backtop

Print E-mail del.icio.us 80 comment(s) - last by timmiser.. on Feb 22 at 2:54 AM

Images courtesy AutoblogGreen

Dynamic Vehicle Control

Hybrid Powertrain

Safety Features
Venture Vehicles' VentureOne to be available in hybrid and all-electric versions

Hybrid technology just got a little bit cooler with the unveiling of the Venture Vehicles VentureOne. This 3-wheel plug-in hybrid promises 0-60 times in under 6 seconds, a top speed of 100MPH, a range of 350 miles and a price tag south of $20,000.

The 1,200 pound VentureOne is classified as a motorcycle by the NHTSA since it features three wheels. And similar to a motorcycle, the passenger compartment of the VentureOne can tilt 45 degrees left or right when entering a corner. Venture Vehicles calls the system Dynamic Vehicle Control or DVC and it is currently in its 18th generation.

The hydro-mechanical DVC system uses a combination of the driver's input from the steering wheel and the tilting of the chassis to maintain balance and direction of travel. Chassis tilt is nominal at low vehicle speeds as the steering angle of the front wheel dictates the direction of travel. As speed increases, the angle of the front wheel is not a major factor in changing direction -- the driver's input is instead transferred to the tilt of the chassis which in turn provide direction change.

For propulsion, the hybrid versions of the VentureOne use a small gasoline engine, a 15kW (VentureOne e50) or 20 kW (VentureOne Q100) generator, two in-wheel 25 kW electric motors, a four gallon fuel tank and a 3 kWh lithium-ion battery. The all-electric Venture EV uses two 20 kW electric motors and a 17 kWh lithium-ion battery pack.

According to Venture Vehicle founder Ian Bruce, the lithium-ion batteries used in the VentureOne weigh only 45 pounds compared to the 900 pounds for the all-electric Tesla roadster.

The VentureOne e50 has a top speed of 100MPH, can run 0-60 in under 6 seconds and has a driving range of 350 miles. The VentureOne Q100 pushes the top speed to 120MPH with a 0-60 time of under 5 seconds. Range, however, drops to 300 miles. The all-electric VentureOne EV features a top speed of 75MPH, 0-60 time of 8 seconds and a range of 120 miles.

Prices are expected to range from $18,500 for the hybrid VentureOne e50 to $23,000 for the all-electric VentureOne EV.

Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled
Winter Driving
By livinloud on 2/20/2007 9:07:27 AM , Rating: 2
It's seems to be a real good car for people that don't have snow. But what about people living in colder place like Québec.




RE: Winter Driving
By arazok on 2/20/2007 9:16:59 AM , Rating: 3
Snow tires and mittens?


RE: Winter Driving
By Cunthor01 on 2/20/2007 9:35:51 AM , Rating: 2
Not live in Canada...?


RE: Winter Driving
By corduroygt on 2/20/2007 11:40:35 AM , Rating: 3
Global warming?


RE: Winter Driving
By joust on 2/20/2007 2:53:05 PM , Rating: 2
hahaha yeah!

Quebec and Canada could moderate the extremely cold climates in 50 years by having a national pro SOX/COX/NOX emission campaign!

Of course, with global warming, it seems likely there will be winners and losers. I think people tend to overemphasize the losers (those in the tropics) and under-emphasize the winners (Europe, USA, Canada). I'm pro global warming -- it'll make New England milder.


RE: Winter Driving
By masher2 (blog) on 2/20/2007 3:27:46 PM , Rating: 2
> "I think people tend to overemphasize the losers (those in the tropics)..."

Global warming affects primarily the coldest, driest portions of the planet. Northern Siberia for instance. Tropical regions are essentially not affected...many of them have actually been cooling slightly the past few decades.


RE: Winter Driving
By Master Kenobi (blog) on 2/20/2007 3:54:41 PM , Rating: 2
So we are experiencing a minor climate shift.... Nothing to see here folks, move along.


RE: Winter Driving
By arazok on 2/20/2007 4:53:07 PM , Rating: 2
Agreed, but I will never recover my investment through gas savings at current gas prices. This is the problem with existing hybrids. The average added cost of a hybrid engine is about $3,000. It takes the life time of the car just to recoup the extra cost, offering zero net savings for the consumer. Gas would need to double to make this a wise investment, and that's not factoring in added maintenance costs for the complex engine.

