safety feature taught to every helicopter pilot. People have walked away from helicopter crashes. A jetbike presumably won't have that feature.
- estsauver 8y agoOne of the excellent things about YC is how they are completely unphased by moonshots. I don't know of any other organization that is nearly as supportive of ideas that would literally be called crazy other places. 3.5 years ago my cofounder were working on what was actually becoming an okay telecom referral business at the YC Fellowship, but my cofounder and I weren't happy. Pretty much every partner there enthusiastically told us that we should definitely consider doing our totally insane idea to try and bring modernized commercial agriculture to smallholder farmers in subsaharan Africa. We started our moonshot and it's still growing. I think the only people who really believed in us were us and my parents and a couple YC partners, and a couple people at Accion Venture Labs. That was all we needed though. By the way, I still think our company is a moonshot. Starting a moonshot company is stressful, it's foolish, it's a thousand mistakes to crawl out of, and by far the most rewarding professional decision I've ever made. Any moonshot worth taking will have a real shot at changing the course of human history, and I'm much happier to have a 0.5% chance of ending hunger then to have a 30% chance of a medium amount of wealth.
- bredren 8y agoI’ve raised for and run two moonshot concepts that failed. Now I work on an enterprise saa. Much happier with the saas, but maybe it is a life stage thing.
- probe 8y agoReally fascinating - can you talk a little bit more about your experiences? You always hear about trying moonshots but I’ve never heard someone who went reverse and was happier!
- Judgmentality 8y agoI can't speak for the person you're responding to, but as someone who also started (and failed) a moonshot company I can chime in. To grossly oversimplify, failure (especially when you put everything into something) can make people jaded. The breaking point for everyone is different, but eventually you just don't want to try the pie-in-the-sky idea because you remember how painful the failure is, how many years of your life you lost, how many relationships damaged or ruined, personal debts accrued, etcetera. At some point you want to minimize stress and just take an easy job that pays a shitload of money and you value your free time more than your career.
- baron816 8y agoAlright, let’s say we get the ALL the safety issues squared away. And let’s also assume they strap a cold fusion reactor to this too, so you can fly it around the world without stopping... Can you imagine how fucking LOUD one of these things would be? Regular motorcycles drive my crazy with the noise from their ICEs. Now what if they had jet ingines one them instead? That alone should be enough to get these things banned. If this isn’t a sign of how out of touch some people in Silicon Valley has become, I don’t know what is.
- UncleEntity 8y ago> Regular motorcycles drive my crazy with the noise from their ICEs. They don't have to be loud it's just that people pull off the stock muffler and throw on something different. I used to have a ZX-10 that two owners before me used to amateur race which had basically straight pipes and it was entirely too loud -- used to set of car alarms just idling through parking lots. The police around here don't enforce the noise pollution laws so I didn't bother with it though I'm pretty sure my neighbors didn't like me too much starting that thing up at 5am. My current bike (if I ever get around to getting it running) is as quiet as a kitten with its (intact) stock mufflers.
- bribri 8y agoThe investment isn't even enough to buy one
- gpm 8y agoIf you stop viewing this as a "flying motorcycle rich person toy" and start viewing it as a "vtol jet engine based drone" it's quite cool. Have to imagine that there are search and rescue/fire fighting/military uses for this technology, manned and unmanned.
- glutamate 8y agoPlease stop. We don't need to kill the planet with another self-indulgent carbon belcher. Use public transportation. Your time is not that precious.
- tomcam 8y agoOn the surface I can’t help but partially agree with you. But one of the truly amazing innovations of western culture is emergency medicine. The time this could save in trips to the hospital could literally mean tens of thousands of lives being saved.
- krapp 8y agoAmbulance helicopters already exist for that purpose, and a flying motorcycle wouldn't make a great ambulance to begin with. And if they did, motorcycles with wheels would still be more efficient and less dangerous to everyone involved. Assuming this even pans out (still waiting for the Moller Skycar...) it's going to be a luxury item for rich kids who want to pretend they live in Star Wars or something.
- nikofeyn 8y agowhy? (an honest question.) what problem does it solve?
- dymk 8y agoCool gadget to own. It's for the people that already own yachts and jetpacks.
- csa 8y agoMy guess is that the biggest use cases will be relatively “boring” logistics problems. I use quotes because logistics problems are not typically considered sexy, but they sure are the foundation of a lot of businesses when properly executed. If you start including ideas like military uses and public safety uses, which typically have substantial logistical components, then I imagine the scope of possible problems that this solves becomes more obvious.
- justanotherjoe 8y agoyikes. are we going to see a lot of bootleg elon musk in the future? I don't like these vanity project with 0 utility, spending money just because "muh science fiction". They completely miss the point of doing something useful.
