Amphibious Bus

[snowblizz]

Well, that really only applies when you're building a new town or city, surely? It's not easy to add cycle routes to cities which were designed for horse-drawn traffic and which barely have room for the car traffic they get. Get rid of the cars and maybe that can happen, but there are political problems doing that.

As for the other point, it's not the case in cities I've been to in the UK--here, they tend to follow the contours of existing land, mainly because they usually consist of multiple small towns that have merged into a city in a haphazard fashion. Sure, the bits within the old towns might be fairly flat, but the roads joining them together certainly aren't!

Copenhagen wasn't built to cyclists. It was just as much as any city in the UK built for horses. London got buslanes don't they? Bet those were placed there after they were sued for cars.

It's not "easy" no, it's down to will. Just because it's not perfectly flat doesn't mean you can't build for bikes. My hometown is redoing one of the main throughroads for pedestrian and biker friendliness too. Obviously a rather large upheavel (in ours cale) btu it cna eb doen if you want to.

[Xyril]

nice forum

would be a shame if something were to happen to it...

[Xyril]

It's also far from the only country with heavy bike use, just one of the wealthier ones. China was mentioned, but India also sees a decent amount of bike traffic as well, and between those two countries alone comprise a pretty significant fraction of the world population.

As I specifically noted, in China bicycle use is rapidly supplanted by scooter, motorcycle, and car use pretty much as soon as a city or region develops the infrastructure and affluence to support those things. I suppose you can make the argument that countries such as China and India have such large populations--and more importantly, such large percentages of their populations living at a level of poverty where biking and walking are the only affordable transportation options outside of public transportation--that if you crunch the numbers worldwide bicycle use might skew slightly in favor of "non-hobby."

However, if you observe the actual patterns of use, it only underscores the original argument that people were supporting with the "most bicycle use is hobby use" assertion: Powered vehicles have tremendous advantages over bicycles, while the main advantage of bicycles is that a lot of people who can't afford even the cheapest, most unsafe and unreliable car (and gas for it) can still afford a bicycle. If you ever get a chance to spend substantial time in Asia, talk to some of the hawkers and delivery guys on bicycles and pedicabs. Many of them see a motorized upgrade as something worthwhile to strive for--in other words, they know that being able to deliver more things faster, or getting more goods to their stands earlier, will increase their earnings enough to cover the purchase of a scooter or a car, fuel (which is substantially pricier than in the United States), and taxes (at least a couple of countries I've visited have substantial yearly vehicle taxes based on engine size, basically a government push against traffic congestion.)

My experience biking in Denmark is nil--the closest was being a tourist in the Netherlands, where I got the distinct sense that there was a strong recreational/hobbyist undercurrent (cycling in the Netherlands is a pretty amazing experience.) However, I did find a relevant excerpt from denmark.dk (http://denmark.dk/en/green-living/bi...cycling-nation)

In Denmark there is a strong tradition for people from all strata of society to cycle. [sic] Most Danes associate the bicycle with positive values such as freedom and and health, and in recent years cycling has actually become a symbol of personal energy. The bicycle has become ultramodern again, aided by societal development, successful political initiatives and conscious marketing. The three largest Danish cities – Copenhagen, Århus and Odense – have all carried out large branding campaigns that put cyclists in a positive light on advertising billboards, on the internet and by actively including cyclists in new bicycle projects. The result is an increasing number of cyclists and cleaner, healthier and more lively cities.

I get the sense that there is a strong recreational/lifestyle component (cultivated by citizen groups and a government that also passed laws specifically designed to favor bicycles over motorized vehicles.) Note, this isn't a criticism--it sounds like it makes the place an amazing place to live, to be honest. I simply want to note that this culture and the widespread use of bicycles didn't develop entirely organically: Denmark was actually moving in the opposite direction, towards more cars and fewer bikes, when a few groups were able to change the culture and the laws in order to give bicycles an advantage they didn't naturally have. Today, there are probably a lot of folks who don't bike because they "associate the bicycle with positive values such as freedom and [sic] health," but because cars aren't a practical option. So strictly speaking, they're not hobbyists, but without the efforts of a bunch of hobbyists to design cities and laws to remove cars as a practical option, they probably wouldn't by cyclists either.

[Andor13]

When I lived in Boulder CO, I used to commute by bicycle regularly.

But there were a lot of factors that played into that.

1. Climate: It's simply enjoyable to bicycle much of the year in the Front Range.
2. Culture: Boulder is a bicycle friendly community, including a custom of consideration on the part of the drivers.
3. Infrastructure: There are a series of bike trails off road, and dedicated bike lanes in the roads.
4. Convenience: Because those bike paths deliberately allowed one to bypass busy intersections it was actually faster to commute by bike.

Here in Florida the climate is generally a bit hotter and more humid than Satan's buttcrack, the culture is that of Floridaman, and the roads don't even have shoulders, let alone bike lanes. You'ld have to pay me for to commute by bike here, and not a little.

[xxVEG]

So I've been thinking of the design of the amphibious vehicle. It doesn't necessarily have to be an RV or the like but I want to be able to drive the vehicle itself out of the water so possibly a boat with wheels. I saw a popular mechanics article about them.
As far as fuel consumption. Would changing the system from fossil fuel to electric and fuel it with solar energy and hydroelectric be feasible? I plan on attaching a sail for more passive wind energy fueled travel. If the electric engine isn't feasible I will likely create my own biodiesel for cheaper fuel costs.
Is hull damage the main threat to an amphibious RV in the ocean?

