Discover and share the best of the web!
Learn more about Digg by taking the tour.
A Sporty and Affordable Electric Vehicle
inhabitat.com — The TRIAC is essentially a large, covered trike. The 20kw electric motor can achieve a very reasonable 80mph, and will take you on travels up to 100 miles on any given charge. It takes about 6 hours for its lithium-ion battery to recharge fully and, as with most electric vehicles, it comes with a regenerative braking system...
DeadPanDan- 1007 diggs
- digg it
- thestrongrope, on 05/20/2008, -5/+11This thing looks pretty cool, especially its profile. I am not always a fan of these three wheel electric vehicles, but I like this one.
- ChileanGoD, on 05/20/2008, -0/+4Actually... the only 3 wheel car that actually won me is the Carver. Hands down. Why don't they make an electric version?
- thestrongrope, on 05/21/2008, -0/+1Totally agree! I love the Carver. If they made that in an electric or hybrid version, that would be amazing!
- Taiyoryu, on 05/21/2008, -0/+1VentureVehicles licensed the Carver tech to develop the VentureOne which they plan to offer in a full electric or plug-in hybrid configuration.
http://flytheroad.com/
- davidrools, on 05/20/2008, -0/+1Their showroom is down the street from me in San Jose so I might check them out. I already have an Aptera reserved, though, and actually prefer the looks of the Aptera over this one.
- Taiyoryu, on 05/21/2008, -0/+3Sporty? I don't think so.
VentureOne (full electric, plug-in hybrid)
http://flytheroad.com/
Space Efficient Vehicle (unknown)
http://www.michelinchallengedesign.com/MCD_2008/Si ...
T-Rex (Motorcycle ICE)
http://www.go-t-rex.com/
About the only thing it has going for it is that it'll see production sooner.- qwertydvorak, on 05/21/2008, -0/+3"About the only thing it has going for it is that it'll see production sooner."
i know what you mean. that whole availability thing is overrated. i am waiting on my skycar as we speak... - maninalift, on 05/21/2008, -0/+1And price. It's a sensible car. As much as something that takes 6 hours of charging to travel 100miles can be sensible.
- qwertydvorak, on 05/21/2008, -0/+3"About the only thing it has going for it is that it'll see production sooner."
- ChileanGoD, on 05/20/2008, -0/+4Actually... the only 3 wheel car that actually won me is the Carver. Hands down. Why don't they make an electric version?
- BCCStu, on 05/20/2008, -9/+30How does it do in a crash though?
- ontain, on 05/20/2008, -3/+16probably only slightly better than a motorcycle.
- TheMachine1, on 05/21/2008, -2/+2That's why they made it a trike its considered a motorcycle. If it had four wheel it would not be road legal
in the US. Also there is no way to make a light vehicle safe. The physics of a 6000 lbs SUV hitting a light vehicle means neck injuries,etc. Consider the shell on that trike as a helmet and a leather suit.- fmaxwell, on 05/21/2008, -2/+3Stick to computers. Mechanical engineering is not your thing. People survive accidents in 1300lb. Formula 1 cars at well over a hundred miles per hour, rejoining races in spare cars. Some go airborne, barrel-roll, crash into solid walls, or are T-boned by other fast-moving cars. The same thing plays out in racing cars the world over.
- Blandyman, on 05/21/2008, -1/+5Except a leather suit doesn't pierce shards of metal through your heart and leave you trapped in a flaming inferno of pain and suffering as your last moments of this green Earth are spent yelling "Oh God, why'd I buy this Power Wheels car instead of an Accord or Camry or Prius or anything that doesn't SUCK!" Then your skin bubbles as you're incinerated and you die in the most magnificent ball of fire YouTube has ever seen.
- Tenoq, on 05/21/2008, -1/+1@ fmaxwell - "People survive accidents in 1300lb. Formula 1 cars" - but they don't hit SUVs, they hit kitty-litter and tyre walls. I can survive a 200km/h crash on a motorcycle on the track every time as long as it's not a high-side I land head first... yet on the road, 100km/h or less is probably lethal after being run over by an SUV - or a semi-trailer.
It's a ridiculous comparison. An F1 car on the road would be an absolute safety nightmare with a collision with any other vehicle. In fact they're probably EVEN MORE dangerous than a motorcycle, because you can't be flung free and you really would get jammed under someone's bumper. - fmaxwell, on 05/23/2008, -0/+1No, they don't just hit "kitty litter and tire walls." Alex Caffi hit a steel barrier on the Monaco Streets in 1991. Derek Warwick hit a steel wall meant to protect spectators in Monza in 1990, Then there was the massive pileup at the beginning of the 1998 Belgian GP in which numerous cars hit a concrete barrier. And here's one of Kubica's 2007 crash where his car goes airborne at 150mph and hits a barrier.
http://carvids2.wordpress.com/2007/06/10/f1-montre ...
He drove himself home from the hospital the next day. I could go on and on, but it's obvious that your knowledge of F1 is as limited as your knowledge of mechanical engineering.
An F1 car on the road in a collision with a typical SUV or car would give the driver a much higher chance of survival because F1 cars are built with roll cages, driver safety cages that are fully triangulated, five-point harnesses for the drivers, arm restraints to keep arms from going outside the vehicle in a crash, extremely effective crumple zones (because unlike their road-going counterparts, there is no insurance company demanding that they be made repairable after accidents).
Have you ever even worked on a real race car (no, I'm not talking about putting a 5" tip on your buddy's Honda Civic exhaust)? I have and I know how they are built and why they offer a level of crash protection that you don't find in your typical mass-production passenger car. So, just trust me when I tell you that the weight of a vehicle has very little to do with its ability to save you ass in a crash. A head-on between a modern Toyota Corolla and a 70's Cadillac is more likely to result in serious injuries to the Caddy driver than the one behind the wheel of the Toyota.
