The issue is not acceleration front/back, which can be dealt with in design and is fairly stable and consistent, but acceleration as much as 0.5G side/side, which is also more intermittent and against which it's difficult to build seats that would protect customers.
Really it's just a question of track design as these are 100% predictable G forces. If you really need to turn you can just roll the cabin and keep these g's directly under you and or slow down apraoching it. Elevators can also quickly have a fairly wide range (0.8 to 1.2) g's and people don't really get sick in them.
Aeroplanes are probably a more accurate approximation of what you'd feel. You get hardly any G force from banked highways, your speed is just too low. Now I don't really get plane sick, I will quite happily sit through a few barrel rolls (which is far more extreme than the hyperloop (although that would be fun)), but there's plenty of people who would get sick from a few 1.5 G banked turns.
Elevators are different because you don't spend more than about 1 minute in an elevator.
High end cars can pull up to 1g lateral forces and many cars can pull up to 1g breaking on a good road surface. Relatively low top speed just means you don't accelerate very long. I have hit weightlessness over a hill at high speeds followed by 1.x g on the other side, so 0.5 g does not seem bad.
What about one where you feel that, acting in various directions, at every curve, every speed transition, and every elevation change. Because that's the "barf ride" being discussed, not merely getting thrown to the back of your seat during initial acceleration.
Although as the poster mentioned below, a passenger service would gradually rotate the passenger compartment to keep the G-forces vertical, a la a banking aircraft, so all you'd likely notice would be feeling heavier for a few seconds.
Interesting link, thanks! I should have clicked more on the original article. :)
This seems to be the comment in question:
> This is worse than sideways acceleration: track standards for vertical acceleration are tighter than for horizontal acceleration, about 0.5-0.67 m/s^2, one tenth to one seventh what Musk wants to subject his passengers to. It’s not transportation; it’s a barf ride.
I find the statement that vertical acceleration is 'worse than sideways acceleration' to be highly suspect (otherwise why would you bother to bank into turns?) - I would guess that the track standards are for +/- 0.5ms^-2 and mostly target short-period up-and-down bouncing motions rather than smoothly applied upwards acceleration.
