Rethinking the shape of the bus

[Pedrocas]

Based on the presentation of the Superbus Concept, let's discuss ways of rethinking the shape of the bus. Why are buses such huge box-shaped whales? Why the need for such big vehicles? And why does it seem like the bus and truck design hasn't evolved an inch in the past 60 years? Isn't it time to move in an opposite way?

Let the discussion begins.

 

[Matt2000]

Hmm. A big bus that only seats 23 and goes for less than an hour before needing to be recharged? So for any kind of long distance journey that you would use a coach for you will need to change buses.

I can see fights breaking out if someone doesn't like having to go around dropping every bugger else off first, and in theory someone who wanted to go a longer distance could be on there all day while the bus picks up and drops off local passengers.

 

[prizrak]

Based on the presentation of the Superbus Concept, let's discuss ways of rethinking the shape of the bus. Why are buses such huge box-shaped whales? Why the need for such big vehicles? And why does it seem like the bus and truck design hasn't evolved an inch in the past 60 years? Isn't it time to move in an opposite way?

Let the discussion begins.

Mostly because form follows function. A typical city bus needs to accomodate sitting and standing passengers (hence the height of the box) and it also needs to maximize internal space (hence the box shape) adding any kind of aerodynamics to it would be wasting space for one for two hugely unnecessary as city buses rarely break 30mph or so.

For coach buses the box shape serves the same purpose as the city buses you need to maximize space you also need to allow passengers to get in and out of the bus easily with their luggage. They also typically have large storage compartments on the "first floor" to allow for additional luggage. Now coach buses could be made somewhat less tall and more aerodynamic as they actually go highway speeds.

For trucks its easy, in Europe you need flat nosed cab due to space constraints in cities. The only trucks I could see being made more aerodynamic would be the American style trucks with long noses.

 

[AiR]

I've tried understanding their presentation now (the video of the test mule has MC Hammer on it) and I am unimpressed. What is their USP? Luxury point to point coach? Already exists. Bus that only fits 23 passengers? What for? The whole project seems like a typical university project thats prime function is to employ the staff of the university, not create something that is commercially viable.

I'd like to see bigger buses being developed again, like this Berkhof Scania from 1993.

https://pic.armedcats.net/k/kn/knarkas/2011/04/16/4158396039_82c1596521_b.jpg

 

[chaos386]

And why does it seem like the bus and truck design hasn't evolved an inch in the past 60 years?

Because they're commercial vehicles. They're not bought for their style or prestige, just their utility (some buses use comfort as a selling point, but most only need to make sure noise levels are low and the ride isn't too harsh). The high carrying capacity requirements make them more expensive than passenger cars, and they have a much higher utilization rate, so they're built to last a long time, which dictates simpler designs which have less to break and are easily serviceable (this is why the Ford Crown Victoria stuck around for 32 years on the same platform).

Passenger cars are replaced much more frequently and their utility is more of a side benefit to consumers, so they follow trends and fads. And let's face it: as far as styling is concerned, you could sell the most beautiful car in the world, but if you don't change how it looks when you upgrade the underpinnings, people will make 911 jokes and think nothing about it is new, so you've gotta change something, even if it's for the worse.

 

[tigger]

Based on the presentation of the Superbus Concept, let's discuss ways of rethinking the shape of the bus. Why are buses such huge box-shaped whales? Why the need for such big vehicles? And why does it seem like the bus and truck design hasn't evolved an inch in the past 60 years? Isn't it time to move in an opposite way?

Let the discussion begins.

That Superbus thing is a neat (if expensive) design exercise, but something like that is simply not a viable alternative to replace ... any current mass transit vehicle. I occasionally drive charters for a local transit company and I know some of their buses are on the road for around 18 hours a day, 5-6 days a week. So the idea of battery packs is right out (with current tech anyway). But it's the extremely low passenger capacity is the truly laughable part of that. I've had over 60 people on a 35ft Gillig Low-Floor and nearly 80 people on a 40ft. Hitting maximum capacity is rare, but on any well planned route you're practically guaranteed to have 30-40 people on at least a few times a day. Combine the low passenger count and the battery packs and you're talking about needing maybe twice as many buses and a fuck-ton of spare batteries (along with facilities on route to change them). And no doubt a fully electric bus would cost much more than a standard turbo-diesel or hybrid.

As for the general design of transit vehicles, prizrak really nailed that. It's purely form after function. You don't need amazing aerodynamics when you never get over 40mph. The "box" shape is also no doubt cheaper and easier to manufacture and repair. You could argue that it's actually much more efficient to put a bunch of people on an old bus than it is to put a handful of people on that Superbus.