- TheMachine1, on 05/21/2008, -2/+2That's why they made it a trike its considered a motorcycle. If it had four wheel it would not be road legal
- Chandon, on 05/20/2008, -5/+14Who cares?
Seriously, there are tradeoffs in engineering. Comparing the crash performance of this thing to a tradition sedan is no more interesting than its cargo capacity or ability to haul a trailer.
It is what it is, and what it is could be damn useful.- NJank, on 05/20/2008, -5/+5Who cares? A person who cares about safety of a vehicle they are in when a crash occurs. He's not trying to say it would be useless if it had worse crash specs in a car, but a person trying to determine where they want to be in the tradeoff game would need to know this information. It could be damn useful, to someone willing to make the safety tradeoff if there is one. If you say getting that info is un-interesting, then a person would be unable to make an informed decision.
- fmaxwell, on 05/20/2008, -7/+2Your safety is not more important than conserving our very limited fossil fuels and reducing pollution and greenhouse gas emissions.
- Kamujin, on 05/21/2008, -3/+3Speak for yourself.
What right do you have to make safety decisions for him? - Chandon, on 05/22/2008, -0/+1If the original poster was really asking for information, your response would be reasonable. They weren't. They were trolling. This vehicle would obviously perform somewhere between a motorcycle and a subcompact car in a crash test - but that's not really the relevant point here; the designers obviously optimized for things other than crash tests.
- fmaxwell, on 05/23/2008, -0/+1Kamujin: "What right do you have to make safety decisions for him?"
What right does he have to use up fossil fuel and drive up the prices for everyone? His waste of a shared resource is what gives me the right.
- NJank, on 05/20/2008, -5/+5Who cares? A person who cares about safety of a vehicle they are in when a crash occurs. He's not trying to say it would be useless if it had worse crash specs in a car, but a person trying to determine where they want to be in the tradeoff game would need to know this information. It could be damn useful, to someone willing to make the safety tradeoff if there is one. If you say getting that info is un-interesting, then a person would be unable to make an informed decision.
- fmaxwell, on 05/20/2008, -2/+22Could we just once have an article about an efficient vehicle in which someone does not start whining about how the vehicle would do in a hypothetical crash? Quick, let's ban bicycling, motorcycling, riding motor scooters, sidewalks next to roads, and any mode of transportation in which the occupant is not encased in something akin to an M1 Abrams tank!
Here's a wild idea: Hang up your cell phone, pay attention to your driving, drive defensively, and avoid accidents. And accept that life has some risks, that you might die in an accident anyway, but that we can't afford to have people driving huge vehicles based on some statistically insignificant chance that they might die in and accident in a smaller one.- scotticus, on 05/20/2008, -3/+5I don't think people are in favor of banning them, but they're concerned for their safety when there are still soccer moms and ***** on cell phones driving around in Lincoln Navigators. You can drive defensively and still get creamed by someone.
- fmaxwell, on 05/20/2008, -4/+7If you can't out swerve and out-brake a Lincoln Navigator in a small vehicle like this one, you don't deserve to be on the road.
I own three motorcycles, commute 60+ miles round-trip on them, and other days drive a Miata. Today, I test drove a Smart Car. If I die, so be it. I'm not going to live in fear and structure my life around hypothetical accidents. - scotticus, on 05/21/2008, -2/+6Sure thing, tough guy.
It's tough to swerve when you aren't moving, or if someone runs a red light. In a reasonably sized car, you still have a chance of survival. In a Smart Car, you're a puddle.
I fully appreciate that 10 years out, we'll all be driving smart cars, but if the tech industry has taught me anything, it's that early adopters get screwed. - fmaxwell, on 05/21/2008, -4/+3If someone is running a red light, then why are you in the intersection? Do you just barrel out there whenever the light turns green? If you're in the intersection, you better be moving and if you're moving, you can swerve, brake, or accelerate to avoid accidents.
As to the sitting still and being struck scenario, how many people are killed in cars while sitting still? The number is infinitesimally small when you consider the number of vehicles on the road. Statistically speaking, the chances that you'll be killed in a rollover in your SUV are way higher.
P.S. It's kind of fun being a tough guy. You get to ride motorcycles on and off the road. You get to choose cars based on what looks like it's fun to drive, nimble, fast, and efficient. If you want to take up hang gliding, rock climbing, scuba diving, motorcycle racing, or cliff diving, you just do it. - Tenoq, on 05/21/2008, -2/+2I don't think fmaxwell is being understood here - because people DO just barrel into an intersection when the light is green, and don't even bother looking left and right. Did you know even if someone does run a red light, they're not considered 100% at fault? That's because you didn't check the intersection was clear and safe to enter.
No, fmaxwell is right - defensive driving would save 90% of the lives lost on our roads today (even when sitting still - you don't watch your mirrors? I'm always wary some idiot isn't going to brake in time). The only situation I see (and have experienced) where defensive driving doesn't help is when someone is TRYING to hit you. That sucks, and it's pretty impossible to avoid.
It's also about the only time I wished for bloody vengeance. - Kamujin, on 05/23/2008, -1/+1You can argue that people should behave with robotic efficiency every time they drive, but that just makes you look like an idealistic fool.
- fmaxwell, on 05/23/2008, -1/+1Or we could argue that there are more important things in life than worrying about statistically insignificant things -- like dying because the vehicle you were driving was less than the size of a Hummer. Or, to put it more crudely, quit being such cowardly pussies!
