1. They can handle larger groups of travellers, such as tourists, who might have a guide with them.

2. Depending on their sizes, they might enable people to move about in the car during the trip, stretch their legs, even visit a toilet during longer trips.

3. They can transport more people per time unit for a given beam capacity.

4. They enable passengers (maybe) to bring along bicycles and other goods. At least, larger cars have better prerequisites than smaller to carry goods.

5. They have better net to tare weight ratio, i.e. the weight of the vehicle divided with weight of passengers. They would thus save energy if reasonably full, and could consequently be a cheaper alternative for travelers.

6. They are better suited for scheduled runs along certain routes, i.e. they need not be booked ahead of time by impulsive travelers.

7. Insofar as larger vehicles means fewer vehicles for the same transport work, the logistics of the network becomes simpler.

1. The trip is likely to take longer time, as there probably will be stops along the way for people to get off and on.

2. The energy savings mentioned as an advantage would be largerly offset by this stopping and starting along the way, instead of keeping a steady speed from start to destination.

3. The vehicle will be heavier and more expensive.

4. There will be more extensive damage in case of accident, because the living mass of the vehicle is heavier.

5. The beams have to be sturdier to carry the extra weight, and thus more expensive.

6. More people are liable to get hurt in case of an accident.

7. Larger vehicles need longer braking distances or more powerfull brakes.
   More powerfull emergency brakes put a longitudinal on the supporting poles that carry the beams, in the direction of travel (see figure below). The live mass of the vehicle (A) is transferred from the cars, over the beams to the beam supports. The nearest supports (B), would take most of the strain, and will therefore have to be firmly planted in the ground. This makes for a more expensive system.
   

8. Larger vehicles means poorer service for commuters than smaller vehicles. Travellers have to wait longer at stops, the trips takes longer (as mentioned above) and travellers have to crowd in with strangers.

9. Investment in larger vehicles and sturdier beams and poles also means that the system operator would get less beams for the money he uses for expansion of the beam network. The network grows slower and will not be so finely meshed as it could otherwise have been, which will lead to (in average) longer walks for the traveller to the nearest station, and less resiliency in case of accidents (i.e. there will be fewer alternative routes for the beamcars).

• not heavier than 1 ton (1000 kg) fully loaded
• not wider than 2 seats (about 1.5 meters) and
• not carrying more than 8 passengers (at the most)

Well, first of all, let´s agree that all passengers should be seated. With seated passengers, we could keep smallest possible distances between cars and have them travel at high speed, without fear of injury to the passengers, should an emergency stop be necessary. High speed is of essence, considering that the aim of these networks is to ultimately cover long distances.

As stated above, the lighter system would have many advantages over the one using big cars for collective travel:

1. Beams would be cheaper to manufacture per kilometer, and the system thus quicker to alter and assemble.

2. Beam supports would also come cheaper, as would the vehicles.

3. The lighter-system beams could reach narrow places that would not allow traffic with wider cars.

4. It could grow faster, since re-invested money would buy more beams than the heavier system.

5. The lighter systems would also be more popular with the public, because:
   1. Individuals and small groups would get thier own cars and not have to share it with others

   2. Travellers would not have to keep track of time tables

   3. Travellers could redirect their car along the way, to do errands and pick up other people

   4. Travellers would reach their destination as quickly as the system permitted, without having to stop on the way

   5. Travellers would most likely have access to a more extensive network, since the beams would be cheaper.

6. This larger influx of travellers to the light network would, in turn, provide that network operator with money to expand the service even faster.

All these points, taken together, would mean that the lighter system would attract far more travellers than the heavier system. The only arguments left for building a system for heavier vehicles would be:

1. It can take large groups of people that want to be together in the same car.

2. A big beamcar is more power efficient than a small, i.e. power consumption per passenger.

3. A big beamcar would be a cheaper buy for the operator, relative to its carrying capacity (i.e. cost per passenger).

4. A big beamcar provides for larger traffic capacity.

The second point is debatable. Big cars are more power efficient than small cars only when they are reasonably full, which is probably not as often as the small cars. It is easier to fill a small car with people. And; big cars usually have to halt at stops along the way, dispelling some of their live energy, while small cars can keep their speed more or less constant untill they reach their destination.

Moreover, beamcars that serve stops along their way will rarely be completely full. To what extent this is true would be a policy-matter by the network operator; if long waiting times are acceptable at the stops, the beamcars can be kept rather full, since new passengers will board along the way and occupy the seats vacated by those getting off. But letting passengers wait a long time at stops would be rather poor service.

The third point might be true. But the operator needs also to consider that when a big car is brought out of service for maintenance, he loses more carrying capacity than when a small car is brought out of service. As a comparison, a bus operator loses more money while having a bus on repair than a taxi company does while having a taxicab on repair.

The fourth point, then, about larger traffic capacity, is it true? Yes, as shown elsewhere on this website; carrying groups of people from point A to point B is more efficiently done with big cars. But the real situation is a bit more complex.

Big cars usually have to stop along the way, so they take considerably longer time to travel from start to their last destination than would a car travelling non-stop. They take longer time to load and unload. They take longer time (or require more power) to accelerate to full speed after each stop. And; since people get on and off along the way, big cars are rarely completely full during travel.

Summing up, then; there might be advantages with using big cars. But on the whole, a beam network made for only small cars (using the definitions above) win out big, all things considered!