Sign in. It’s quick, free and it’s up to you.
An account is an optional way to support the work we do. Find out more.
THE EHANG 184 IS certainly a sight to behold.
At first glance it looks like someone simply made an enormous drone – and that’s essentially what it is – and then slapped a cockpit large enough for someone to ride in on top of the chassis. And to top it all off, there are some stylish gull-wing doors that give it an undeniably cool-yet-crazy look.
Unveiled at this year’s Consumer Electronic Show, the 184 is the world’s first fully autonomous electric aerial vehicle, designed to fly a passenger around short distances at a low altitude (think more like a helicopter than a plane) without the need for you to man the controls.
Like its smaller drone counterparts, the 184 uses eight large propellers mounted atop four arms to fly around and hover, though an EHang spokesperson said it’s technically able to land using only one propeller arm if need be. I’m not quite sure how the physics and balancing of that add up, but the company is sticking to that claim.
All aspects of the flight are handled by a tablet in the vehicle’s cockpit, allowing the passenger to select their destination and sit back while the 184 handles the takeoff, journey, and landing process.
Right now, the weight limit is 220 pounds, and there’s a small boot that can fit a backpack or travel bag. There is also air conditioning in the cabin.
The aircraft stands about five feet tall, weighs 440 pounds, and has a battery life that lasts long enough for a 23-minute ride at a speed of just over 99km/h. The 184 takes off and lands vertically, similar to a helicopter. Recharging takes two hours for a fast charge and four hours for a trickle charge.
EHang says it has conducted 100 manned test flights with its current prototype, and says its current design is closer to a finalised production model than a concept.
The four propeller arms can fold upwards for storage, and EHang says the 184 folded up takes up approximately the space of a traditional parking spot.
The first question I had was what would happen if the flight control tablet crashed or some technical issue arose mid-flight. An EHang spokesperson assured me that there’s multiple failsafes in place to take over if there’s a specific failure, and there’s also a flight control center that monitors all of the vehicles in the sky and can intervene if necessary, similar to the flight control centers at airports.
If an obstacle such as a bird is noticed mid-flight, passengers also have the option to tap the screen to enter into a stationary “hover” mode, which can also be used for some sightseeing.
All of this would seemingly depend upon maintaining a connection to flight control, however, and I’m still not sure what would happen if the tablet or vehicle’s cellular connection was spotty or simply dropped altogether.
Even more worrisome is that unlike self-driving cars that allow for a manual override using physical controls, the 184 is only able to be controlled via the tablet within the cockpit – there weren’t any physical controls such as a steering wheel or joystick to be found.
This feels potentially problematic, but EHang assured me that its 24-7 flight control center was fully capable of intervening in the case of an emergency.
In spite of lingering questions regarding the safety of its control scheme, EHang is marketing this as a safety-first vehicle that’s designed to eliminate the need to ride in dangerous aerial vehicles such as helicopters or small planes.
As self-driving cars could potentially drive down the rate of vehicle-related deaths due to human error, EHang hopes to do the same for personal aerial transportation. It’s a good idea and noble goal, but one that also brings up a lot of questions when you think up worst-case scenarios.
In theory, the autonomous aspect of the 184 means that passengers wouldn’t need a special license to ride in it, but EHang recognises that it’s in “uncharted waters” at this point, and it could still face regulatory hurdles once it’s closer to market.
The 184 feels like a vehicle that is ten years ahead of its time, but it’s certainly an intriguing prototype, and its design is striking. With no firm price tag or launch date – EHang representatives mentioned it would cost “hundreds of thousands” – it sounds like you won’t be able to buy or ride a 184 in the next year.
To embed this post, copy the code below on your site
Very sad for all involved. My local area is crazy with quads on both main roads and by-roads. Only a matter of time before there is a serious accident. Most are young boys on them and parents just let them.
A beach buggy should certainly not be used on a public road. They are extremely unsafe in a collision. They have no safety rating.
@Fiona deFreyne: beach buggy sounds like a toy. It’s obvious it’s a quad and kids in rural areas get to use them like cars to get around. Far too dangerous, and the parents will have to live with giving their kids (who are only above the Santa age) access to a motorised vehicle.
@Gulliver Foyle: I’m sure the parents are well aware of that without you pointing it out.
Beach buggies, quads and jeeps like Hilux’s should not be allowed on the roads, was only looking at two of these Jeep types fully kitted with killer bull bars in the last hour, not saying that this Hilux was fitted with them but they seem to be a fashion accessory these days, at the least a high category of road tax should apply to them, R.I.P. poor child.
@Charles Coughlan: good idea,a higher road tax will make them much softer in the event of a collision,
@Charles Coughlan: I did some research on ‘Bull bars’ in the early ’90′s. Even milk delivery vans were fitted with them! The CSO were no use for statistics because they only release agenda – driven sexy soundbites for the Government. Turned out the most popular 4×4′s were being fitted with ‘Bull bars’ made by companies around Dublin. Nice little remove from the manufacturers / garages (and S.I.M.I.!) Meanwhile in the U.K., the Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders (SMMT) told me that they had a voluntary, industry – wide ban on them.
@Charles Coughlan: Jeeps like Hilux’s should not be allowed on the road..are you for real?
what idiot allowed them on that..???
@David Peate: You assume a lot. This is life changing for three families.
@David Peate: The article isn’t detailed enough to make out what exactly happened – but one idiot will always jump to conclusions. So sad, whatever occurred…
@Thomas Blackcat: cut the PC crap. No child should have access to a buggy like that and be allowed to or have the chance to take keys and bring it on the road or anywhere without an adult. It’s exactly this kind of attitude that allows scores of children to be killed on farms. A complete lack of adult supervision resulting in tragedy
@ChuckE: Where are keys mentioned?
@Thomas Blackcat: Well, we’re they on the beech buggy or not?, if they were then someone is responsible .
@Thomas Blackcat: Either they had keys or they hotwired it. Keys are far more likely, don’t you think?
@John Carberry: Perhaps. But I’ll await a more comprehensive report. Why even assume the vehicle had an engine – many beach buggies are pedal powered!?
@Thomas Blackcat: Take a hike Tom
@Thomas Blackcat: I think you’re confusing go-karts and beach buggies….
@David Peate:
I agree.
And to those who suggested they might not have been allowed –
Even if they weren’t explicitly allowed, the vehicle was left in a position where they could take it. Which amounts to the same thing as allowing them to take it and use it.
@Cian O Donoghue:
You assume a lot too…
I assumed when they “crashed into a car” was that the car was stationary and therefore probably unoccupied.
@Michael Carolan: I assumed when he said the driver of the other vehicle was uninjured, that it was occupied…
@Danny Gibson: oops!!! Should have read the full article. Lesson learned.
RIP. That was a pick up truck, not a car. Gardai quick enough to confiscate cars for no tax ….
@Anthony Halpin: nothing to do with the Gardai, it’s PSNI terrority
have your say