As regards flight.
Range would be dictated by two things. Energy expended on motion, vertical and horizontal, and energy expended on losses.
On the road, drag is gonna be aerodynamic - and rubber on road.
In flight, the tires are not gonna drag on anything, are they.
Ducted fans, like they seem to use here, are much, much more efficient than the rotors of conventional helicopters.
For one, you don’t loose energy to wingtip-vortices, where air from the high-pressure below the wing goes around the tip to the low-pressure area above the wing. Fixed-wing aircraft use winglets to avoid that, while rotating-wing aircraft can have a bunch of ducted fans.
Likewise, a conventional rotor would accelerate a lot of air outward, centrifugal like, that’s not gonna create any lift. Again, the duct to the rescue.
I don’t know the details of lift vs. drag of conventional rotors vs. ducted fans. But ducted fans are, afaik, way more efficient than regular rotors.
I’m too lazy to start a spreadsheet, but found a few online calculators, and converted metric to US customary.
Suppose the bike is heavy. Including rider and fuel, 500 kg. About 1,100 lbs.
Let’s disregard all losses from friction and drag right now, let’s just look at a free body.
The energy that will accelerate that bike, with its rider and fuel load, to 60 mph.
Applied at 90°, that same energy will lift that bike, with its rider and fuel load, to 120 feet.
Savor that. Instead of accelerating forward to 60 mph, you could accelerate upward, 120 feet. Should be just enough to comfortable skip a traffic jam, no lane-splitting and dealing with asshole cagers opening their doors required.
Now, drag, particularly drag from the ducted fans (can’t make lift without making drag, not even with a ducted fan), and the need to constantly compensate for the weight of the machine, that would eat a lot of fuel. But how often can you accelerate from 0 to 60 on one tank of gas? For how many miles could that keep you airborne?
Since there would be no tire-friction in flight, I’d bet on double-digit range. Not 99 miles, but maybe 15, 20?
And even if its less, even if range is shit. Let it be shit. How much range do you need to skip a traffic jam, and have a gallon left for a safe landing and trip to the gas station?
You wouldn't even have to reach the end of some apocalyptic super-jam. Airborne, you you just go sideways, to the rural little road that's parallel to the motorway, and quite empty. You could go sideways, diagonal, any direction. You could just go to the other side of the motorway, reverse direction of travel. Set her down in the hard shoulder, and go back to the last exit you so wish you had taken instead of getting into the jam. Traffic Jam² cannot hold Motorcycle³. And the cagers who'd open their doors to stop lane splitters, they would be impotent to stop you.
A quadcopter-car would still require a massive amount of space to fold down its lift-fans. More space than you’d find in a traffic jam.
This bike, meanwhile. That should totally fit inside a lane. This is the very machine anyone dreaming of flying cars has really been dreaming about. A machine that can take off inside a traffic jam. And that, unlike roadable-aircraft like the old “Aerocar”, would have all it takes to be a total speed-demon on the road, too.
If there were absolutely anything to be afraid of, don't you think I would have worn pants?
I said I have a big stick.