- efp 8y agoThese guys have one for under 10k https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jFwXvVtyHcI https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jFwXvVtyHcI
- shinryuu 8y agoAs seen on twitter, and I fully agree. This is the biggest problem in the world, according to YC. As befits the title “moonshot,” it’s the most pressing problem we face. It’s SO HARD that we might not ever fully solve it, but it’s SO IMPORTANT to society that we should fund it anyway. Homelessness? Hunger? Nope: A flying motorcycle.
- tomhoward 8y agoWhere did YC state it's the "biggest problem in the world"? Where did YC use the term "moonshot"? This is just one of about 200 companies YC has funded in this batch alone. Some of the other ones are working on humanitarian problems, and over the years YC has funded many non-profits and companies working on humanitarian problems, as well as putting huge funding towards research into basic income and medical challenges. There's no opportunity cost issue here: YC seeks to fund every project - commercial or humanitarian - that seems to have some chance of succeeding or leading to some kind of valuable breakthrough. You should point to a case where they've failed to do that if you know of one - I'm sure YC would like to know about it.
- williape 8y agoLooks amazing. Wouldn’t ever purchase one but 80% sure that I’d spend a few hundred for a couple flights.
- davedx 8y ago"moonshot of moonshots" This is an ambitious and cool project, but it is not a "moonshot" and it's sure not a "moonshot of moonshots". This kind of ridiculous hyperbole just dilutes our language. The first "moonshot" was when a nation state developed a manned space programme to land people on the moon. A flying motorbike, no matter how cool it is, is nowhere close. "Y Combinator’s $150,000 investment is an early step for the moonshot effort" :eyeroll:
- orky56 8y agoThanks for keeping us inspired and trying to bring the future to now. Few thoughts & questions after reading the article & comments here... Some of the reasons Tesla has succeeded that may be relevant for Speeder: -Safety: Tesla's construction has allowed their vehicles to have the highest crash ratings. Removing an engine & simplifying the frame have helped. -Driverless: Tesla has popularized & legitimized much of the technology that is trending towards driverless cars. -Performance: The Tesla Roadster was the moonshot (no pun intended) since it kicked off the brand while being sexy both design wise and by its performance. When electric car was associated with the nerdy, economical Prius, Tesla flipped that stereotype on its head. -Infrastructure: Tesla created the ecosystem to maximize the customer experience. From purchase/service/charging, Tesla independently set up the touch points to minimize friction. My advice would be to go the SpaceX route instead of the Tesla route. You can go both and I'm sure you already are. Just remember that the regulatory environment will stall major headway for consumers. For military/government applications, this can be fast tracked and see applications right away. Those learnings can satisfy regulatory concerns and be the beta test needed.
- thinkingemote 8y agoFor me the moonshot problem I'd like to see solved would be trash. Literally! I've been to New York the first class world city where they pile plastic bags full of trash outside the houses and been to leafy suburbs in Europe where they put these bags in boxes and leave them outside too. Meanwhile in developing countries trash causes real pollution and health issues. But in all places it's people create waste and the waste accrues and then the waste then may be moved about. One possible solution for non recyclables would be some kind of composting / incineration-generation device to convert the trash into organics and/or electricity.
- easytiger 8y ago> composting / incineration-generation device to convert the trash into organics and/or electricity. This is extremely widespread and already industrialised.
- thinkingemote 8y agoYes the solution would need to be better than these as the problem still exists.
- jonwachob91 8y agoCome up with something more formal and work on it! If you get some evidence of success you should submit it to YC and anyone else that will look at it! The world doesn't change b/c we will it to, the world changes b/c we take action!
- prolepunk 8y agoThis is not a moonshot technological problem, but like climate change, this is more of a problem which everyone can solve with changing habits. It's not people who create waste but the manufacturers who in the best position to make waste reduction happen would rather offload the problem to consumers who can't do much about it. It's manufacturers who make non-standard containers, disposable plastic, unnecessary packaging, planned obsolescence etc... There are incineration power plants that already are in service but they produce more pollution than coal plants. This is not a technological but a social problem and if you want to have at it with a moonshot goal you would need to look at starting an activist organization and not a technology company. You might want to read a few recent article related to China banning US imports of garbage to get an idea about the scope of the problem.
