
YC's latest moonshot bet is a startup building a $380K “flying motorcycle” - kristianp
https://techcrunch.com/2019/03/07/ycs-latest-moonshot-bet-is-a-startup-building-a-380k-flying-motorcycle/
======
Animats
Where are they getting the engine?

You can get model aircraft jet engines with enough power for this.[1] Various
human-carrying craft have been built that way, such as the Zapata Flyboard.[2]
But the engines have a lifespan measured in hours and not enough reliability
for carrying humans. That's why all the demo videos of these things are over
water, or tethered.

People have been trying to build small, cheap jet engines for decades. "Small"
has been done. Cheap, no. Below bizjet size, the price doesn't go down much.
Which is why general aviation is still running mostly on pistons. The 1960s
Williams jetpack (not the Bell rocket belt) used an engine intended for cruise
missiles.

If they've cracked the small jet engine problem, there's a big market for
those, without trying to package them as jetpacks or motorcycles. Otherwise,
it's just another demo rig.

The video is a bit suspicious. It's very quiet. You can hear the boats over
it. It doesn't blow stuff around. It doesn't move his clothing. It doesn't
ripple the water even at low altitude. Other videos of small jet engines are
very noisy and have lots of jet blast.

[1]
[http://www.jetcat.de/jetcat/Kataloge/JetCat%20ENGINES.pdf](http://www.jetcat.de/jetcat/Kataloge/JetCat%20ENGINES.pdf)

[2]
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7feIt5PRvUw](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7feIt5PRvUw)

~~~
dmurray
Agreed, this seems like a huge problem and this

> The startup’s most pertinent problem is creating the autonomous
> stabilization technologies that will make flying the Speeder effortless and
> safe.

looks like a smokescreen for marketing to the tech crowd. Everyone is going to
believe they can solve the stabilisation problem: that's "just software" and
we see demos of robots solving stabilisation problems all the time. Building a
jet engine that's an order of magnitude better (cheaper, more reliable) than
the industry has managed in 50 years, but with more or less the same tech?
That's the kind of problem you can't just solve with machine learning.

~~~
dalbasal
If that "most pertinent problem" is tech savvy investor/journalist bait...
it's genius. I read that and thought "well that's probably solveable."

OTOH... In the context of a moonshot, maybe the non-existence of an affordable
& appropriate engine is ok. Tesla started with an unaffordable battery, and
built a really expensive car with it. The car was good though, compared to
other cars in the sheiks & princes price range. It was an important step on
the way and proved that the real pertinent problem was affordable batteries.
Not an easy problem, but still.

There's probably _some_ demand for flying motorcycles, even if they cost >€1m
and are only good for 10 minutes of hovering over a lake.

From there... who knows. I'm not sure flying cars a mass market idea even if
they cost the same as rolling ones.

~~~
darkpuma
The military market for tiny turbine engines has been serious for decades;
cruise missiles use them. I really do not believe that a plucky SV attitude
towards engineering and VC funding is going to waltz into this domain and
shock the world. But I definitely believe that SV self-confident arrogance
would lead some to convince themselves otherwise.

~~~
farisjarrah
Ah this point piqued my interest. Before I thought this was a waste of time
for YC to be throw $150,000 at this company, but with the military aspect it
makes it a lot more of a feasible business model. The military doesn't need
something with many hours of flight time for all scenarios. They might just
need to get medical supplies delivered to the field really quick and this
could more then accomplish that potentially.

~~~
darkpuma
Yes, very small turbines have a variety of military applications beyond just
cruise missiles. Small turbine driven reusable drones are one possible
application.

I'm not sure if you're trying to imply it, but YC funding defense tech under
the guise of funding toys for the ultra-wealthy would be interesting, but I
don't honestly think that's what's going on here. I don't think they're likely
to develop novel turbine technology, and the concept of a one-person turbine
flying device left the US military unimpressed decades ago. There doesn't
really seem to be a tactical niche for it on the battlefield.

~~~
dmayman
We’re actively working with army, navy and marines in US. Why put a Blackhawk
and crew at risk where one it a swarm of autonomous cargo Speeders can do same
work. 400-600lbs cargo of equip, blood supplies etc. Not to be used for
insertion of operators in covert mission but in overt ops our noise signature
isn’t a factor.

~~~
darkpuma
For unmanned for cargo delivery it makes a lot of sense and could be
revolutionary. But putting a man on it doesn't make so much sense; whoever was
standing on top would be a very noisy obvious target and even if that weren't
the case the case, the system would probably create a ton of casualties anyway
just from people getting too excited and crashing it.

------
estsauver
One of the excellent things about YC is how they are completely unphased by
moonshots. I don't know of any other organization that is nearly as supportive
of ideas that would literally be called crazy other places.

3.5 years ago my cofounder were working on what was actually becoming an okay
telecom referral business at the YC Fellowship, but my cofounder and I weren't
happy. Pretty much every partner there enthusiastically told us that we should
definitely consider doing our _totally insane_ idea to try and bring
modernized commercial agriculture to smallholder farmers in subsaharan Africa.

We started our moonshot and it's still growing. I think the only people who
really believed in us were us and my parents and a couple YC partners, and a
couple people at Accion Venture Labs. That was all we needed though.

By the way, I still think our company is a moonshot. Starting a moonshot
company is stressful, it's foolish, it's a thousand mistakes to crawl out of,
and by far the most rewarding professional decision I've ever made. Any
moonshot worth taking will have a real shot at changing the course of human
history, and I'm much happier to have a 0.5% chance of ending hunger then to
have a 30% chance of a medium amount of wealth.

~~~
bredren
I’ve raised for and run two moonshot concepts that failed.