Why can't they make a car that is useless for everything except for getting one person to work, and costs little to buy and operate? I don't need this to be a hybrid. I just want a car that serves a purpose for me.

This car will fail because everything else at the same price point is so much better. I can buy a Mazda 3 for the same price, and have all the benefits of a large car. Why would I spend 20K so people can laugh at the guy in the funny car? Sell it to me for under 10K, and I'll have a reason to laugh back.


RE: Winter Driving
By arazok on 2/20/2007 4:54:11 PM , Rating: 2
Why did this get posted here? My bad? Oh well, this belongs at the bottom of the original thread's last response. Not here.


RE: Winter Driving
By arazok on 2/20/2007 11:49:03 AM , Rating: 2
Toronto, actually.

I don't see why I couldn't drive this in the winter. It's enclosed and perfectly stable with 3 wheels. Granted, I might not go screaming through a blizzard in this thing, but a light snowfall on the road doesn't look like it would be a big deal with proper tires.

Offer me this for under $6,000, and I might look at it as a commuter car.


RE: Winter Driving
By Polynikes on 2/20/2007 1:16:10 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Offer me this for under $6,000, and I might look at it as a commuter car.


That's like saying "Offer me a Ferrari for under $20,000 and I'll buy it. It's not happening any time soon.


RE: Winter Driving
By arazok on 2/20/2007 2:00:47 PM , Rating: 2
But it's not a Ferrari, it's an itty-bitty micro car, that seats one (two if you're passenger is a Smurf), and runs on an uber-lawn mower engine. The $20K price point quotes is laughable. I'm no tree hugger. I can buy a full sized car or Hybrid for that price, and I won't spend that money on something so I can fool myself into thinking I'm solving some environmental crisis.

I would love a car that seats 1-2, is fuel efficient, can handle highway speeds, and has minimal storage capability - just to get me to and from work. I'm in a two car family, and can use the other car to lug groceries. I don't need two full sized cars.

The Mercedes Smart car is an example of what I would like. However, the Mercedes is so overpriced that I can't help but laugh at the morons I see who actually purchased these things. It's half a car, it should be half the price.


RE: Winter Driving
By idconstruct on 2/20/2007 3:49:45 PM , Rating: 2
keep in mind the fact that you'll be saving about two-thirds of your gas money...

hybrids are also more expensive to manufacture


RE: Winter Driving
By bohhad on 2/21/2007 12:22:35 AM , Rating: 2
i'd guess you'd save even more than two-thirds, 350 miles with 4 gallons of fuel... 88 miles a gallon?


RE: Winter Driving
By nurbsenvi on 2/21/2007 12:59:03 AM , Rating: 2
I'll strongly consider it if it was US$15,000.


RE: Winter Driving
By semo on 2/20/2007 9:23:59 AM , Rating: 5
it's not a car
quote:
The 1,200 pound VentureOne is classified as a motorcycle by the NHTSA since it features three wheels.
if you can't use it, don't buy it. not all cars/motorcycles are suited for every conditions anyway.


RE: Winter Driving
By Milliamp on 2/20/2007 9:46:46 AM , Rating: 1
I agree, concepts like this are designed every year (http://www.gizmag.com/automotive/ ), but we never see them on the roads.

People in the US are not even interested in buying anything as small as a Hyundai. Even if they were interested, the car would never make it past crash tests and government regulations.

There is a reason that you can't find anything other than motorcycles for sale under 2,500 lbs unless you assemble it yourself and register it as a "kit car".

Cool idea but you have a snowballs chance in hell of ever actually being able to buy one and drive it around.


RE: Winter Driving
By Brandon Hill (blog) on 2/20/2007 9:56:53 AM , Rating: 5
quote:
There is a reason that you can't find anything other than motorcycles for sale under 2,500 lbs unless you assemble it yourself and register it as a "kit car".


What about the Lotus Elise (1,984 pounds), Lotus Exige (2,015 pounds), Toyota Yaris (2,293 pounds), Honda Fit (2,432 pounds), Hyundai Accent (2,366 pounds), etc. I could go on, but I don't think I need to :-)

All available for sale in the United States and all meet federal safety and crash standards.