- Kamujin, on 05/23/2008, -1/+1You could have stopped there, but you didn't. Thus, you look like a fool.
- fmaxwell, on 05/23/2008, -1/+1Gee, Kamujin, that would have really hurt had it come from someone worthy of my respect. But from you, it's simply ironic.
- Kamujin, on 05/23/2008, -1/+1Nice try.
- fmaxwell, on 05/20/2008, -4/+7If you can't out swerve and out-brake a Lincoln Navigator in a small vehicle like this one, you don't deserve to be on the road.
- NJank, on 05/20/2008, -1/+3I don't ride a motorcycle because I personally choose not to go that fast with that little between me and and the road/other vehicles. I can make that informed decision because I have a relative knowledge of the cost-benefit risk structure, and that's the position in which I choose to play the game. crash safety will affect people's decision to ride the vehicle 80mph on a major freeway, or to cart their kids to school in it. It should be a decision point. even the safest driver will get in an accident. lack of knowledge only makes the situation worse.
- fmaxwell, on 05/21/2008, -1/+2You claim to know how to do it, so how do you assign a dollar value to risk? How do you measure risk? How did you determine the risk of death in this vehicle while wearing a helmet (it is a motorcycle)?
You claim that even the safest driver will get in an accident, but statistics suggest otherwise.
Even when there are accidents, some are not survivable in any street-legal vehicle (e.g., tanker truck filled with fuel crosses the center-line and strikes you head-on). Yet others would not result in serious injury. Still others can be avoided by small, fast, and agile vehicles. How do you know that the fatal accident that you'll face isn't one that could have been avoided in a smaller vehicle.
Are you at greater risk of death from in an SUV rollover than from being in a small vehicle? Again, how do you know? - qwertydvorak, on 05/21/2008, -0/+3"I don't ride a motorcycle because I personally choose not to go that fast with that little between me and and the road/other vehicles."
pussy - fmaxwell, on 05/23/2008, -0/+1I'll second that "pussy" nomination.
- fmaxwell, on 05/21/2008, -1/+2You claim to know how to do it, so how do you assign a dollar value to risk? How do you measure risk? How did you determine the risk of death in this vehicle while wearing a helmet (it is a motorcycle)?
- scotticus, on 05/20/2008, -3/+5I don't think people are in favor of banning them, but they're concerned for their safety when there are still soccer moms and ***** on cell phones driving around in Lincoln Navigators. You can drive defensively and still get creamed by someone.
- cr42yr1ch, on 05/20/2008, -2/+5If everyone drove a light electric vehicle then no accident, except driving into brick walls, would be dangerous.
- Ryan2845, on 05/20/2008, -2/+7That will never happen until there is a better way to transport goods than by semi truck.
- Tenoq, on 05/21/2008, -1/+1Rail? Most truck drivers are reasonably skilled anyway - and easy to avoid if you're paying attention. It's not like they sneak up in your blind spots now, is it? :p
- Ryan2845, on 05/21/2008, -0/+1Right, because a train is going to take goods right up to wal-marts back door.
Plenty of people are involved in accidents with semis each year. The problem is, people don't pay attention, as you say they should. - fmaxwell, on 05/23/2008, -0/+1So why should people who don't pay attention be in large vehicles in which their inattention is more likely to result in someone else's death? If someone is considering buying a large vehicle because they have trouble paying attention, then they should get the smallest, lightest vehicle made so that they minimize the risk they pose to others. Why the ***** should some ***** who can't stop texting people his Blackberry while driving be allowed to buy a Chevy Suburban?
- Ryan2845, on 05/20/2008, -2/+7That will never happen until there is a better way to transport goods than by semi truck.
- BevansDesign, on 05/20/2008, -7/+2Two words: death trap.
- fmaxwell, on 05/20/2008, -4/+2And one more for you: Coward
Grow a pair and quit being such a sissy.
- fmaxwell, on 05/20/2008, -4/+2And one more for you: Coward
- BlueSkyfish, on 05/21/2008, -0/+8From the manufacturer's site:
"Your favorite mountain road never felt (or sounded) so sweet as with TRIAC's precise handling breezing through the S-turns. With a focus on keeping your experience safe and enjoyable, Green Vehicles designed the TRIAC with a center of gravity well below that of most automobiles. Additionally, each vehicle is equipped with a structural steel cage, employing the same metal skeleton in race-cars to protect passengers in the event of a collision."
http://www.greenvehicles.com/ - pagno, on 05/21/2008, -2/+1Ya know what? I think Ill stick my my measly 23mpg, and know I have a better chance of surviving a collision with some ***** in a H2 with rims taller than my car as they cut me off on the highway while talking on their cellphone. Call me old fashioned. Besides that, I couldnt even fit my bass amp in that thing.
- fmaxwell, on 05/23/2008, -0/+1What's so damned important about you that your survival is critical? Why do you think that you should waste thousands of gallons of gasoline to survive a hypothetical accident that is statistically so unlikely as to be laughable?
It also scares the living hell out of me that there are people who still believe that the chance of surviving an accident is determined by the size and weight of the vehicle they are in. Ever see a Formula 1 car? They weigh about 1300lbs. Drivers experience crashes that have them airborne, striking barriers, and striking other vehicles, and deaths are very rare. Why? Engineering. Not vehicle mass.- L0t3k, on 06/06/2008, -0/+1That's among the more moronic posts in the whole thread.
I'll tell you what... if you're so unimportant, please feel free to drive one as well. There is nothing laughable about auto accidents. They happen frequently, and people die in them all the time. And the idea of comparing the safety of a Formula 1 car to passenger vehicles is downright retarded. Open wheeled race cars do not get in to accidents with Escalades.