Now I work on an enterprise saa. Much happier with the saas, but maybe it is a
life stage thing.

~~~
probe
Really fascinating - can you talk a little bit more about your experiences?

You always hear about trying moonshots but I’ve never heard someone who went
reverse and was happier!

~~~
Judgmentality
I can't speak for the person you're responding to, but as someone who also
started (and failed) a moonshot company I can chime in. To grossly
oversimplify, failure (especially when you put everything into something) can
make people jaded. The breaking point for everyone is different, but
eventually you just don't want to try the pie-in-the-sky idea because you
remember how painful the failure is, how many years of your life you lost, how
many relationships damaged or ruined, personal debts accrued, etcetera.

At some point you want to minimize stress and just take an easy job that pays
a shitload of money and you value your free time more than your career.

~~~
JimboOmega
But I've been wondering, why not make the shitload of money first, and once
you've got many years saved, then go off and do a moonshot?

The usual explanation is something about lifestyle and mortgages and children
and so on, but whether you earn the money in your 20s and do a moonshot in
your 30s, or do the moonshot in your 20s and earn money in your 30s, don't you
wind up at the same place either way?

~~~
maehwasu
The answer is that you’re right. I did the money first, and since then working
on moonshot stuff has been a lot more enjoyable that what I typically see
here.

The challenge and stress of the moonshot never goes away, but the stress is
more “intense trek through the mountains” and less “my family is going to
starve and my friends hate me. “

~~~
Smirnoff
"Intense trek through the mountains" is more like a vacation when you go
through real stress while building your company.

------
pkaye
I wish there was a "moonshot" for something like The Kidney Project
([https://pharm.ucsf.edu/kidney](https://pharm.ucsf.edu/kidney)) A project to
produce an artificial kidney. It was kept alive by small donations by kidney
patients over the years. Now maybe on better footing and closer to human
testing. But still nothing funded like these pie in the sky moonshot project
that people will care nothing about in a few years.

~~~
snowmaker
If you want to start it and apply to YC, we'd be very interested.

~~~
bitcoinmoney
You for real?

~~~
snowmaker
Absolutely. I work for YC. An artificial kidney would transform the lives of
millions of people on dialysis. It's worth trying to build one even if the
chance of success is only 1%.

~~~
chaosprophet
Could YC pro-actively get in touch with the folks already working on the
project? Sounds like they would be your best bet at success.

~~~
snowmaker
That's a good idea. I just emailed them.

~~~
etxm
It was cool to witness this thread!

------
npunt
These don't look safe, even assuming perfect mechanical reliability, because
humans will be piloting them over major population centers.

Humans are generally dumb and inattentive, and this particular vehicle looks
like it would attract especially dumb humans who'd use them to try dumb
things. Since they won't need any piloting certification, this is basically
offloading risk onto everyone on the streets below.

I'd feel more comfortable if this were automated only. Then I'd at least be
assured there'd be an organization held accountable, rather than a risk-
seeking human who'd be dead anyway if it crashed.

If it were automated and had perfect mechanical reliability, then the only
real issue is the noise pollution. Which still is going to be an issue,
because these jets put out significant noise, and I haven't seen anything in
the last 10-20 years since Moller's flying car prototypes to suggest that
progress is being made there.

I love scifi as much as the next person here, but there's a lot of problems to
solve before we put loud flying missiles in the hands of untrained adrenaline
junkies flying over population centers.

~~~
ehnto
That's why I don't think we would ever have flying cars either. We can barely
handle driving on flat surfaces and I suspect most people on the road only get
by idly emulating simple line following machines rather than actually engaging
the whole situation.

It takes a third party to orchestrate busy sections of our current flying
vehicles, planes, so I can't see any alternative to full automation of a mass
of flying cars.

~~~
antt
I mean cars wouldn't be accepted today if they were just invented. The only
reason why we think 30k deaths a year is fine is because "that's the way it's
always been", and cars come from an age when one out of three children would
die before they turned 5.

In a sane world we would have only segregated rail transport in urban areas
and cars in rural areas where the population density is less than 10 people a
square mile.

~~~
jecel
For the whole world, cars kill 1.2 million people per year.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_traffic-r...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_traffic-
related_death_rate)

Though there are better places than the US, quite a few countries are willing
to put up with absurdly higher risks.

------
chriselles
I am a motorcycle nut and aviation nut since birth.

I’ve also jumped out of a dozen aircraft types via static line and ram air
free fall chutes.

And I enjoy paragliding.

There’s nothing more I would like to see than a new form of personal flight.

However, I don’t see the viability of this thing at all.

Likely due to my having been in close proximity to the Martin Jetpack slow
motion disaster over the last decade.

Reliability, repeatability, infallibility, safety, Certification, and
classification.

All tall barriers to entry for recreational/commercial/civil aviation.

What would excite me would be an autonomous vertical lifting body that can
lift a 200kg box over 200km, using 5-6 high reliability motors that can
survive the failure of 1 or 2 motors as a result of mechanical failure or
enemy fire.

For use in both commercial and military applications.

A reliable, agile, boring container carrier.

An oversized coffin shaped container that can fit 80%+ of high value
commercial and military and commercial items, including personnel/casualty
CASEVAC.

Why are we not building an autonomous platform around the carriage of a
specifically calculated cube container?

Like a mini aerial 20ft or 40ft shipping container.

~~~
ccozan
Actually the idea is quite similar to the "container" in the Agents of Shield
[1]. A bit visionary.

[1]
[https://marvelcinematicuniverse.fandom.com/wiki/Containment_...](https://marvelcinematicuniverse.fandom.com/wiki/Containment_Module)

EDIT: there are jets small which could be attached to a rectangular frame. But
I don't see where this can be used commercially? With what could you connect
up in the air?

