klein@ucbcad.UUCP (01/15/85)
Ever since the first cars were built, automakers have always sat the driver and passenger(s) on a bench, sofa, or separate seats, always next to each other about in the middle of the vehicle. This sounds like nobody's bothered to think about it since then. How about some alternative designs: Occupants in a line along vehicle's forward direction? Run the engine/drive train down through the middle of the car, seat occupants to each side? Passengers in a ring to maximize legroom? We have different constraints now than we did back in 1900: we want a comfortable enclosed space, aerodynamic efficiency, legroom, smaller cars. We are able to cram engines into smaller spaces and design more efficient space usage than ever before. It's suspicious that basic car designs haven't changed much in 80 years! -- -Mike Klein ...!ucbvax!ucbmerlin:klein (UUCP) klein%ucbmerlin@berkeley (ARPA)
jackh@zehntel.UUCP (jack hagerty) (01/17/85)
> Ever since the first cars were built, automakers have always sat the > driver and passenger(s) on a bench, sofa, or separate seats, always > next to each other about in the middle of the vehicle. This sounds > like nobody's bothered to think about it since then. > It's suspicious that basic car designs haven't changed much in 80 years! > -- > > -Mike Klein > ...!ucbvax!ucbmerlin:klein (UUCP) > klein%ucbmerlin@berkeley (ARPA) The Cornell (I think) saftey car design of the 1950's, which looks hopelessly naive today, had the driver all by himself in the front row. The seat was on the centerline of the car and the pillarless windshield wrapped back past the seatback giving him an unobstructed 180 degree view. The passengers were seated more-or-less conventionally. The Renault Bageehra (sp?) sports coupe has one row of three across seating. This model, like most innovative European cars, is not imported (sigh). There are several low volume commuter/cycle cars that put the driver and passenger in tandem. Finally, there are many show cars that experiment with different seating arrangements: interleaved left-right occupants (like a Ford Trimotor) to allow a narrower body, raised driver/lowered passenger for visibility, a lone, centrally located driver (like the Cornell car) with the second and third seats arranged facing each other in a "conversation pit", etc. -- Jack Hagerty, Zehntel Automation Systems ...!ihnp4!zehntel!jackh
fred@varian.UUCP (Fred Klink) (01/18/85)
In Car and Driver, last month I think, were drawing of a Japanese convertible van concept with a center-positioned driver and passengers on swivel-type seats in the back. I'm not sure what good it is but it is different! Fred Klink Varian
meyer@waltz.UUCP (01/18/85)
I think the big reason we haven't noticed any radical changes in the way
passengers are oriented in an automobile is that the current one is
most likely to be the SAFEST. I don't want to be a passenger in a "ring"
oriented car that -- would be instant injury. And putting all the
mechanical stuff through the middle of the car with passengers up and down
each side would be totally anti-social. I'm happy with the current design.
==============================================================================
Dane Meyer
ARPA: ==> Meyer%waltz%TI-CSL@CSNET-Relay
CSNET: ==> Meyer@TI-CSL
USENET: ==> {convex!smu, ut-sally, texsun, rice}!waltz!meyer haapanen@watdcsu.UUCP (Tom Haapanen [DCS]) (01/19/85)
< Nami nami nami ... > >The Renault Bageehra (sp?) sports coupe has one row of three across seating. >This model, like most innovative European cars, is not imported (sigh). The car is actually the Matra Bagheera and it dates back to the early 1970's. Quite a gorgeous sports car --- it's very unfortunate that we never got them here. Some versions of the venerable VW Type 2 (Vanagon/Transporter) also have an innovative seating arrangement - the driver has his own bucket seat, and there is another 'twin bucket' seat, which seats two people, albeit with less side support than a normal bucket. Better than a bench set, though. \tom watmath!watdcsu!haapanen
pagiven@drutx.UUCP (GivenP) (01/23/85)
-
I would think that the safest car seat arrangement would be to have
the passenger seats facing backwards. This would be safer for the
driver also, but might make steering a little awkward :-).
This might be anti-social for the rear seat occupants, but just
think, the front seat arrangement would look like those old
fashioned love seats!
I heard that rear-facing seats were once proposed for airplanes to
keep the passengers safer in the event of, how do the flight atten-
dants put it? An unscheduled landing? But that the idea was vetoed
because the public would refuse to ride backwards!
Any Boeing, Lockheed, or NASA types out there care to comment?
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Paul Given {ihnp4, houxe, stcvax!ihnp4}!drutx!pagiven
AT&T Information Systems Laboratories
11900 N. Pecos, Rm 1B04, Denver 80234 (303)-538-4058
-----------------------------------------------------------------josh@topaz.ARPA (J Storrs Hall) (01/23/85)
> I think the big reason we haven't noticed any radical changes in the way > passengers are oriented in an automobile is that the current one is > most likely to be the SAFEST. Nope. It would be much safer for the passengers to be sitting backwards to the direction of travel. I believe that that some military transportsare arranged that way, for that reason. --JoSH
preece@ccvaxa.UUCP (01/25/85)
> I heard that rear-facing seats were once proposed for airplanes to > keep the passengers safer in the event of, how do the flight atten- > dants put it? An unscheduled landing? But that the idea was vetoed > because the public would refuse to ride backwards! ---------- Thee was a European-built commercial airliner with rear-facing seats. They were in service about 15 years ago. I think they stopped for the reason suggested above. (It may have been the BAC-111, but that could also be totally wrong...) scott preece ihnp4!uiucdcs!ccvaxa!preece
doug@terak.UUCP (Doug Pardee) (01/25/85)
> I heard that rear-facing seats were once proposed for airplanes to > keep the passengers safer in the event of, how do the flight atten- > dants put it? An unscheduled landing? But that the idea was vetoed > because the public would refuse to ride backwards! It is generally believed that motion-sickness is much more likely to strike people riding in rear-facing seats. Motion-sickness is too common in airplanes already; adding to the passengers misery would be unthinkable. -- Doug Pardee -- Terak Corp. -- !{hao,ihnp4,decvax}!noao!terak!doug
cb@hlwpc.UUCP (Carl Blesch) (02/05/85)
>> I heard that rear-facing seats were once proposed for airplanes to >> keep the passengers safer in the event of, how do the flight atten- >> dants put it? An unscheduled landing? But that the idea was vetoed >> because the public would refuse to ride backwards! >It is generally believed that motion-sickness is much more likely >to strike people riding in rear-facing seats. Motion-sickness is >too common in airplanes already; adding to the passengers misery >would be unthinkable. Very true -- I rarely get motion-sick, but I've nearly wretched twice when riding trains backwards at >90 m.p.h. on Amtrak's northeast corridor. You're probably wondering why I rode the train backwards? It's because the particular train I rode on -- the Broadway Limited -- has to go backwards from New York to Philly, in order to pull out of the Philly station frontwards to continue on to Chicago. Carl Blesch
ron@brl-tgr.ARPA (Ron Natalie <ron>) (02/11/85)
> > Very true -- I rarely get motion-sick, but I've nearly wretched twice > when riding trains backwards at >90 m.p.h. on Amtrak's northeast > corridor. You're probably wondering why I rode the train backwards? > It's because the particular train I rode on -- the Broadway Limited -- > has to go backwards from New York to Philly, in order to pull > out of the Philly station frontwards to continue on to Chicago. > Well you were lucky, because I hardly ever am on an AMTRAK train in the northeast corridor that approaches speeds of 90 miles per hour. I was however, once on a train where the last car was put on backwards (I have no idea why). Ever been to Providence? -Ron