4 ms·

Fewer wheels theoretically is better for fuel economy, in that air drag can be reduced more than wheel contact with the road, especially if you are freed to des

Fewer wheels theoretically is better for fuel economy, in that air drag can be reduced more than wheel contact with the road, especially if you are freed to design the body such that there are only 2 points of contact with the road instead of 4. The gyro stabilization should also avoid skidding or aquaplaning sideways. 2 wheels are also theoretically more manuevrable. In practice this stuff mostly wasn't achieved, and there are also plenty of downsides, but then few people tried.

mbreese 7y ago
From reading the wiki page, and a few others, I think that the main benefit that was being marketed was that the monorail design could turn with a smaller radius. This would allow you to put track in places where you couldn’t put a traditional two rail track. The gyroscopic effect made it so that the cars themselves could lean (and I believe do so automatically) more than railcars of the age.
- seanhunter 7y ago
  Well, sir, there's nothing on earth Like a genuine, bona fide electrified, six-car monorail. However I was more specifically referring to the "normal" gyrocar design which doesn't run on rails and is essentially (if I understand it correctly) a large motorcycle with the body of a car and an extra drivetrain powering a spinnig gyroscope on each side to keep the mass from falling over.
- bobthepanda 7y ago
  Well, we do have that today; trains can tilt and the cant (tilt) of the tracks can be raised as well. However speeds are now much higher and curve radius is higher as well; China uses 7km curve radii on a 350km/h railway. At this point the main thing limiting smaller curve radii is passenger comfort, because travelers don’t want to be subject to the vomit-inducing forces of a roller coaster. It’s why I am extremely skeptical whenever new land-based technologies promise higher top speeds and lower costs; most costs with these types of projects are land acquisition, and curves necessitate buying more property due to both the intersection of more property and the need to buy out some oddly shaped slivers that may result from a curved rail line splitting a property in two.

mbreese 7y ago

From reading the wiki page, and a few others, I think that the main benefit that was being marketed was that the monorail design could turn with a smaller radius. This would allow you to put track in places where you couldn’t put a traditional two rail track. The gyroscopic effect made it so that the cars themselves could lean (and I believe do so automatically) more than railcars of the age.

seanhunter 7y ago
Well, sir, there's nothing on earth Like a genuine, bona fide electrified, six-car monorail. However I was more specifically referring to the "normal" gyrocar design which doesn't run on rails and is essentially (if I understand it correctly) a large motorcycle with the body of a car and an extra drivetrain powering a spinnig gyroscope on each side to keep the mass from falling over.
bobthepanda 7y ago
Well, we do have that today; trains can tilt and the cant (tilt) of the tracks can be raised as well. However speeds are now much higher and curve radius is higher as well; China uses 7km curve radii on a 350km/h railway. At this point the main thing limiting smaller curve radii is passenger comfort, because travelers don’t want to be subject to the vomit-inducing forces of a roller coaster. It’s why I am extremely skeptical whenever new land-based technologies promise higher top speeds and lower costs; most costs with these types of projects are land acquisition, and curves necessitate buying more property due to both the intersection of more property and the need to buy out some oddly shaped slivers that may result from a curved rail line splitting a property in two.