~~~
chriselles
Hi,

My thoughts are more along the lines of a 5 or 6 electric prop motor drone
along the lines of Griff Aviation drones.

Applications would be:

Military: 200kg, 200km range/100km radius would provide low cost rapid
vertical logistics and CASEVAC to sub units that is desperately needed.

Commercial: regional city pair rapid logistics for critical 1 hour delivery.

------
toomanybeersies
Glenn Martin and Martin Jetpack [0] (Glenn left the company in 2015 though)
has been trying to build and bring to market something similar for the past
decade (development has been going on decades before that). There's apparent
commercial, private, and government interest in the device, but somehow that
hasn't actually manifested into a finished and delivered product.

When Glenn spoke to a group of potential investors (which I was somehow a part
of) back in 2011 you'd think that they were on the cusp of having a finished
product and a stack of orders from the US DOD, a variety of commercial
organisations, and dozens of rich people who want a personal aircraft.
Technically Martin Jetpack still exists, but it has failed to bring anything
to market, despite having millions of dollars poured into the company [1]

I struggle to see how Jetpack Aviation is going to achieve what Glenn and his
company failed to do. They don't even have a flying prototype or a physical
mockup, only some cool CAD models that look like they were made by some high
school kid who's watched Star Wars a few too many times.

Jetpacks and flying motorbikes look cool, but on a practical basis they just
aren't useful. They don't fly high enough or fast enough, and they can't
operate in high wind or poor weather. For military/government use they aren't
suitable and there just aren't enough rich people who want an expensive flying
toy to sustain the market.

[0] [http://www.martinjetpack.com/](http://www.martinjetpack.com/)

[1]
[https://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&...](https://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=12132568)

~~~
dmayman
Our tech could not be more different to the MJP. Theirs was a gasoline engine
powering a pair of ducted fans. Too many single points of failure and never
able to keep the engine cool, not possible to fly much faster than 60mph. Ours
is 1/3rd the size, will fly at 4x the speed. We’ve flown our jetpacks all over
the world. We already have a development agreement with the US Navy. They are
perfect for overt (perhaps not covert) military ops - insertion and extraction
and getting medics into position. Why risk a Blackhawk and crew??!!

Why not for governments and EMS. If we can get EMS medics to heart attack and
stroke victims just 1 min quicker the number of lives saved is 100,000 -
200,000/yr just in USA. Isn’t that worth taking a shot at?

I don’t understand the point about flying high enough. We can fly at over
15,000ft

~~~
cheeze
Hey first things first I respect what you're doing. A 1% chance of success is
worth it here. That being said... You are literally exactly this with your
comment...

> When Glenn spoke to a group of potential investors (which I was somehow a
> part of) back in 2011 you'd think that they were on the cusp of having a
> finished product and a stack of orders from the US DOD, a variety of
> commercial organisations, and dozens of rich people who want a personal
> aircraft.

~~~
dmayman
We were never part of the Martin JetPack project. Totally different tech.

------
thinkingemote
For me the moonshot problem I'd like to see solved would be trash. Literally!
I've been to New York the first class world city where they pile plastic bags
full of trash outside the houses and been to leafy suburbs in Europe where
they put these bags in boxes and leave them outside too. Meanwhile in
developing countries trash causes real pollution and health issues. But in all
places it's people create waste and the waste accrues and then the waste then
may be moved about. One possible solution for non recyclables would be some
kind of composting / incineration-generation device to convert the trash into
organics and/or electricity.

~~~
easytiger
> composting / incineration-generation device to convert the trash into
> organics and/or electricity.

This is extremely widespread and already industrialised.

~~~
thinkingemote
Yes the solution would need to be better than these as the problem still
exists.

------
11thEarlOfMar
"The Speeder is “at least” two years of development time away from ending up
in customer hands."

vs.

"Joby Aviation has spent the last decade developing their own electric motors
and their current VTOL design from the ground up." [0]

I'd guess that it's at least two years _after development has completed_ in
order to get through final certifications for whichever regulatory agencies
have a say in this.

[0] [https://techcrunch.com/2018/07/08/the-electric-aircraft-
is-t...](https://techcrunch.com/2018/07/08/the-electric-aircraft-is-taking-
off/)

~~~
dmayman
The 1/3rd scale prototype is flying. In a number of ways what we’re doing is
simpler than JA. We’re confident we can achieve our time goals.

~~~
themodelplumber
> The 1/3rd scale prototype is flying

I remember this lesson from watching _Flight of the Phoenix_. :-)
Congratulations!

------
gpm
If you stop viewing this as a "flying motorcycle rich person toy" and start
viewing it as a "vtol jet engine based drone" it's quite cool.

Have to imagine that there are search and rescue/fire fighting/military uses
for this technology, manned and unmanned.

------
matthewfelgate
I hate this for so many reasons. One of those 'future' products like clear
glass screen and bendable phones that are just, well, stupid. Am I the only
person that sees that?

~~~
rsj_hn
You are not. It seems like a horrible idea. But then again, I didn't
understand the point of something like Twitter, either, so I am grateful that
people are exploring dumb ideas -- that they appear to be intentionally doing
the wrong thing -- because going downhill is the only way you get out of a
local optimum. Most of these will fail, that's fine.

------
onion2k
Maybe I have a different definition of the word, but I wouldn't describe this
as a moonshot. A "moonshot" is something incredibly hard to do _that will have
a huge impact on society if you manage it._ Building a (really cool) $380k toy
won't impact very many people at all.

~~~
jchallis
Respectfully disagree.

One, it normalizes truly radical engineering projects (look higher in the
thread to see building an artificial kidney). If YC signals it sees a jet bike
as acceptable, imagine all of the ideas that seem just a bit too crazy that
become possible.

Two, toys are generally the first or second version of truly radical
technologies. Compared to a motorcycle, yes this looks extremely dangerous.
Compared to a helicopter - down right low risk.