- L0t3k, on 06/06/2008, -0/+1That's among the more moronic posts in the whole thread.
- fmaxwell, on 05/23/2008, -0/+1What's so damned important about you that your survival is critical? Why do you think that you should waste thousands of gallons of gasoline to survive a hypothetical accident that is statistically so unlikely as to be laughable?
- ontain, on 05/20/2008, -3/+16probably only slightly better than a motorcycle.
- simpletwist, on 05/20/2008, -1/+24Hmm, this seems like it would be more of a "big city" car, as I can't imagine relying on it if you have to do any amount of consistent long-distance traveling.
- BlueSkyfish, on 05/20/2008, -1/+9For someone like me that lives in the big city and doesn't do more than 40 miles a day, it's perfect. Although as a poor college student, there are two requirements this car doesn't have:
A pricetag under $10,000 (used)
A back seat- fmaxwell, on 05/20/2008, -2/+11You don't require a back seat. With the money you save on gas, you can afford a hotel room.
- Wargalas, on 05/20/2008, -0/+8Giggity.
- fmaxwell, on 05/20/2008, -2/+11You don't require a back seat. With the money you save on gas, you can afford a hotel room.
- gwolf, on 05/21/2008, -0/+3Driving short distances to a from work is what most of us do anyway.
- Tenoq, on 05/21/2008, -0/+2Are there that many people that commute more than 100 miles in a day? Especially in a car?!? How knackered are you at the end of each day after spending 4 hours or more on the road? :p
- pagno, on 05/21/2008, -0/+1"Knackered". I like that :)
- BlueSkyfish, on 05/20/2008, -1/+9For someone like me that lives in the big city and doesn't do more than 40 miles a day, it's perfect. Although as a poor college student, there are two requirements this car doesn't have:
- spammishking, on 05/20/2008, -3/+31for 20,000 I was expecting something that can go further than 100 miles, and take less then 6 hours to charge, but it's a good start
- karel747, on 05/21/2008, -0/+1Well, it's reasonable for most people who live in metropolitan areas or even some suburbs, I think. How many people can say they drive over 100 miles a day? And 6 hours is pretty impressive I think; you plug it in at night, and in the morning it's fully charged, good for another 100 miles...
If you do heavy traveling, or even occasionally, then it's worthless - you'd have to rent a real car.
But all things considered, I think it's a very good start as well.- qwertydvorak, on 05/21/2008, -0/+2you missed the "for 20k part." i think he means at 12-14k it would be a reasonable buy even with the 100 mile range.
- karel747, on 05/21/2008, -0/+1Well, it's reasonable for most people who live in metropolitan areas or even some suburbs, I think. How many people can say they drive over 100 miles a day? And 6 hours is pretty impressive I think; you plug it in at night, and in the morning it's fully charged, good for another 100 miles...
- ecomod, on 05/20/2008, -9/+8at least its cute!
- Csaliture, on 05/20/2008, -11/+53What about this is sporty? Its fugly, the front looks like a smart car. Which is anything but a sports car. A geo metro can go over 80 mph. That doesnt qualify as a sporty in my book. Not even close.
- verivalta, on 05/21/2008, -2/+4The only time I got my old Geo Metro to go over 70 was down hill with a tail-wind and it shook the whole way like it was gonna fall apart.
- GeneralKickass, on 05/23/2008, -0/+1It's about the acceleration not about the velocity.
- bincoder, on 05/20/2008, -2/+7Not quite as vile looking and expensive as I had expected but I would still rather have the 20kW motor/generator retroed into a 63 Vette or even a mid eighties toyota for that matter, getting style, efficiency, and a cheap pre made body backed up with the usual gasoline engine for those moments where you want real performance and a range of 300 miles.
- Shiftgood, on 05/20/2008, -5/+6i know its against making the thing efficent... but people would most likely be more drawn to/ accepting of these vehicles if they had at least 15 - 16 inch wheels...
the thing looks like a toy... and not the toy thats winning the epic battle, the one thats getting crushed.- fmaxwell, on 05/20/2008, -1/+8From the specifications, it comes standard with a 15" alloy wheel.
- prisoner24601, on 05/20/2008, -0/+3I'm surprised no one has released an electric drive (either battery-only or a plug-in hybrid) that uses wheel motors yet. It just seems so obvious that if you are going to push the car with electric motors, place a small one in each wheel and save a lot of wasted space. Several concept cars have been done with this, and industrial trucks (mine pit dumptrucks) have done that for years. Gets rid of any mechanical transmission (the Tesla still has an entire transmission assembly) and greatly simplifies maintenance.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wheel_motor- fmaxwell, on 05/30/2008, -0/+1The biggest problem with wheel motors is that they drastically increase the unsprung weight, causing the handling to go to hell. Take the Mazda Miata for example: Did you know that Mazda had special lightweight tires manufactured for it and that the wheels on it were some of the lightest that could be made? On Buell motorcycles, they use a single disc brake bolted to the rim rather than the hub. They also use "upside-down" forks (with the male slider at the bottom). This is all to reduce unsprung weight by about half a dozen pounds to dramatically improve handling. Wheel motors would be okay if roads did not have expansion joints, potholes, and other imperfections.
- prisoner24601, on 06/01/2008, -0/+1That was actually really fascinating. Thanks for the info. I'm intrigued to see how the Volvo ReCharge does in "real world" handling with this.