As for tractors, there is definitely demand for more aerodynamic, fuel efficient trucks. Designs are getting more rounded and aerodynamic every year. I've also been seeing a lot more trailers with "skirts" on them to try and improve their aero.

 

[Spectre]

I'd like to see bigger buses being developed again, like this Berkhof Scania from 1993.

https://pic.armedcats.net/k/kn/knarkas/2011/04/16/4158396039_82c1596521_b.jpg

Unfortunately, urban planners everywhere keep developing lower bridges to 'keep truck traffic out' of various city districts. Not so much here in the Southern and Western US, but I've seen and read discussions of planners and engineers up North and East, as well as in Europe and Asia, where they advocate lower bridges for just this purpose.

The (IIRC) average new bridge height is somewhere just under 15' or just above 4 meters. That bus is closer to 5m tall.

 

[Cowboy]

I see no reason why this would not work

 

[mooglebunny]

That would never work in the real world. Well, at least in towns and smaller areas. The busses here drive on both highways and freeways to complete their routes. (Going well over 35, more like 50-60 MPH, but still get overtaken easily.) Some routes also cater to schools. At least in my town the City negotiated with the schools (at all levels, including university) so that students either ride heavily discounted or free. The busses here are always pretty full and need to accommodate many people while keeping down costs.

 

[CAPT_Howdy]

I see no reason why this would not work

Great minds, Cowboy! I was thinking the same thing. I would love to take a nuclear-powered bus non-stop from New York to Denver(?), passing the time in the swimming pool and bowling alley along the way.

 

[Hbriz]

Now, every morning when I get on the bus, it's standing room only. By half way along the route, the bus is past capacity, and it has to skip stops because it is simply impossible for more people to fit. There is no need for a bus that is smaller and has a miniscule range.

The aerodynamic benefit would only be seen at high speeds. High speeds would usually mean long distance, which means this bus is stupid because it has no range. Short distance trips are usually innercity or suburban runs with high passenger volumes and low speeds, so the aerodynamic benefits are pointless. So for any purpose, I don't see this idea working.

 

[AiR]

https://pic.armedcats.net/k/kn/knarkas/2011/04/17/xlg_giant_bus.jpg

 

[Cowboy]

Were gonna need bigger parkinglots........ALOT bigger parkinglots.

 

[gt1750]

I was going to say something about expensive BS, flawed transport concept etc. but previous commenters already stated that along with the valid reasons why buses and trucks look the way they do. I'm just gonna comment on the looks of the vehicle - it looks like a shiny burnt sausage.

 

[laxmax613]

It doesn't seem like the interior space would be very efficient in that low-slung one. you'd need more than just space to sit comfortable for all the times when the cabin is in flux, like at a stop.

 

[Aston Martin]

Why are buses such huge box-shaped whales?

To maximise space, you could have a convex roof if you like but only 3 people would be able to get upstairs.

Why the need for such big vehicles?

Try fitting 72 people, a pram and a wheelchair in a minibus.

 

[narf]

Unfortunately, urban planners everywhere keep developing lower bridges to 'keep truck traffic out' of various city districts. Not so much here in the Southern and Western US, but I've seen and read discussions of planners and engineers up North and East, as well as in Europe and Asia, where they advocate lower bridges for just this purpose.

The (IIRC) average new bridge height is somewhere just under 15' or just above 4 meters. That bus is closer to 5m tall.

I doubt that thing is over 4m tall, my guess would be 4.00m exactly... else it would need a special permit every time it wanted to go through Germany, and would have to avoid many major routes such as the A7 through Hamburg.

 

[Cowboy]

Random bus-related though, might as well put it here, we have a gazillion old people who go to places like Spain and Portugal by bus every year.
So for the driver that's a 2 day drive, in a bus filled to the brim with old people who have to pee every 5 minutes and will complain about EVERYTHING + there's always the chance Grandpa will get to exited about that hot 72 year old sitting infront of him and kicks the bucket somewhere between Lyon and Dyon, how badly do you not want that guys job?

 

[Cobol74]

The bendy busses do not work in London because all the streets are too small with very sharp corners, and the bus stops were put in place when we ran RT and RM busses - some dick head in the 70s decided to buy 'Standard busses' rather than develop the RM.

Now someone seems finally to have gotten their act together. ...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-11734064

Edit/ Just read a few more stories. We are going to pluck FAIL from the jaws of victory with the aid of H & S. The Ba****ds. If ever somone's job needed cutting. ...

 

[MWF]

Anyone else see this.....

and get reminded of these.....?