~~~
onion2k
_Compared to a helicopter - down right low risk._

How is this lower risk than a helicopter? If a helicopter fails it doesn't
just drop out of the sky; it can autorotate _relatively_ safely to the ground.
Autorotor flight is a safety feature taught to every helicopter pilot. People
have walked away from helicopter crashes. A jetbike presumably won't have that
feature.

------
baron816
Alright, let’s say we get the ALL the safety issues squared away. And let’s
also assume they strap a cold fusion reactor to this too, so you can fly it
around the world without stopping...

Can you imagine how fucking LOUD one of these things would be? Regular
motorcycles drive my crazy with the noise from their ICEs. Now what if they
had jet ingines one them instead? That alone should be enough to get these
things banned.

If this isn’t a sign of how out of touch some people in Silicon Valley has
become, I don’t know what is.

~~~
UncleEntity
> Regular motorcycles drive my crazy with the noise from their ICEs.

They don't have to be loud it's just that people pull off the stock muffler
and throw on something different.

I used to have a ZX-10 that two owners before me used to amateur race which
had basically straight pipes and it was entirely too loud -- used to set of
car alarms just idling through parking lots. The police around here don't
enforce the noise pollution laws so I didn't bother with it though I'm pretty
sure my neighbors didn't like me too much starting that thing up at 5am.

My current bike (if I ever get around to getting it running) is as quiet as a
kitten with its (intact) stock mufflers.

------
orky56
Thanks for keeping us inspired and trying to bring the future to now. Few
thoughts & questions after reading the article & comments here...

Some of the reasons Tesla has succeeded that may be relevant for Speeder:
-Safety: Tesla's construction has allowed their vehicles to have the highest
crash ratings. Removing an engine & simplifying the frame have helped.
-Driverless: Tesla has popularized & legitimized much of the technology that
is trending towards driverless cars. -Performance: The Tesla Roadster was the
moonshot (no pun intended) since it kicked off the brand while being sexy both
design wise and by its performance. When electric car was associated with the
nerdy, economical Prius, Tesla flipped that stereotype on its head.
-Infrastructure: Tesla created the ecosystem to maximize the customer
experience. From purchase/service/charging, Tesla independently set up the
touch points to minimize friction.

My advice would be to go the SpaceX route instead of the Tesla route. You can
go both and I'm sure you already are. Just remember that the regulatory
environment will stall major headway for consumers. For military/government
applications, this can be fast tracked and see applications right away. Those
learnings can satisfy regulatory concerns and be the beta test needed.

------
crispyambulance
I thought that YC was only interested in stuff that "scales"? This is just a
toy for wealthy type-A thrill-seekers. How big of a market is that?

Seems sort of like a premium jet-ski that flies, but is even louder and more
annoying, and has far more property damage potential in addition to being
capable of producing even more gruesome accident scenes than crotchrocket
motorbikes.

I think they should go for it, but I expect they'll be as popular as Bugatti
Veyrons.

~~~
jonwachob91
Tesla also launched as a car for the 1%, but now they have learned enough that
they are trying to introduce a model for $30k. Will the Tesla $30k coming out
soon car be great, we don't know yet, we might have to wait 10 years before
there is a great $30k electric car. What we do know is that you have to try
before it happens, and the 1% buying toys has funded some really awesome stuff
that has eventually come down in price enough for everyone to afford and
enjoy. This motorbike might be $380k today, but how much could one cost in 10
or 15 years?

------
gameguy43
The rider's orientation looks...insane.

They won't be able to see anything through the body of the thing (gotta squint
at a little display to understand what the heck you're flying towards?).

All their weight is going to be on their crotch (and, like, the front part of
it) or maybe their stomach.

Their neck is going to be fighting gravity in the most awful way.

~~~
aeternus
It does look somewhat awkward but the upper torso angle isn't much different
from a sports bike. It isn't the most comfortable, but doesn't need to be
given the flight times.

The fact that the rider's pocket is directly above the intake could be an
issue.. I guess everyone riding these should be rich enough to not carry loose
change.

------
usrusr
Powered flight is a matter of boring straight lines, at least outside the Star
Wars universe. If all the technical details are solved, we might discover that
the toy appeal just isn't as big as expected. Or are there many motorcyclists
that prefer straight roads? Doing curves withhold reason (like on a big flat
open surface) would be much exciting either.

For SAR applications, another interesting application of the control advances
from the drone market might be a powered rescue winch harness: use the line
for power delivery from the helicopter mothership and as a safety fallback,
but gain hugely increased agility and precision from using a local set of fans
for lift instead of swinging under the helicopter as a passive pendulum load.
It would make helicopter rescue from steep slopes much less risky and open up
vertical walls (or even overhangs) for helicopter access.

~~~
aeternus
There will definitely be toy appeal. You can already fly helicopters low along
a river which I highly recommend.

Doing that on something like this would be amazing.

------
areoform
I suspect that what they're offering is not only feasible but achievable with
modern technology. The glut of cheap sensors and research into dynamic, multi-
axis control thanks to drones makes it easier for something like this to come
into being. However, I am skeptical about their ability to build something
that can fly for a long distance due to the low energy density of current
technology. Even with a gas powered turbine system, their efficiency is capped
at around 30%? Theoretically, heat recovery can boost that to 85%, but that
equipment is heavy and it's complicated to mount
[https://www.wbdg.org/resources/microturbines](https://www.wbdg.org/resources/microturbines)
. I don't know the answer to this question but I do hope that they find out!