- Animats 8y agoWhere are they getting the engine? You can get model aircraft jet engines with enough power for this.[1] Various human-carrying craft have been built that way, such as the Zapata Flyboard.[2] But the engines have a lifespan measured in hours and not enough reliability for carrying humans. That's why all the demo videos of these things are over water, or tethered. People have been trying to build small, cheap jet engines for decades. "Small" has been done. Cheap, no. Below bizjet size, the price doesn't go down much. Which is why general aviation is still running mostly on pistons. The 1960s Williams jetpack (not the Bell rocket belt) used an engine intended for cruise missiles. If they've cracked the small jet engine problem, there's a big market for those, without trying to package them as jetpacks or motorcycles. Otherwise, it's just another demo rig. The video is a bit suspicious. It's very quiet. You can hear the boats over it. It doesn't blow stuff around. It doesn't move his clothing. It doesn't ripple the water even at low altitude. Other videos of small jet engines are very noisy and have lots of jet blast. [1] http://www.jetcat.de/jetcat/Kataloge/JetCat%20ENGINES.pdf http://www.jetcat.de/jetcat/Kataloge/JetCat%20ENGINES.pdf [2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7feIt5PRvUw https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7feIt5PRvUw
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]
- dmurray 8y agoAgreed, this seems like a huge problem and this > The startup’s most pertinent problem is creating the autonomous stabilization technologies that will make flying the Speeder effortless and safe. looks like a smokescreen for marketing to the tech crowd. Everyone is going to believe they can solve the stabilisation problem: that's "just software" and we see demos of robots solving stabilisation problems all the time. Building a jet engine that's an order of magnitude better (cheaper, more reliable) than the industry has managed in 50 years, but with more or less the same tech? That's the kind of problem you can't just solve with machine learning.
- rataata_jr 8y agoOr that is untapped and can be solved.
- coldtea 8y agoSince they're not seriously expecting getting back the money from the "flying motorcycle" (and even if they do for this, there are other case where it's obvious nothing will come out), I wonder what the scheme is -- e.g. it's other people's money, there are some kind of subsidies, -- or are the investors just so rich they don't care?
- matthewfelgate 8y agoI hate this for so many reasons. One of those 'future' products like clear glass screen and bendable phones that are just, well, stupid. Am I the only person that sees that?
- Tepix 8y agoYep. A huge waste of resources when compared to other modes of transport. Very noisy, too. All for an elite few who can afford it. That's not helping in saving the planet, people. Quite the contrary.
- rsj_hn 8y agoYou are not. It seems like a horrible idea. But then again, I didn't understand the point of something like Twitter, either, so I am grateful that people are exploring dumb ideas -- that they appear to be intentionally doing the wrong thing -- because going downhill is the only way you get out of a local optimum. Most of these will fail, that's fine.
- CodeWriter23 8y agoYou’re not alone. And don’t even get me started on the Minority Report UI. But I am down with the foldable phone idea. (I know you said bendable)
- openloop 8y agoFly into the sun and die.
- kahlonel 8y agoI hope by “flying” they mean “levitating”. I can barely fly my toy drone without getting pinged by Government about how I am violating airspace rules. Can’t imagine there will be flying bikes in next 50 years atleast. I am in EU.
- 4bpp 8y agoLots of posts in here with the usual complaints about how this is an immoral waste of money on a toy for rich people, but does the amount of money that went into this project even come close in order of magnitude to the cash consumed by the Las Vegas casino business, or golf courses, or exclusive Trump brand resorts? Unlike those examples, this project at least funds a lot of research and engineering that surely will have some other applications down the line, and moreover is clearly inspirational (and therefore may result in a larger number of engineers and scientists in future generations, some of whom surely will work on artificial kidneys and whatever other ethically valuable projects you'd think of as well). I really wish our civilisation would stop holding novel undertakings to uniquely rigorous (ethical, safety...) standards than it never seems to apply to its established habits.
- chriselles 8y agoI am a motorcycle nut and aviation nut since birth. I’ve also jumped out of a dozen aircraft types via static line and ram air free fall chutes. And I enjoy paragliding. There’s nothing more I would like to see than a new form of personal flight. However, I don’t see the viability of this thing at all. Likely due to my having been in close proximity to the Martin Jetpack slow motion disaster over the last decade. Reliability, repeatability, infallibility, safety, Certification, and classification. All tall barriers to entry for recreational/commercial/civil aviation. What would excite me would be an autonomous vertical lifting body that can lift a 200kg box over 200km, using 5-6 high reliability motors that can survive the failure of 1 or 2 motors as a result of mechanical failure or enemy fire. For use in both commercial and military applications. A reliable, agile, boring container carrier. An oversized coffin shaped container that can fit 80%+ of high value commercial and military and commercial items, including personnel/casualty CASEVAC. Why are we not building an autonomous platform around the carriage of a specifically calculated cube container? Like a mini aerial 20ft or 40ft shipping container.