- fmaxwell, on 05/30/2008, -0/+1The biggest problem with wheel motors is that they drastically increase the unsprung weight, causing the handling to go to hell. Take the Mazda Miata for example: Did you know that Mazda had special lightweight tires manufactured for it and that the wheels on it were some of the lightest that could be made? On Buell motorcycles, they use a single disc brake bolted to the rim rather than the hub. They also use "upside-down" forks (with the male slider at the bottom). This is all to reduce unsprung weight by about half a dozen pounds to dramatically improve handling. Wheel motors would be okay if roads did not have expansion joints, potholes, and other imperfections.
- Duggan360, on 05/20/2008, -3/+29You call that sporty?
- billessig, on 05/20/2008, -1/+3Yea.. sporty... right... *rolls eyes*
- tastypickles, on 05/20/2008, -5/+2tipping statistics? otherwise pretty cool...
- BlueSkyfish, on 05/20/2008, -1/+17This might not be the best place to ask, but is there a semi-normal looking electric car out there that's mass produced and under 25k?
- swrostmore, on 05/20/2008, -2/+17No. http://www.sonyclassics.com/whokilledtheelectricca ...
- Chandon, on 05/20/2008, -0/+6Nope. Fully-electric cars that are currently in production start at $70,000 or so.
On the other hand, buying a Toyota Prius and having it converted to plug-in hybrid (giving you a ~20 mile pure-electric range) costs around $25k total. - apeweek, on 05/21/2008, -2/+4Yes. You can buy or have built an EV conversion - converting a car can be done for under $10,000.
Here's one outfit that sells parts, kits, completed conversions, etc: http://grassrootsev.com/vehicles.htm - griz, on 05/21/2008, -0/+4I want one for under $15k
If they are $25k you are still better off buying an $8000 used car that gets 40MPG and putting the extra into the gas tank.- Tenoq, on 05/21/2008, -1/+2For now. When it's $20 a gallon you might rethink that equation.
- thedsack, on 05/21/2008, -0/+1Plus its not cute!
- scot333, on 05/20/2008, -10/+8be green and look stupid.
- fmaxwell, on 05/20/2008, -4/+6You're halfway there...
- Atmandk, on 05/20/2008, -2/+2like hummer = genius
- debuffplx, on 05/20/2008, -16/+5It's not as green as they are making it out ot be. Guess where that electricity to power that tampon-like vehicle comes from? Coal, *****. Coal.
- antonio97b, on 05/20/2008, -2/+5Depends on where you live, jackass. Electricity in my area happens to come from a hydroelectric power plant.
- debuffplx, on 05/20/2008, -7/+1But the majority of it comes from coal, assfunnel.
- BuzzedMonkey, on 05/20/2008, -1/+2doesn't swearing make you look soo smart. Anyway, its still more environmentally friendly than conventional cars.
- debuffplx, on 05/20/2008, -7/+1But the majority of it comes from coal, assfunnel.
- BlueSkyfish, on 05/20/2008, -2/+6Coal power plants are much more efficient than individual combustion engines in cars. There are also many nuclear, wind, and hydroelectric power plants in operation. The city I live in gets a large chunk of its power from a nuclear plant about 50 miles away. Las Vegas gets most of its power from the Hoover dam. There was an article yesterday about a series of 667 wind turbines being constructed in Texas. Even if you don't care about the environment, electricity is much cheaper than gas now, so it would be better for you in the long run.
- apeweek, on 05/21/2008, -1/+2EVs are far more efficient than gas vehicles - more miles on less fuel means less pollution, regardless of what gets burned to make electricity.
- antonio97b, on 05/20/2008, -2/+5Depends on where you live, jackass. Electricity in my area happens to come from a hydroelectric power plant.
- geneticlone, on 05/20/2008, -3/+6Um $20,000 really? Plus where I live there is a good chance of some mom in a Suburban accidently driving over me.
- ShempRider, on 05/20/2008, -2/+4I'm all for innovation, and I haven't seen this vehicle's safety ratings, but it looks like a Suburban would drive THROUGH you.
- lpse2000, on 05/21/2008, -2/+2Alright then, let's just outlaw all SUVs.
- ShempRider, on 05/21/2008, -0/+1If gas prices keep going up, no legislation will be necessary. The market will take care of that. In fact, it's already started.
- lpse2000, on 05/21/2008, -2/+2Alright then, let's just outlaw all SUVs.
- Tenoq, on 05/21/2008, -0/+1Just treat it like a bike (pushie or motorcycle) then and you should be fine.
- geneticlone, on 05/21/2008, -0/+1Well i guess if i could drive it on the side walk then i would be fine.
- ShempRider, on 05/20/2008, -2/+4I'm all for innovation, and I haven't seen this vehicle's safety ratings, but it looks like a Suburban would drive THROUGH you.
- bluetytanium, on 05/20/2008, -2/+5http://www.aptera.com
The Aptera > all electric and hybrid cars.- Barackalypse, on 05/20/2008, -6/+2Wow, I was having trouble imaging something more stupid looking than the vehicle in the original post, but you've gone and found one!
- spammishking, on 05/20/2008, -3/+7Tesla > Aptera
http://www.teslamotors.com/
Aptera = top speed for the production model will exceed 85 mph, going from 0-60 in under 10 seconds.
Tesla = 125 mph 0-60 in 3.9 seconds- bluetytanium, on 05/20/2008, -1/+6Aptera = ~$30,000
Tesla Roadster = $***** ton of money - bwdd, on 05/21/2008, -1/+6Tesla wins in every aspect other than price.
- bluetytanium, on 05/20/2008, -1/+6Aptera = ~$30,000
- Schmich, on 05/21/2008, -0/+2Wow, never seen it before. I know quite a few peeps would say it looks rediculous but I frankly love it =)
(@ Aptera vehicule)
- pkulak, on 05/20/2008, -3/+8You guys wine, but 100 miles, 80 mph for 20 grand is a tipping point for a lot of people. Probably myself included.