Good luck guys! You're solving some really Hard problems here.

~~~
dmayman
Thank you, yes we really are but it’s cool to do. We should achieve up to
30mins endurance with exiting engines and if we move to a turbofan than 2-3 x
that is possible

------
eftpotrm
And the per person-mile carbon footprint of a machine powered by multiple VTOL
jet engines is...?

------
salimmadjd
I love so many things about this, yet at the same time I don't get the
positioning of this product.

1 - Is this is a product for consumers who buy $300-500K super sports cars?

2 - Is this targeted to the consumers who buy private planes?

3 - Is this for search and rescue market?

Group 1 - I don't know. Why not buy a drone-based technology that runs on
batteries that might be cheaper and perhaps more reliable. Yes, it may not
have the same energy density of batteries, but you can get your 20 min of
thrill, super charge it and fly again for another 20 min.

Group 2 - I don't see this being comfortable, they'll buy a single engine
plane with seats for 4 that is more comfortable and you don't freeze, or for
more adventures people a trike at a fraction of a cost would do fine.

Group 3 - For search and rescue, you probably go as a team of 2-3 people and
if you're rescuing people you need to bring them back. So you'll need a fleet
of these. I understand helicopters are expensive, but once you add a few of
these, then you're compete with a true and tested helicopter model.

Maybe at the end of the day, they'll make this autonomous, put a few missiles
on it and then sell it to the pentagon. It's agile and fast and probably can
make an argument for its tactical advantages.

edit: typo

~~~
fitzroy
4 - Quidditch

~~~
snowmaker
I love this idea. I've always wanted a way to play Quidditch, and short of
someone building a Quidditch court into an orbiting space station, couldn't
think of how you would do it. This is the answer!

~~~
fhars
Probably not quite what you are thinking of: [https://www.iqasport.com/what-
is-quidditch/](https://www.iqasport.com/what-is-quidditch/)

------
myrandomcomment
It is the same as betting on SpaceX in some ways. You have to take a few
moonshot bets.

~~~
dmayman
You bet. Thanks!

------
bribri
The investment isn't even enough to buy one

------
eevilspock
With our environment going to hell, we don't need this.

So much for the argument that capitalism entrusts wealth in the hands of a few
for the benefit of all, or that wealth correlates to merit in any meaningful
sense.

~~~
dmayman
How do you do the economics on the value of the lives this can and will save?

~~~
RoteWaterfall
Please explain how this _will_ save lives.

------
4bpp
Lots of posts in here with the usual complaints about how this is an immoral
waste of money on a toy for rich people, but does the amount of money that
went into this project even come close in order of magnitude to the cash
consumed by the Las Vegas casino business, or golf courses, or exclusive Trump
brand resorts? Unlike those examples, this project at least funds a lot of
research and engineering that surely will have some other applications down
the line, and moreover is clearly inspirational (and therefore may result in a
larger number of engineers and scientists in future generations, some of whom
surely will work on artificial kidneys and whatever other ethically valuable
projects you'd think of as well).

I really wish our civilisation would stop holding novel undertakings to
uniquely rigorous (ethical, safety...) standards than it never seems to apply
to its established habits.

------
rmason
They promised my generation flying cars growing up. They never, not a single
time talked about flying motorcycles.

I don't mean to be negative but here's a few questions:

What happens when you hit turbulence?

What happens if you get caught in a rainstorm?

What happens if you fly into a flock of birds?

What happens when you fly into lightning on a clear day?

None of those have to be fatal in an airplane, but potentially could be on
this machine.

~~~
nrb
To your point, all of those can be fatal for existing light aircraft.

~~~
npunt
True. To build on OPs point though, these aren't exactly comparable.
Specifically, light aircraft:

* are piloted by people who have to be certified pilots, which takes considerable training

* are flown at higher altitudes than what this product's marketing is suggesting

* are much more expensive to own/operate

* are only allowed to take off from specific places (regional airports) that tend to be away from high population density areas

* can use the lift from wings to potentially glide to safety if engine failures occur

This concept looks like it works best for short hops between high population
density areas, and is at a price point and training level (read: none) that
would mean _many_ more potential vehicles would be in the air. So it's not
only the above issues but also a matter of degree.

~~~
nrb
Oh, I totally agree. I was attempting to make the point that purpose-built
aircraft with more highly trained pilots still succumb to this. A random on a
flying motorcycle doesn’t stand a chance.

~~~
npunt
Ya it seems like risk profile isn't very clear, nor do major risks have
sufficient mitigations.

I feel like the easier place to start is a low-speed automated cargo delivery
system that runs on pre-defined flight paths and only in certain weather
conditions. Even then you're dealing with pretty decent risk profile given the
failure mode of anything flying is rather dangerous.

I'm not against flying things in cities per se, just want to see the
discussion go more like 1) flying things are good for X Y Z reasons, 2) major
issues to address before we get there include A B C, 3) here's how we're
solving those to unlock this new opportunity. Maybe that discussion is
happening in other places, but I'd love to see these safety factors better
addressed by anyone building these types of things, else it doesn't build much
confidence in the viability of the company.

~~~
dmayman
The safety system has to be integral with initial design and it is. Before
these are used in urban environments the machine must be able to set itself
down safely regardless of the failure. That is possible.

~~~
npunt
Cool, I'd love to see the specifics. I imagine it'd be impressive and worthy
of showing off.

------
cousin_it
Since there's no need to keep the aircraft small while it's in the air, my
ideal personal flight solution would be a combination of ducted fans for safe
vertical takeoff and landing, and large wings that unfold or inflate in flight
for much higher efficiency / gliding.

Edit: apparently there's a ton of engineering problems with both ducted fans
(stability) and folding wings (unfolding in flight is tricky). No idea if this
approach is feasible.

