The WikiSpeed Car

There’s a lot of impressive stuff going on in the automotive world right now. The once-revolutionary Prius is taking a back seat to the new generation of electric head-turners, like the Chevy Volt, the Nissan Leaf, and the emperor of them all, Tesla. Okay, maybe that’s a bit dramatic, but you get the idea. There’s a race going on for most fuel-efficient, and it’s carried the cutting edge of the industry back into the electric car market. This is a great thing, and even though we’ve got a lot further to go, we ought to be happy with the gains that we’re starting to see on the road.

But even these cars that seem so revolutionary…aren’t. What we’re seeing today is the second coming of the electric car (see Mass Transit and the Restructuring of Cities for more info), and while this is undoubtedly a move in the right direction environmentally, it doesn’t bring with it a critical reexamination of the car as a whole. Even these most exciting new cars are just cars, but electric.

To build a car that can really change the game, you have to think outside the box. That’s what Joe Justice is doing with his SGT01 car and his network of volunteer mechanics called WikiSpeed. Let me start by saying the SGT01 isn’t electric. It isn’t even a hybrid. But it is one of the most fuel-efficient, intelligently designed cars ever made. It gets 104mpg city and 114mpg highway, which with a 4-gallon tank gives it a range of 400 miles. Couple that with 0-60mph in 5.5 seconds and 5 star crash safety and you’ve got a pretty good car. Oh, and it only costs $25,000.

Okay, I know that last part sounds impossible, and it probably is, but not as impossible as you might think. See, what Joe Justice is doing differently than most is building light and building modular. An extruded aluminum chassis and a carbon fiber body make the car only 1,042lbs, about half the weight of the Prius. Less weight means more fuel efficiency and more speed. But the really cool part about this car is the second way Justice is changing the game: modularity.

One of the core concepts behind WikiSpeed cars is the ability to swap components. This doesn’t mean you get to choose between real or faux paneling, or how many cup holders. If you owned a WikiSpeed car, for about $1000 you could take it into the shop and get the body swapped for a newer model. Or if a more efficient (or powerful) engine came out, just bring your car in and let them upgrade it. The idea is that the car isn’t a single entity, it’s a modular assembly of parts that can be traded in or upgraded at will.

I can’t say this enough: this is a brilliant idea. Think about choosing a car to buy right now; it isn’t an easy decision to make. Even the most fuel efficient cars on the road are going to be hopelessly outstripped in 6 or 7 years, and a good car ought to last you more than that. What if you go gasoline, and the electric infrastructure blows up in a few years while oil prices skyrocket? What if you go electric, and it never really pans out, and breakthroughs in hydrogen technology make it the dominant automotive tech? With a modular car, you don’t have to worry about it, you can just take it in and have them swap the engine for a better one. And as your car begins to look dated, you can upgrade it’s appearance. Or the audio input, or the GPS system, or anything else  you don’t like!

As far as WikiSpeed cars actually go, well, they’ve still got a long way. The car is only a prototype right now, and WikiSpeed is desperate for more capital investment. The modular system they have in place is highly efficient, but still pretty ugly. And most of the work being done right now is volunteer work, so the car is far from being profitable. But I think its value lies in its vision. There are good ideas here that deserve to be considered by major companies and demanded by consumers.

If you’re interested in WikiSpeed, check out the article in Seattle Met, then head over to their website.

“Objects” by Seung-Yong Song

It’s rare to find product design that radically challenges the existing paradigm for an item of commonplace furniture. Take, for example, the chair. It is one of the simplest objects around, and one with the most obvious function. But that function alone wasn’t enough for South Korean designer Seung-Yong Song, who undertook a series of projects that shaped a prototypical chair to accomodate a variety of additional uses.

First up is his project fittingly titled, “8-Objects.” It consists of 8 chairs that have been outfitted with elements of other bedroom furniture. There’s a desk, clothing rack, shelves, and even a bedroll. These “chairs” can be spread around the room, or combined to form a bed platform. I put chairs in quotes there because it seems misleading to designate these innovative multifunctional objects with so mundane a term. And yet when it comes down to it, they are first and foremost chairs, I think that’s the most interesting part. To me, these are clearly not new items of furniture, they are chairs who have experienced a growth of function and character.