- cha5e, on 05/20/2008, -1/+4Plus, buried in the site it mentions an add-on pack that will increase range by 25%, although that's not available yet.
I'm curious to see a speed vs range graph. In other words...it can go 80mph, and it can go 100 miles, but I bet it can't go 100 miles at 80mph.
My commute is 55 miles each way...I wonder if I could get my company to put a power outlet outside...
- cha5e, on 05/20/2008, -1/+4Plus, buried in the site it mentions an add-on pack that will increase range by 25%, although that's not available yet.
- SoIcanDigg, on 05/20/2008, -1/+4Is the cool two-tone piant job included or is that extra?
And what is that thing between the headlights? A foglight? - sonicularulus, on 05/20/2008, -5/+4looks like its prone to rolling over...
- TheMachine1, on 05/21/2008, -1/+2The website says its low center of gravity makes it less likely to roll over than many SUV and cars.
- XaN3, on 05/20/2008, -3/+3What do u consider as sporty?
The the gee wiz?
http://farm1.static.flickr.com/81/237501576_6f4a83 ... - antonio97b, on 05/20/2008, -5/+7These electric only powered cars are just impractical. 6 ***** hours to go 100 miles?! I drive about 75 miles a day. I don't want to be grounded because I need 6 hours to charge.
Pointless and stupid, all for around 20k.- jackmon, on 05/20/2008, -4/+11a) Pointless? Most people don't drive 75 miles a day... And even if they do, fine... This vehicle has you covered + 25 miles.
b) Stupid? You can plug it in as soon as you drive home at the end of your 75 mile day (past the gas station while you laugh at all the suckers). Plug it in when you get home and it's fully charged for tomorrow. It's charging from off-peak electricity so it's extremely cheap, and it produces no further emissions.
c) $20k? Ok, I'll give you that one.- antonio97b, on 05/20/2008, -4/+2I drive around 75 then what about extra arrands? I don't want a 25 mile buffer.
I get 55mpg in my daily driver (motorcycle) My motorcycle cost 3k with 10k miles.- jackmon, on 05/20/2008, -2/+1Well, you may not be the perfect candidate for this vehicle. But I don't think that means it's pointless or stupid for most people. I would guess there are a lot of people out there who live within 20 miles from work and who aren't willing to ride a motorcycle. Furthermore, most errands are going to be close to home... like maybe a couple miles to/from the grocery store. Also, while 55mpg is great, I guarantee you that with gas at $4/gallon, you still can't compete with the cost of electricity at 3 or 4 cents a mile. I personally think the price of the vehicle just needs to go down a little so that it's extremely affordable as a second car. Then you can have one vehicle for local stuff and another for long trips.
- jackmon, on 05/20/2008, -2/+1Well, you may not be the perfect candidate for this vehicle. But I don't think that means it's pointless or stupid for most people. I would guess there are a lot of people out there who live within 20 miles from work and who aren't willing to ride a motorcycle. Furthermore, most errands are going to be close to home... like maybe a couple miles to/from the grocery store. Also, while 55mpg is great, I guarantee you that with gas at $4/gallon, you still can't compete with the cost of electricity at 3 or 4 cents a mile. I personally think the price of the vehicle just needs to go down a little so that it's extremely affordable as a second car. Then you can have one vehicle for local stuff and another for long trips.
- antonio97b, on 05/20/2008, -4/+2I drive around 75 then what about extra arrands? I don't want a 25 mile buffer.
- gwolf, on 05/21/2008, -1/+4Then this is clearly not for you. That doesn't make it pointless.
- apeweek, on 05/21/2008, -3/+2I'll tell you what's pointless - gasoline at $4/gallon.
Grid electricity for EVs costs about a penny per mile - that's twenty times cheaper than gas. - zero21xxx, on 05/21/2008, -1/+1Thankfully, you are not the typical American driver.
- jackmon, on 05/20/2008, -4/+11a) Pointless? Most people don't drive 75 miles a day... And even if they do, fine... This vehicle has you covered + 25 miles.
- bodegit, on 05/20/2008, -3/+17Put ANOTHER WHEEL ON IT. I am NOT driving a tricycle.
- fmaxwell, on 05/20/2008, -2/+17And then it becomes a car, not a motorcycle, and it has to have airbags, side impact protection, go through NHTSA crash testing, and comply with every other car-related regulation. It would end up quadrupling in weight, leaving you with a vehicle that went 20mph, cost $40,000, and had a range of 30 miles.
- brownr21, on 05/20/2008, -10/+9That thing is ugly as *****.
- Konrad9, on 05/20/2008, -3/+4Nice looking car but it's too small takes too long to recharge and doesn't go quite far enough.
Oh, and SWEET WEBSITE.
You can't order online.
Can't configure a vehicle online.
Price is entirely too hard to find.
I'd rather spend another $10k and get a Volt.- pkulak, on 05/21/2008, -1/+3haha, you walk up to a GM dealership with your 30 grand and see if you can walk out with a Volt. They are too busy bitching about battery technology to actually build a car.
- 91z4me, on 05/21/2008, -0/+2I think you mean they are to busy testing the battery technology to build the car. The Volt program is right on schedule with production due to being in November 2010.
- pkulak, on 05/21/2008, -1/+3haha, you walk up to a GM dealership with your 30 grand and see if you can walk out with a Volt. They are too busy bitching about battery technology to actually build a car.