~~~
dmayman
EDFs are really power hungry beasts! You have to use them for takeoff and then
transition onto a wing ASAP or you’ll be out of juice at 250w.h/kg No loiter
time possible. The issue with folding wings is that they can big stability
issues. Probably not unsolvable but not simple.

------
fold_left
Supposing that they succeed, become more affordable, and most people commute
to work with them - would pollution and air quality levels be better or worse?

~~~
jxub
I guess worse, as avgas has higher lead content and contaminates more.
However, they have room to experiment with different types of propellants and
engines.

Let's hope the sky doesn't become a tragedy of the commons in the same way
motorways did.

------
mlurp
I know it's really hard to predict what people will or won't want in the
future, but... Would people want this, even if it worked really well?

~~~
GreaterFool
If there were only few of those around and you could afford one and it had
good range imagine how it would cut your commute. Fly to your cabin in the
woods in no time (rather than sit in traffic for hours) to chill for a bit?
Worth the money.

~~~
Swizec
Motorcycles can already do that due to the wonders of lane splitting.

Wouldn’t you need a pilot’s license for this? If it only flies so low that you
don’t, isn’t it then suuuuper dangerous?

I say the dangerous part as a former Boosted Board afficionado and current
motorcycle rider

~~~
ian0
Id guess it would be less dangerous than driving than say, a turbo busa, given
you have less things to crash into!

~~~
dwighttk
Don’t sell it short! You can crash this into everything you can crash a
motorcycle into PLUS everything in the sky!

------
ausbah
More big toys for rich boys who run the tech world.

YC can spend their money how they wish, but I wish this moonshot was something
of actual use to more people.

------
coldtea
Since they're not seriously expecting getting back the money from the "flying
motorcycle" (and even if they do for this, there are other case where it's
obvious nothing will come out), I wonder what the scheme is -- e.g. it's other
people's money, there are some kind of subsidies, -- or are the investors just
so rich they don't care?

------
black6
It looks like the the rider/pilot is expected to ride hunched over the ducted
fan (?) intakes. I suppose it offers a lower center of gravity and is safer
than the open rotors of the "flying motorbikes" the Dubai police were testing
to much marketing fanfare, but... it still looks wrong from a human factors
standpoint.

Edit: turbine intakes, FTA.

~~~
dmayman
It’s not too different to riding a motorcycle. You can rest across the engine
intake protection grills and not uncomfortable.

------
dwighttk
They are requiring drone pilots to be licensed and these guys think an
ultralight version of this won’t require a license.

~~~
dmayman
Yes no licence needed to fly our ultralight version JB10 and JB11 Jetpacks.
Same rules apply to ultralight version of the Speeder.

~~~
repiret
How do the jetpacks comply with 14 CFR 103.1(e)(4) which requires powered
ultralights to have "a power-off stall speed which does not exceed 24 knots
calibrated airspeed"?

~~~
dmayman
Same way our jetpacks were accepted. Our stall speed is zero and with an
engine out we can still control our flight path.

------
protomyth
Boeing is going in with an air taxi [https://www.flyingmag.com/boeing-air-
taxi-prototype-test-fli...](https://www.flyingmag.com/boeing-air-taxi-
prototype-test-flight)

They are already talking about cargo is more likely than passengers. Ever the
same story in transportation.

~~~
dmayman
We have a cargo version that will carry up to 450-600lbs and faster than any
existing helicopter and way way faster than any e-VTOL

~~~
protomyth
Good, because as much as people talk about personal transport, the cargo story
is the one that makes the money.

------
auiya
Can you imagine how noisy everywhere would be if these became a commodity like
cars? No thanks, do not want.

------
dm8
While most people are focused on how it will work for commute and day to day
activities, even if it doesn't work for those use cases, it is great for theme
parks, adventure rides type of use cases. People spend millions of $$ every
year on those "weird" roller coaster rides and theme parks.

~~~
dmayman
We opened our experience center in socal Nov 2018. Can come test out a real
JetPack. Think the ifly model.

~~~
qohen
For anyone wondering about the price[0]:

 _Experience Day fees start from only $10,000 per person per day with possible
discounts for groups and full training costs approximately $60,000._

[0] [https://jetpackaviation.com/fly-a-
jetpack/](https://jetpackaviation.com/fly-a-jetpack/)

------
shinryuu
As seen on twitter, and I fully agree.

This is the biggest problem in the world, according to YC. As befits the title
“moonshot,” it’s the most pressing problem we face. It’s SO HARD that we might
not ever fully solve it, but it’s SO IMPORTANT to society that we should fund
it anyway.

Homelessness? Hunger? Nope: A flying motorcycle.

~~~
tomhoward
Where did YC state it's the "biggest problem in the world"? Where did YC use
the term "moonshot"?

This is just one of about 200 companies YC has funded in this batch alone.
Some of the other ones are working on humanitarian problems, and over the
years YC has funded many non-profits and companies working on humanitarian
problems, as well as putting huge funding towards research into basic income
and medical challenges.

There's no opportunity cost issue here: YC seeks to fund every project -
commercial or humanitarian - that seems to have some chance of succeeding or
leading to some kind of valuable breakthrough.

You should point to a case where they've failed to do that if you know of one
- I'm sure YC would like to know about it.

------
jaclaz
Well, _idea_ , instead of selling them, you could rent them like "Byrd" or
similar.

Since the sale price is in the order of magnitude of 1,000 times that of an
electric scooter, the cost of a ride should roughly go from US$1+0.15 per
minute to US$ 1,000,00+150,00 per minute ...

------
rdl
Wow. That thing looks amazing! I'd probably rather have something like the
Surefly (hybrid electric octocopter, largely autonomous) for boring commuting,
but this looks like an amazingly fun vehicle for recreational riding.