- tomcam 8y agoTons of interesting material in your comment. It actually sounds like you’ve just cooked up a viable start up idea. One issue I don’t see addressed in any of these modes of transportation is the enormous amount of noise the jet engines produce. Any insights on that?
- chriselles 8y agoMy thoughts are to stick with electric motors powering props/rotors over jet engines. But they still produce a fair bit of noise, however much less than jet turbines. My guess is that drone rotor prop design can incorporate noise reduction potential(including shrouds), but they will also have to be balanced against lift/thrust performance and additional weight offsetting payload/range. I can easily imagine a future where residential drone delivery raises considerable concerns over not just safety, but noise, perhaps with associated minimum flight altitude floors to reduce ground signature. But that will have an impact on drone payload/range as well. Possibly an analog debate to electric scooters, lower congestion but higher personal injury rate.
- anotheryou 8y agoYou'll need a good kidney belt to ride that thing. Why are the engines placed so central?
- toppee 8y ago1- Considering fuel density and probably 4 running engines, autonomy would be minutes, while all aircraft are required to have at least 30mn reserve. 2- FAA will never certify such a thing. This leaves only the experimental option, with all that entails commercially. 3- Ballistic parachutes : They are very heavy and it costs 10k to repack every couple years. Plus it's basically a rocket firing out of the plane, another hurdle. 4- Insurance : Who would insure such a thing ? It is hard enough for a certified GA plane. 5- Noise restrictions of two to four jet engines in an era of going full electric, even for planes (pipistrel anyone ?) 6- Autonomous drones can be made, that fly and land alone. Yet, we don't have any GA plane doing the same and have to pass complex exams in order to fly an aircraft. It will be the same for that one, not necessarily because it will be needed to pilot it, but to guarantee airspace security. 7- Good luck with talking on the radio with all the noise + wind. Once again, this is mandatory in many airspaces and probably all where such a machine would be useful. 8- Weather : I guess you probably have never ridden a motorbike in the pouring rain. Now imagine being cold to the bones and having to keep managing that aircraft, navigating and communicating. Good luck with that. 9- Loads of comments mentioning Tesla and SpaceX. Well, there is a sizeable difference with them : the market size. This company is also facing stronger regulation than Tesla, while having not a hundredth of the funding. 10- Numbers are already bad for GA airplanes with autopilot and al. But any failure on such a thing would almost certainly result in death. + Ballistic parachute opening requires man to be strapped to aircraft. All things factored in, it feels like yet another project surfing on CAD generated hype, out of touch with most real world problems and justifying it's existence through being a "Moonshot". But we are yet to see any successful moonshot. Let me explain : Companies like SpaceX or Planet where built enhancing the tech that was already there and R&D could be done with ridiculous amounts of funding. Musk's track record was also incredible at the time, with two major exits (Zip, PayPal). It is sad to see history repeating itself so often: You are basically promising what helicopters were supposed to become and yet they are far from ubiquitous despite their high efficiency, speed and load carrying abilities. I do believe in some VTOL projects but most of them are ridiculous and won't go out of the R&D phase. Best of luck in any case. I am ready to invite you for dinner should you manage to have a working prototype in two years. S
- SideburnsOfDoom 8y agoI'm picturing this as having a downdraft like being under a jet engine, and noise levels to match.
- cousin_it 8y agoSince there's no need to keep the aircraft small while it's in the air, my ideal personal flight solution would be a combination of ducted fans for safe vertical takeoff and landing, and large wings that unfold or inflate in flight for much higher efficiency / gliding. Edit: apparently there's a ton of engineering problems with both ducted fans (stability) and folding wings (unfolding in flight is tricky). No idea if this approach is feasible.
- dmayman 8y agoEDFs are really power hungry beasts! You have to use them for takeoff and then transition onto a wing ASAP or you’ll be out of juice at 250w.h/kg No loiter time possible. The issue with folding wings is that they can big stability issues. Probably not unsolvable but not simple.
- jaclaz 8y agoWell, idea, instead of selling them, you could rent them like "Byrd" or similar. Since the sale price is in the order of magnitude of 1,000 times that of an electric scooter, the cost of a ride should roughly go from US$1+0.15 per minute to US$ 1,000,00+150,00 per minute ...
- rplnt 8y agoSorry, but this is Kickstarter-mockup-level stupid. Those are done by oblivious people (usually just games) or with malicious intents (most of the stuff you find on kickstarter). This is definitely the second one. The sad thing is, it might not make a bad investment as it can pull in much more cash before failing.
- xacaxulu 8y agoFLOATERCYCLE
- eternalny1 8y agoAccording to that mock-up, the rider is lying directly above the inlets of a set of jet engines? How does that work?