- IronDonut, on 05/20/2008, -13/+4You know what pisses me off? Well a lot of stuff. But what is pissing me off about this article and most of the electric car greenie articles is that they always refer to these cars are "zero emissions." What they should be calling them is "just as many emissions as a gas car but since the power plant is 50 miles away I'll pretend it's good for the environment and ignore reality."
Electricity isn't generated in Wonkaland by everlasting gobstoppers. It's generated by burning coal, oil and gas. But as long as you can't see it we can pretend it doesn't exist right?- teaguecl, on 05/20/2008, -0/+15Maybe you should investigate the efficiency of power generation. Even with all the losses of transporting electricity through the grid, a coal powered plant is hundreds of times more efficient than a internal combustion engine.
Also the grid can be cleaned up by replacing coal with solar/wind/hydro - while ICE's are always polluting.
So yes, an electric car powered with energy produced by burning coal is not "zero emissions", though it is much less polluting than a gas powered car. However, this is not the fault of the electric car - it's a problem with where your electricity comes from - bodegit, on 05/20/2008, -0/+10Gasoline powered cars have hidden emissions too, bud. Oil needs to be welled, transported, refined, transported, distributed, and shipped across the country in 18 wheelers to your gas stations. What, did you think gas is a magic potion concocted by elves under the pumps?
- apeweek, on 05/21/2008, -2/+1'Zero Emissions' is like 'Zero Calories'. Most food labeled that way still has some calories. So what? EV emissions are far lower, that's what matters.
Here's a study showing EVs make just 3% of the emissions gas cars do (from power plants.)
Summary: http://www.electric-cars-are-for-girls.com/electri ...
actual study: http://www.energy.ca.gov/papers/CEC-999-1996-015.P ...
"...in a study conducted by the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power, EVs were significantly cleaner over the course of 100,000 miles than ICE cars. The electricity generation process produces less than 100 pounds of pollutants for EVs compared to 3000 pounds for ICE vehicles." - apeweek, on 05/21/2008, -0/+1Did you know an EV-sized solar panel for your garage can be had for as little as $1000? That makes your EV truly zero-emission, the only vehicle that can make this claim.
Side benefit: free fuel for your car. - Superfreak77, on 05/21/2008, -0/+1I just KNEW someone would wave the little "but it's not really Zero..."
SWAT!
Off with your inane comment! Can't have it all son, if just 10% of any clogged city has these running around the sun will shine just a little brighter.
- teaguecl, on 05/20/2008, -0/+15Maybe you should investigate the efficiency of power generation. Even with all the losses of transporting electricity through the grid, a coal powered plant is hundreds of times more efficient than a internal combustion engine.
- j0hnk377y, on 05/20/2008, -2/+3Does the seat fold down so you can work it out with your lady (of course staying within a 50 mile radius of your home).
- Barakolypse, on 05/20/2008, -9/+4***** SUVS SUCK!
- Snarfy, on 05/20/2008, -2/+2The article is missing the all important efficiency rating. Sure it does 80 mph, goes 100 miles on a charge, but what miles per gallon equivalence does it get?
- sheasie, on 05/20/2008, -2/+3The FAQ claims USD 0.02 per mile.
In comparison, Americans are now paying ~3.25/gallon for gas, and a Toyota Yaris gets ~35 miles per gallon = USD 0.09. So yea... that's roughly 80% cheaper than filling up at the gas station. Daaaaayum!
- sheasie, on 05/20/2008, -2/+3The FAQ claims USD 0.02 per mile.
- nard3456, on 05/20/2008, -7/+1Yeah but the electricity comes from a power plant that probably burns coal. When are they going to start manufacturing hydrogen fuel cell cars? Seriously, there only emission is water.
- barius, on 05/20/2008, -0/+6Uh...you are aware that the energy in a hydrogen fuel cell also comes from an external source (i.e. the power grid) right? Hydrogen is not an energy source, it is an energy storage mechanism.
- j0hnk377y, on 05/20/2008, -3/+1Nukes are the way to go. It gives you a solid baseline and coal can be used for spikes.
- apeweek, on 05/21/2008, -0/+2At the hydrogen plant: Water + electricity --> hydrogen.
At your fuel cell: hydrogen --> electricity + water.
That's a reversible chemical process, A BATTERY. The hydrogen merely stores the energy, the same way hydrogen inside a NIMH battery does.
As for coal power plants, this doesn't matter much. EVs are much more efficient, and so much less pollution per mile is generated.
- diggjcarp, on 05/20/2008, -2/+720K for that toyish trike is reasonable? Me thinks not. 2K is more like it.
- mauri824, on 05/20/2008, -2/+2eh, it's a bad attempt at reviving the ev1 if you ask me
at least the ev1 was an actual car... - wigginz, on 05/20/2008, -2/+5OK, you call any car a "trike" and I will not buy it even if it's the most efficient, fastest machine ever made with wheels.
- slcseifist, on 05/20/2008, -4/+7That car looks good enough.... for me to poop on.
- diggjcarp, on 05/20/2008, -0/+3The Tata Nano gets about 50 mpg and costs $2500. Why don't we see that here in the US? http://tatanano.inservices.tatamotors.com/tatamoto ...
- fotbr, on 05/21/2008, -0/+1Because there's no way the nano can comply with all our ***** safety regulations.
- Tenoq, on 05/21/2008, -1/+1More to the point, no one would buy it because it's too small. Americans in general have an aversion to small cars. You've got to wonder if it's because such a large proportion of the population is overweight, and can't FIT in a small car.
- sheasie, on 05/20/2008, -3/+2I wonder how many tons of carbon emissions resulted from the production of this "green car" ? (Did all that steel, plastic and rubber "magically" assemble?)