------
mrnobody_67
Lift Aircraft already built working eVOTL for 1 passenger. 16 engines. Video:
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BSbynmTcAYk](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BSbynmTcAYk)

~~~
dmayman
Yes they are and it’s great but...it suffers the same limitations as any open
rotor drone configuration, it’s really slow and really large

------
kahlonel
I hope by “flying” they mean “levitating”. I can barely fly my toy drone
without getting pinged by Government about how I am violating airspace rules.
Can’t imagine there will be flying bikes in next 50 years atleast. I am in EU.

------
notananthem
IDK why YC lets stuff like this through when they always say they're
struggling to fund nonprofits, things benefiting underrepresented groups etc.
Its like, ya, because you're funding stupid shit like this

------
Geekette
Interesting. Their concept seems like an extension of existing hoverbikes:

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4dk-
fiyJdvE](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4dk-fiyJdvE)

------
benj111
So if you lie on top of a ducted fan like that, how is it not going to impede
airflow?

Also what happens if you have a loose thing on your person that gets sucked
into the fan.

The image looks nice and Sci fi, but that design isn't practical.

~~~
dmayman
The airflow works, we’ve modelled it. Pilot needs to wear similar jacket to
current standard motorcycle jacket. No loose change in pockets

~~~
benj111
Thanks for your reply.

If you've tested it and works, I retract the last paragraph, still looks Sci
fi though.

Have you tested for a coin strike? For a plane you're going to have an upper
bound for what your going to get in the engine, because it has to be picked up
by the engine. This design, anything could fall in, potentially quite dense.

------
dtparr
What's the fail safe for aircraft with this kind of thrust?

Planes can glide after a loss of power, helos autorotate, do these just fall
out of the sky on a nice ballistic arc?

Maybe one of those whole plane parachutes?

~~~
gotocake
Such a parachute would be prohibitive in term of weight, so no. I suppose the
pilot could wear a personal parachute, and hope to ditch far from people or
property, but I think the odds are...

 _" In the very unlikely event that all four engines fail, we’ll go straight
into the ground like a fucking dart."_ -Billy Connolly

~~~
dmayman
Spot on. Two parachutes for over 150ft. One for Speeder and one for pilot.
Under 150ft see earlier answer.

------
efp
These guys have one for under 10k

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jFwXvVtyHcI](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jFwXvVtyHcI)

------
flocial
The $150,000 investment seems like a great deal for marketing. If the product
ends up being feasible that's an added bonus.

------
rasz
sweet game demo video, how about even the simplest prototype? you know,
something like:
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DB1LUwRePKA](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DB1LUwRePKA)
(www.hoverbike.com.pl) - and even that is just an investment scam (pumping EU
grands)

------
johngalt
A flying motorcycle would be better executed as a motorglider/powered
sailplane with detachable wings.

------
williape
Looks amazing. Wouldn’t ever purchase one but 80% sure that I’d spend a few
hundred for a couple flights.

------
SideburnsOfDoom
I'm picturing this as having a downdraft like being under a jet engine, and
noise levels to match.

------
eternalny1
According to that mock-up, the rider is lying directly above the inlets of a
set of jet engines?

How does that work?

------
codingdave
At least in the USA, flying personal vehicles are non-starters without
cooperation from the FAA.

~~~
dmayman
We have great relationship with the FAA and our JB10 has been granted
experimental certification.

------
anotheryou
You'll need a good kidney belt to ride that thing. Why are the engines placed
so central?

------
justanotherjoe
yikes. are we going to see a lot of bootleg elon musk in the future? I don't
like these vanity project with 0 utility, spending money just because "muh
science fiction". They completely miss the point of doing something useful.

------
takanori
So is there a seatbelt or harness to attach the rider to machine as they FLY?

------
kgilpin
Anything you fly over is going to be simultaneously blasted and cooked.

------
toppee
1- Considering fuel density and probably 4 running engines, autonomy would be
minutes, while all aircraft are required to have at least 30mn reserve.

2- FAA will never certify such a thing. This leaves only the experimental
option, with all that entails commercially.

3- Ballistic parachutes : They are very heavy and it costs 10k to repack every
couple years. Plus it's basically a rocket firing out of the plane, another
hurdle.

4- Insurance : Who would insure such a thing ? It is hard enough for a
certified GA plane.

5- Noise restrictions of two to four jet engines in an era of going full
electric, even for planes (pipistrel anyone ?)

6- Autonomous drones can be made, that fly and land alone. Yet, we don't have
any GA plane doing the same and have to pass complex exams in order to fly an
aircraft. It will be the same for that one, not necessarily because it will be
needed to pilot it, but to guarantee airspace security.

7- Good luck with talking on the radio with all the noise + wind. Once again,
this is mandatory in many airspaces and probably all where such a machine
would be useful.

8- Weather : I guess you probably have never ridden a motorbike in the pouring
rain. Now imagine being cold to the bones and having to keep managing that
aircraft, navigating and communicating. Good luck with that.

9- Loads of comments mentioning Tesla and SpaceX. Well, there is a sizeable
difference with them : the market size. This company is also facing stronger
regulation than Tesla, while having not a hundredth of the funding.

10- Numbers are already bad for GA airplanes with autopilot and al. But any
failure on such a thing would almost certainly result in death. + Ballistic
parachute opening requires man to be strapped to aircraft.

All things factored in, it feels like yet another project surfing on CAD
generated hype, out of touch with most real world problems and justifying it's
existence through being a "Moonshot". But we are yet to see any successful
moonshot. Let me explain : Companies like SpaceX or Planet where built
enhancing the tech that was already there and R&D could be done with
ridiculous amounts of funding. Musk's track record was also incredible at the
time, with two major exits (Zip, PayPal).