[Mechalich]

As far as fuel consumption. Would changing the system from fossil fuel to electric and fuel it with solar energy and hydroelectric be feasible? I plan on attaching a sail for more passive wind energy fueled travel. If the electric engine isn't feasible I will likely create my own biodiesel for cheaper fuel costs.
Is hull damage the main threat to an amphibious RV in the ocean?

The issue with fuel isn't power, it's storage. Range is limited by the amount of fuel you can store on your boat, and as you add more fuel, you have to transport that fuel so it becomes inhibiting. There are various scale-based effects involved, which is one of the reason why major commercial ocean-crossing vessels keep getting bigger. For this reason, biodiesel is actually less useful than conventional diesel, since it has lower energy output by volume.

Solar based boats do exist, so that is an option, though there are limitations. Solar vehicles, whether land, air, or sea, need to maximize panel surface area. This induces some serious design limitations and probably makes a solar-based seacraft questionable in any situation where strenuous conditions could arise. This would be a particular limitation for a vehicle capable of driving, which is likely to face major stability issues.

[Rockphed]

So I've been thinking of the design of the amphibious vehicle. It doesn't necessarily have to be an RV or the like but I want to be able to drive the vehicle itself out of the water so possibly a boat with wheels. I saw a popular mechanics article about them.
As far as fuel consumption. Would changing the system from fossil fuel to electric and fuel it with solar energy and hydroelectric be feasible? I plan on attaching a sail for more passive wind energy fueled travel. If the electric engine isn't feasible I will likely create my own biodiesel for cheaper fuel costs.
Is hull damage the main threat to an amphibious RV in the ocean?

I suspect that if you want to go on the ocean you would be better off getting a boat and stashing a motorcycle, atv, or scooter on board for transportation on the land. I'm fairly certain that amphibious vehicles tend to be poor on both surfaces and are ridiculously expensive to boot. Not that RVs and Boats are cheap normally, but I suspect you could buy a nice boat and a nice RV for less than the cost of buying a boat that can drive up out of the water or a bus that can venture into the surf.

That said, I believe that governments normally require all vessels to have a fuel driven engine. I suspect that one that uses bio-diesel would pass muster since diesel engines can run on peanut oil.

[Andor13]

While in theory a sailboat has unlimited range, and any motor capable of driving it on land would certainly also be adequate for the legal self-propulsion requirements. However the design challenges involved in making a self-roadable boat, which is also actually a sea worthy sail vessel are ... considerable.

The Top Gear amphibious vehicle challenge may prove instructive.

There is at least one amphibious RV made, but I don't think anyone in their right mind would take it out on the open ocean.

[factotum]

Solar power isn't really the answer if your main objective is to make something faster. This is one of the fastest solar powered boats I could find:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OAoWi0XOYSA

It managed a 22-day journey at an average speed of around 7 knots...

[Xyril]

That said, I believe that governments normally require all vessels to have a fuel driven engine.

I can't speak for other countries, but in the United States that's not true with respect to the federal government and with respect to the rules of pretty much every state I have experience sailing in. It's possible that a state exists with uncommonly stringent registration requirements, but I've sailed in New England, the southeastern U.S., the west coast, and Hawaii, which pretty much cover all of the weird extremes in terms of government/legal philosophies.

[gomipile]

I can't speak for other countries, but in the United States that's not true with respect to the federal government and with respect to the rules of pretty much every state I have experience sailing in. It's possible that a state exists with uncommonly stringent registration requirements, but I've sailed in New England, the southeastern U.S., the west coast, and Hawaii, which pretty much cover all of the weird extremes in terms of government/legal philosophies.

It's not required to own or operate a boat, but it is required to have at least an electric motor to pass through some locks. The Soo Locks (between Lake Superior and Lake Huron) for example:

Pleasure crafts wishing to transit the Soo Locks must have a propulsion motor. Non-motorized personal water crafts are not allowed to transit the Locks.

[Rockphed]

It's not required to own or operate a boat, but it is required to have at least an electric motor to pass through some locks. The Soo Locks (between Lake Superior and Lake Huron) for example:

Since the basis for my assertion was a poorly remembered tour of a replica of the Santa Maria, where the people running the thing mentioned that they had a motor and a GPS to satisfy the coast guard, I'm pretty sure that this is the cause. It was moored in Lake St Claire, which is between lakes Huron and Erie, so they would have had to go through the Niagara locks, the locks on the Mississippi, or through the Erie canal, both of which probably have the motor requirement.

[factotum]

It's not surprising you'd be required to have a motor to travel through a lock--after all, locks are not particularly large chunks of water, so a pure sailing vessel couldn't really tack against the wind to get through one if the wind was wrong. Worse still, what if the wind fails when the vessel is actually in the middle of the lock? It would be blocking the main waterway!

[Bucky]

A sufficiently small vessel could be towed through the locks.

[Xyril]

A sufficiently small vessel could be towed through the locks.

True, but I can see why the authority running them wouldn't want this happening as a regular thing.