This shot is from the FLYPmode's grand unveiling last week. The vehicle took just three weeks to design and three and a half months to build.
That thing is sweet! They had me all the way up to the Faux-Prez's endorsement. He hasn't so much as run a boot shining chair or ever served our country in any military capacity. So, not sure of his qualifications on endorsing high tech military tools and the brilliance of crowdsourcing...He sure does stand there and look interested well though.
I see two things that could be improved.
1. Passenger seat should be reversible (facing backwards)
2. Spare tire be mounted lower.
As evidenced by Eldensword's comment, "that thing is sweet", so many people have no idea what really needs to be in a military vehicle and are bound by "obvious" concepts enforced by fantasy books and movies. Just as Eldensword reveals racial bias that shouldn't even exist in 2011 (a shoe shine booth!?), how will "crowdsourced" objects escape the engineering equivalent of racial discrimination when determining that a military vehicle must look or act a certain way?
I'm not out to bash a concept that has many good attributes. However, just because some pictures look cool doesn't mean the vehicle is as good as it looks at first glance. It certainly looks cool – but as a Hell’s Angel Chapter President told me once, “Those ape-hanger hardtail Harley’s tore us apart every time we hit a bump in the road, but we sure looked cool”. Cool and dead is still dead.
Let's take the dash as an easy example (but I can do this with almost every picture). The caption says that it was designed in two days. Was it designed by people who have driven in combat? Speed can decrease cost in dollars but increase cost in lives. While the objects in the dash look very durable, stop and think for a sec. The dash is surrounded by a thin, flat flange of metal just right for putting a 1.5" deep slice into your face or other body part when you run over an IED or are close to a blast of any kind. The same flange will direct blast energy - maybe from a grenade tossed inside the vehicle - right at the driver and possibly the front passenger (think of why the bottom of an MRAP looks the way it does). If I am driving in combat, I want BIG easy-to-read gauges that I can see as I am flooring the gas while taking fire. Those rocker switches sure look tough, but when I am driving will I be able to flip the right switch when the truck lurches over terrain? Will I be able to remember which switch is which when they all look identical and are in a row instead of being grouped by function and as easily identifiable by touch as by vision, which I just lost when I got a face full of someone's blood, or sand, or whatever?
While a group is more intelligent than any individual member of the group, a group without the proper experience (or with some sort of bias) is as bad as no group at all. Just like every other buzzword we see, it’s always “rightsourcing” which is needed (and that is NOT a political statement). How about putting together a group of combat-experienced drivers each paired to a mother (not their own) to guide engineers as they design a vehicle that strikes a balance between function and safety? Sound ludicrous? Think about it…
Bucks, Blisters or Blood - Everyone needs to pay for the freedoms we enjoy!
That is the point of crowd sourcing. If you see something that is going to present a problem, you post up and say Hey this could be done better. I am quite certain that at least a few of the ideas for this vehicle have come from military members as well.
So what is that high hoarse powered thing going to do once it is armored? When it comes to military use I would think they would want high torque than h.p. That thing looks like it would be equivelant to a sand rail. Where speed is your armor.
Wow, I didn't realise there were still people like you around in the 21st century... I don't really care if you are a racist, pig-abusing thicko, but please keep your comments relevant, the rest of us do not want to share your diseased thoughts.
It would not appear that any thought has gone into the practicalities of the vehicle, looks like something out of 'Mad-Max' which sure does look cool, but as a combat platform... Hmm.. Too many nooks and crannies for devices to be throw into, like the corner shelf thing they have on the rear corners?!? Is it designed to hold an explosive?? Any kind of blast here will be directed right into the interior of the vehicle.
A far superior vehicle was featured on the BBC Top Gear show this week.. The 'Marauder'
Presuming this is a 4 man vehicle I notice I flaw immediately it ONLY has 2 doors.
Deploying in an ambush would be virtually impossible.
It appears there is a turret on top . Is a pintle for an automatic weapon system to be added later. No mention of the tranny on the vehicle what kind of torque is it going to have for steep terrain, sand, bog etc. ?
Robert1234: It would never make it in combat. The tires, suspension and engine are all open to easy direct and indirect attack, the excess windows are vulnerable to IED and direct fire, etc. Dandy appearance, though. It just won't function in a real combat environment. Ask anyone who's been in Iraq or Afghanistan. The 'Vette engine is to delicate for combat use too. It really should be a multi-fuel high torque, not high horsepower, system. Lots of defects, but it cute, huh?
My point is that it is built already - if you read the comments here you will see logical, reasonable observations about the vehicle's looks compared to its function. The crowdsourcing should have caught stuff this obvious in the design stage. This isn't a difference of opinion we are talking about - it is basic functionality and fit-for-purpose issues.
Spell-checkers are easy to use and punctuation makes you look smarter than you really are (grin). Even the best comments lose credibility when you don't take the time to even use the basics. -a + -x to get your text, -v to paste it into any word processor with spell check, fix anything found, then reverse the process to get it back into the comment window.
not saying they couldnt have done it perfectly but if that thing was designed in 3 week and built in 3 months, theres got to be some flaws. i agree that the whole idea of letting the public in on things is good, but i have this sneaking suspision that that things screwed when it gets into combat. it could just be me though. id love to see another article on that as soon as theres some test videos out there though
That is absolutely awesome. Racism is in the eye of the beholder I guess. Since I am not, I could have used any example of a minimal task job or business such as pool cleaning, yard maintenance or burger flipping. I chose that example for originality. I'm pretty sure it would be YOU that just put the shoe shine booth into the category of racism, not I. Besides, I'm one of the few folks on this planet that can comprehend that the Prez isn't black anyway. He's a Halfa. I feel sorry for the next all black Prez that is going to have to deal with the shame of being the "second" black Prez when he'd actually be the first...what a world. Anyway, I was trying to say, black or white, having inexperienced views or approval or authority on ANY military tool is ridiculous.
Five amazing, clean technologies that will set us free, in this month's energy-focused issue. Also: how to build a better bomb detector, the robotic toys that are raising your children, a human catapult, the world's smallest arcade, and much more.
Online Content Director: Suzanne LaBarre | Email
Senior Editor: Paul Adams | Email
Associate Editor: Dan Nosowitz | Email
Assistant Editor: Colin Lecher | Email
Assistant Editor: Rose Pastore | Email
Rebecca Boyle | Email
Kelsey D. Atherton | Email
Francie Diep | Email
Shaunacy Ferro | Email
Copyright © 2012 Popular Science
A Bonnier Corporation Company. All rights reserved. Reproduction in whole or in part without permission is prohibited.