Then there is Object-A, a beautifully organic, spatially efficient, and downright weird hybrid between a chair and a set of shelves. Of the project, Seung-Yong says, “I am looking in every nook and cranny of the room to find hidden spaces. Under the table, beneath the bed, above the wardrobe … All the space in the room is completely full of odds and ends. There’s no other choice. And I start building my objet like the city’s tallest building seen from the window in the room.”

Object-B is similar to A in that it also offers the functionality of a shelving unit, but it also functions as a ladder. The reason I’m including it here though, it primarily because of the striking form achieved by putting two of them back to back. This attention to combination and orientation is one of the things that makes this such a wonderful series of objects.

Finally, I’ve got to mention Object-E, a rocking chair with a drying rack above it, so that the clothes dry in the breeze as you rock. This is a brilliant synthesis of purpose that, although perhaps awkward to carry out, makes for a great idea. What impresses me most about all of these projects is the open mind that went into their design. Seung-Yong speaks to this same point. “The unique name of things limit the range of product’s shape and function, but above all, the fact that there exists stereotyped function in accordance with each unique name suppresses my imagination. I am not willing to deny or destroy the identity based on the stereotype, but I only reinterpret the uses I need in my own design language.”

This willingness to look first to function and necessity, and only then to the archetypes that traditionally serve, is the mark of a truly great designer. In cognitive psychology there is a concept known as an “anchor,” the idea being that if we are given a suggestion before having to estimate a particular variable, we will almost certainly be influenced by that suggestion, no matter how irrelevant it seems. For instance, if I ask you if Ghandi was older or younger than 144 when he died, and then ask you to estimate his age of death, you will clearly see the implausibility of my suggested number, yet you will nonetheless tend to overestimate his age of death as a result. You will have been anchored to some degree by my suggestion.

Similarly, it takes extraordinary effort to avoid the anchor of conventional design interpretation. A car is just a vehicle for self transport, and a chair is just a device for sitting; nowhere within the project constraints is there anything about a combustion engine or a back of a certain height. But while all designers can appreciate the intellectual importance of these ideas, it takes great willpower and determination to ignore these cognitive anchors, and yet this is what designers must do – and what Seung-Yong has done here.

Sources: Dezeen, seungyongsong.com.

The Decagon Tent

The latest offering from Japanese outdoor gear company Logos is a modular tent system that can be used to create large tent structures with multiple rooms and configurations. The centerpiece of the system is the “decagon tent,” so named because it has ten sides around the bottom (the top of the tent is pentagonal). This setup allows for up to five connecting segments, while still allowing light and fresh air to enter through the mesh windows on the intermittent faces.

Okay, before I start in with an analysis of this idea, let me start with a disclaimers. I’ve done my share of camping, and I would characterize myself as an outdoor enthusiast, but I’m hardly a fanatic or up to date on all the latest tent technology. This is the first time I’ve seen a modular system like this, but I wouldn’t be surprised (and would like to hear about them) if there are others out there. Okay, now that that’s out of the way, I’ll move on.

What I love about the decagon tent is how it actually makes the tent a desirable physical space. Usually, tents are simply shelters; they’re cramped and dim, a place used to escape the elements and not much else. But with Logos’ design, the tent becomes something more like an abode, a place that we’d actually like to occupy and spend time in. It also allows for the functional division of space, and so creates feelings of greater comfort and utility.

Now, that might seem like a lot of unnecessary nonsense to those of you from the warmer, drier parts of the world, but for those of us in Seattle (or, fittingly, Japan), having a tent that feels more like a functional interior space sounds pretty nice. When the skies open up and it starts to rain, who wouldn’t rather a tent that feels like it’s meant to be enjoyed, instead of merely tolerated?

Perhaps the bigger point here though, is that the setup shown in these photographs isn’t that much different from what we’re used to seeing at campgrounds – clusters of tents are common. What’s uncommon is a cluster of tents that link together to create a unified interior space. So instead of setting up a bunch of individual shelters, the decagon tent allows for a more shared and comfortable experience.

I’d love to hear what you all think of the idea though. It definitely has some downsides to go along with it’s many positive features. For instance, the available car port is a great idea, but mostly because the only way you could ever conceivably use such a monstrous tent is while car camping. Still, it’s a pretty cool product.

Sources: Architizer, Logos.