- usrusr 8y agoPowered flight is a matter of boring straight lines, at least outside the Star Wars universe. If all the technical details are solved, we might discover that the toy appeal just isn't as big as expected. Or are there many motorcyclists that prefer straight roads? Doing curves withhold reason (like on a big flat open surface) would be much exciting either. For SAR applications, another interesting application of the control advances from the drone market might be a powered rescue winch harness: use the line for power delivery from the helicopter mothership and as a safety fallback, but gain hugely increased agility and precision from using a local set of fans for lift instead of swinging under the helicopter as a passive pendulum load. It would make helicopter rescue from steep slopes much less risky and open up vertical walls (or even overhangs) for helicopter access.
- aeternus 8y agoThere will definitely be toy appeal. You can already fly helicopters low along a river which I highly recommend. Doing that on something like this would be amazing.
- rdl 8y agoWow. That thing looks amazing! I'd probably rather have something like the Surefly (hybrid electric octocopter, largely autonomous) for boring commuting, but this looks like an amazingly fun vehicle for recreational riding.
- crispyambulance 8y agoI thought that YC was only interested in stuff that "scales"? This is just a toy for wealthy type-A thrill-seekers. How big of a market is that? Seems sort of like a premium jet-ski that flies, but is even louder and more annoying, and has far more property damage potential in addition to being capable of producing even more gruesome accident scenes than crotchrocket motorbikes. I think they should go for it, but I expect they'll be as popular as Bugatti Veyrons.
- jonwachob91 8y agoTesla also launched as a car for the 1%, but now they have learned enough that they are trying to introduce a model for $30k. Will the Tesla $30k coming out soon car be great, we don't know yet, we might have to wait 10 years before there is a great $30k electric car. What we do know is that you have to try before it happens, and the 1% buying toys has funded some really awesome stuff that has eventually come down in price enough for everyone to afford and enjoy. This motorbike might be $380k today, but how much could one cost in 10 or 15 years?
- eftpotrm 8y agoAnd the per person-mile carbon footprint of a machine powered by multiple VTOL jet engines is...?
- ausbah 8y agoMore big toys for rich boys who run the tech world. YC can spend their money how they wish, but I wish this moonshot was something of actual use to more people.
- stevespang 8y agoPipe dream.
- bogle 8y agoWhatever it is I can't see it because TechCrunch are yet another GDPR failure. Make it easy to say no to tracking because if you don't I'm off.
- codingdave 8y agoAt least in the USA, flying personal vehicles are non-starters without cooperation from the FAA.
- dmayman 8y agoWe have great relationship with the FAA and our JB10 has been granted experimental certification.
- takanori 8y agoSo is there a seatbelt or harness to attach the rider to machine as they FLY?
- auiya 8y agoCan you imagine how noisy everywhere would be if these became a commodity like cars? No thanks, do not want.
- gameguy43 8y agoThe rider's orientation looks...insane. They won't be able to see anything through the body of the thing (gotta squint at a little display to understand what the heck you're flying towards?). All their weight is going to be on their crotch (and, like, the front part of it) or maybe their stomach. Their neck is going to be fighting gravity in the most awful way.
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]
- aeternus 8y agoIt does look somewhat awkward but the upper torso angle isn't much different from a sports bike. It isn't the most comfortable, but doesn't need to be given the flight times. The fact that the rider's pocket is directly above the intake could be an issue.. I guess everyone riding these should be rich enough to not carry loose change.
- kgilpin 8y agoAnything you fly over is going to be simultaneously blasted and cooked.
- mrnobody_67 8y agoLift Aircraft already built working eVOTL for 1 passenger. 16 engines. Video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BSbynmTcAYk https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BSbynmTcAYk
- dmayman 8y agoYes they are and it’s great but...it suffers the same limitations as any open rotor drone configuration, it’s really slow and really large
- rasz 8y agosweet game demo video, how about even the simplest prototype? you know, something like: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DB1LUwRePKA https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DB1LUwRePKA (www.hoverbike.com.pl) - and even that is just an investment scam (pumping EU grands)
- miguelmota 8y agoGreat idea in theory, dangerous product in practice.
- unicornporn 8y agoPersonal jet carriers. Sounds sustainable!
- notananthem 8y agoIDK why YC lets stuff like this through when they always say they're struggling to fund nonprofits, things benefiting underrepresented groups etc. Its like, ya, because you're funding stupid shit like this
- Geekette 8y agoInteresting. Their concept seems like an extension of existing hoverbikes: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4dk-fiyJdvE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4dk-fiyJdvE