- apeweek, on 05/21/2008, -1/+2EVs have longer useful lives - electric motors have just one moving part, and can last decades. Check eBay for used electric cars and you will see that EVs often sell for close to their original selling price even a decade or more later (or even considerably more than their selling price, in the case of a car like the Toyota RAV4 EV.)
I drive a 'Jet Industries Electra Van', built in 1981 for an original selling price of $7999. Electra Vans still sell for about $5000, over 25 years later. My Electra Van still has all it's original motor parts. Nothing on the motor has ever required service.
- apeweek, on 05/21/2008, -1/+2EVs have longer useful lives - electric motors have just one moving part, and can last decades. Check eBay for used electric cars and you will see that EVs often sell for close to their original selling price even a decade or more later (or even considerably more than their selling price, in the case of a car like the Toyota RAV4 EV.)
- JointVenture, on 05/20/2008, -1/+5Combustion engines are on their last decade, it happened with horses, it will happen with combustion created horsepower.
Which is a good thing, I want everyone to own one!- MikeFallopian, on 05/21/2008, -0/+0It also happened with electric vehicles. Between horses and internal combustion, battery-electric cars dominated the market.
- BigglesPiP, on 05/20/2008, -2/+5That != sporty
- arniegrape, on 05/20/2008, -0/+5$20,000 huh? We must be working with very different definitions of the word "affordable." The specs look pretty reasonable. I'd drive one despite the tragic looks, just not for $20,000. Under $10k for those specs is affordable.
- apeweek, on 05/21/2008, -1/+2Don't forget that gasoline at $4/gallon works out to 20 cents/mile for a 20mpg car.
Electricity for EVs is only about 1 cent/mile - 20 times cheaper. A typical driver could save hundreds of dollars per month on gasoline. That makes a higher car payment much more affordable. Once the car is paid off, the savings go into your pocket.
- apeweek, on 05/21/2008, -1/+2Don't forget that gasoline at $4/gallon works out to 20 cents/mile for a 20mpg car.
- breakaway, on 05/20/2008, -1/+5I always down shift when I'm near a Prius. And I have a vehicle which uses carburetors.
- digitallysick, on 05/20/2008, -1/+220,000 dollars is a bit much, if they could get it in the 12,000 to 15,000 dollar range, then we have a deal
- samfishercell, on 05/20/2008, -3/+4I always have to wonder about the battery performance on these things. If you start charging before the battery totally dies, won't it cut into the battery life? So with a battery you either strand yourself somewhere, or purposefully shrink your "fuel tank"?
Then again, I don't know a whole lot about how the batteries are implemented in this thing.- apeweek, on 05/21/2008, -1/+4The "battery memory" you are speaking of is a feature of Ni-Cd batteries only, which are not used in EVs.
- KingGorilla, on 05/20/2008, -2/+2If they give it a long tail that moves side to side it looks kinda like a sperm cell. What's more manly than that?
- wait2beborn, on 05/20/2008, -3/+23 wheelers are coming.
Will we adapt to this new designs with one wheel less?
One site only about green 3 wheelers and it has already 19 vehicles: http://3greenwheels.blogspot.com- MikeFallopian, on 05/21/2008, -1/+0Exciting stuff! Next thing you know, there will be vehicles with only 2 wheels!
- jimbo92107, on 05/20/2008, -3/+2The sporty aspect is when you dodge between SUV's, vans, trucks and semis.
- Schmapdi, on 05/20/2008, -0/+6I think in 3-5 years when you can get one of these for 12 grand with double the range they have now you'll really see them start to take off.
- FrankTheTank17, on 05/20/2008, -0/+4Calling that car sporty is an embarassment to... well, every single car ever made.
- Schmapdi, on 05/20/2008, -1/+3Geesh, whats with people in this thread - no one is claiming electric cars are a magical thing crafted by fairies using sunshine and rainbows. Yes they take resources to build, and many will run from coal plants, etc - they are still umpteen times better than a traditional car.
- usafdave, on 05/20/2008, -1/+6Yeah, that'll get you laid.
- blankoboy, on 05/21/2008, -2/+3Pal, if you're relying on your wheels to get you laid you need to start replying to those "Grow your p3nis" mail in your junk folder. =)
- usafdave, on 05/21/2008, -0/+1I'm confused... you walk around with your wang flopping around asking chicks to inspect it before they agree to sleep with you? I think I've identified YOUR problem.
- thedreaming1, on 05/22/2008, -0/+1Megan Fox: "Ooooo I just love guys with Trikes!"
Idiot: "Really?"
Megan Fox: "Oh yeah, guys with Trikes are well hung, everyone knows that!"
Idiot: "Really?"
Ashton: "NO! What are you stupid or something!?"
Megan Fox: "HAHAHAHAHHAHAHA! Loser!"
Ashton: "You've been Punked!"
Idiot: "Stop laughing at me!" Takes gun out, kills both Megan and Ashton.
- blankoboy, on 05/21/2008, -2/+3Pal, if you're relying on your wheels to get you laid you need to start replying to those "Grow your p3nis" mail in your junk folder. =)
- cjnkns, on 05/20/2008, -1/+220G's! 15,000 maybe ...
- p51d007, on 05/21/2008, -2/+4And it will fall FLAT ON ITS ASS. No person (other than full fledged tree hugging Algore types) would be caught
dead in this, well, not actually. They would get caught dead, the first time you are in a car crash with one of these
overpriced motorcycles. - JaNkz, on 05/21/2008, -0/+4This thing looks like it would fold like t-shirt in a wreck.
-
Show 51 - 74 of 74 discussions
Browsing Digg on your phone just got easier with our enhancements to the 
© Digg Inc. 2008 —
Content posted by