It is sad to see history repeating itself so often: You are basically
promising what helicopters were supposed to become and yet they are far from
ubiquitous despite their high efficiency, speed and load carrying abilities. I
do believe in some VTOL projects but most of them are ridiculous and won't go
out of the R&D phase.

Best of luck in any case. I am ready to invite you for dinner should you
manage to have a working prototype in two years.

S

------
miguelmota
Great idea in theory, dangerous product in practice.

------
nikofeyn
why? (an honest question.) what problem does it solve?

~~~
csa
My guess is that the biggest use cases will be relatively “boring” logistics
problems. I use quotes because logistics problems are not typically considered
sexy, but they sure are the foundation of a lot of businesses when properly
executed.

If you start including ideas like military uses and public safety uses, which
typically have substantial logistical components, then I imagine the scope of
possible problems that this solves becomes more obvious.

------
dannylandau
Kudos to the team!

~~~
rmuboddy
Seconded absolutely. The superbikes of today are thrilling and gorgeous and
have brought me huge enjoyment. Pending A successful launch; the The flying-
superbikes-of-tomorrow's will inspire and bring joy to my children. Wishing
you all the good fortune.

------
unicornporn
Personal jet carriers. Sounds sustainable!

------
Jerry2
When I was younger, I had a motorcycle accident. I survived but barely and
required close to two years of rehabilitation.

You won't survive an accident in this thing.

~~~
CamperBob2
Did your motorcycle have all kinds of advanced gyros, inertial sensors,
radar/lidar sensors, and control loops?

Seems like your comment is a bit like someone in the 1900s pointing at an
early car and saying, "I fell off a horse once and nearly broke my neck. You
won't survive an accident in that contraption." He wouldn't have been entirely
_wrong_ , but he wouldn't have been right, either. His comment would have
added nothing useful to the discourse.

~~~
ux-app
Automobiles _were_ death traps for approx 80 years, it's just that the utility
outweighed the risk. Not sure the same can be said about flying bikes.

~~~
CamperBob2
Sigh. You're right, my mistake. I'm apparently on the wrong site.

------
davedx
"moonshot of moonshots"

This is an ambitious and cool project, but it is not a "moonshot" and it's
sure not a "moonshot of moonshots". This kind of ridiculous hyperbole just
dilutes our language.

The first "moonshot" was when a nation state developed a manned space
programme to land people on the moon. A flying motorbike, no matter how cool
it is, is nowhere close.

"Y Combinator’s $150,000 investment is an early step for the moonshot effort"
:eyeroll:

------
ryeon
they could use a bit of tesla's marketing and website pizzazz

~~~
chrisweekly
No kidding. The yt video's production values are... unimpressive.
[https://youtu.be/URgznwTph6M](https://youtu.be/URgznwTph6M)

~~~
dmayman
We’d rather put our scarce resources into building aircraft.

------
crispytx
Founder of WingsuitGP here, take a look at my application YC!

------
chrisweekly
This feels like it was published 3 weeks early.

------
xacaxulu
FLOATERCYCLE

------
bogle
Whatever it is I can't see it because TechCrunch are yet another GDPR failure.

Make it easy to say no to tracking because if you don't I'm off.

------
lewis500
Why isn't it a flying three-wheeler?

------
egypturnash
I am looking forwards to the legal circus after some rich idiot buys one of
these and runs out of fuel over someone else's house.

~~~
ngngngng
Drones are pretty good at landing themselves these days if there's a need. I
can't imagine one of these couldn't enforce a height limit when it's low on
fuel and then land itself when it's nearly empty.

~~~
dmayman
Absolutely right

------
glutamate
Please stop. We don't need to kill the planet with another self-indulgent
carbon belcher. Use public transportation. Your time is not that precious.

~~~
tomcam
On the surface I can’t help but partially agree with you. But one of the truly
amazing innovations of western culture is emergency medicine. The time this
could save in trips to the hospital could literally mean tens of thousands of
lives being saved.

~~~
krapp
Ambulance helicopters already exist for that purpose, and a flying motorcycle
wouldn't make a great ambulance to begin with. And if they did, motorcycles
_with wheels_ would still be more efficient and less dangerous to everyone
involved.

Assuming this even pans out (still waiting for the Moller Skycar...) it's
going to be a luxury item for rich kids who want to pretend they live in Star
Wars or something.

------
rplnt
Sorry, but this is Kickstarter-mockup-level stupid. Those are done by
oblivious people (usually just games) or with malicious intents (most of the
stuff you find on kickstarter). This is definitely the second one. The sad
thing is, it might not make a bad investment as it can pull in much more cash
before failing.

------
preyingman
YC: it's bullshit that you manually pushed this post back to the top of the
site after it started dropping down the front page (due to having way more
comments than points).

It's fine if you're going to treat posts about YC companies as ads that are
immune from voting and other site mechanics, but then you need to label them
as ads.

~~~
tomcam
YC pays for this site. Why on earth shouldn’t they be able to re-position
posts manually? As near as I can tell they have at least two full-time
moderators who do a spectacular job, even though they don’t understand my
sense of humor ;)

Where do you get off on telling them what to do with their own property?

~~~
rimliu
TBH, moderators do a crappy job and go on power-trips way too often.

~~~
tomcam
Listen, my sense of humor and personal politics appear to be exactly opposite
of most HN readers, and of the moderators.

In my view, I am frequently down voted because people don’t seem to get my
sense of humor or because they tend to be precious liberal snowflakes. I view
that as my problem. I am a guest here, and it’s important for me to behave
according to the customs of their house.

But I feel the overall product is amazingly good considering they deliver it
to us at the low low price of free, and with essentially no advertising
distractions. That’s a pretty precious thing in my humble opinion.