RE: Winter Driving
By Milliamp on 2/21/2007 5:24:44 PM , Rating: 2
So what? You named off all of 5 cars.

Lotus is god awful expensive and the rest are within a couple hundred pounds of 2500.

You even mentioned the Honda Fit that has a dry weight that is all of 68 lbs under my 2500 lb estimate.

Given that even cars like the Honda accord are now over 3,000 lbs, I'd say my point is sustained.


RE: Winter Driving
By Kuroyama on 2/20/2007 12:58:00 PM , Rating: 2
Apparently you and I live in different Americas, because I see Hyundai's all over the place; more often than Mitsubishis or Mazda's, and perhaps with the same prevalence as Subaru's, although admittedly not as often as say a Honda or Toyota.


RE: Winter Driving
By Milliamp on 2/21/2007 7:13:26 PM , Rating: 2
What doe that prove? Even Hyundai is going up market with larger cars (where the market is).

With the exception of the 2500 lb Accent, almost all Hyundai vehicles are well over 3,000 lbs. (7 of the 9 vehicles in their lineup are ~3,500 lbs or greater)

Additionally, I don't know _anyone_ who drives an Accent because it is a small car, rather they are driving an Accent because they can't afford something bigger.

If you think people are going to rush out to buy a car that is 2x the price with 1/10th of the interior room you have much to learn about Americans.

The car being hybrid or electric would be quiet, and given that it sits so low to the ground it would be nearly invisible in the blind spot of even a small car.

Given that so much of the structure is glass, it would probably crush like a pop can in the event of an accident.

I am telling you there is almost no market for it and like many other similar designsin the past, it will never make it out of concepts stages.

I am nearly always right about these things.


Safety?
By timmiser on 2/20/2007 1:25:41 PM , Rating: 2
I'd hate to get in a wreck with one of those.




RE: Safety?
By Rekonn on 2/20/2007 2:30:31 PM , Rating: 2
I'd hate to get in a wreck while driving a motorcyle too, but lots of people still drive those every day.


RE: Safety?
By SmokeRngs on 2/20/2007 3:24:35 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
I'd hate to get in a wreck while driving a motorcyle too, but lots of people still drive those every day.


A motorcycle has better handling, agility and acceleration so the ability to avoid an accident is actually greater as long as there is time to avoid it.

There are trade offs to everything.


RE: Safety?
By idconstruct on 2/20/2007 4:04:37 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
A motorcycle has better handling, agility and acceleration so the ability to avoid an accident is actually greater as long as there is time to avoid it.


Where the hell did you pull that from? If anything the extra wheel would add more stability in a sharp turn.

Besides, most major accidents aren't the type of accident you can just avoid by having any kind of extra mechanical agility...


RE: Safety?
By Hoser McMoose on 2/20/2007 5:14:13 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
Besides, most major accidents aren't the type of accident you can just avoid by having any kind of extra mechanical agility..

Just extra mechanical agility, perhaps not, but that is one of the many factors that allows vehicles to avoid accidence. This is why import luxury cars pretty consistently come out as being the safest vehicles to drive in, while SUVs tend to be average at best and pickup trucks are some of the least safe vehicles to drive.

Agility combined with good braking ability, along with a very healthy dose of intelligent driving, are critical to avoiding accidents, and MOST accidents CAN and SHOULD be avoided.

Of course, that being said, motorcycles are BY FAR the least safe class of vehicle to be in (err, on). The rate of fatalities in motorcycles is SIGNIFICANTLY higher than those for cars, some studies have found it to be 30-50 times higher!

The problem with motorcycles are many. First off, as you hint at, having only 2 wheels means a motorcycle can lose stability MUCH more easily then a car. Then there's the issue of being thrown from the vehicle, with no real option to have a seatbelt to prevent that, let alone an air bag or anything of that sort. There's also the lack of a safety cage in motorcycles vs. cars.

Reading through the above list it should become immediately apparent that this 3-wheeled vehicle could easily be made MUCH safer than a typical motorcycle, even if it is classed as such.


RE: Safety?
By timmiser on 2/20/2007 7:26:25 PM , Rating: 3
Without energy absorbing crush zones that you have in a car or truck, I would much rather be on a motorcycle and take my chances getting thrown from the bike then be trapped in that coffin.


RE: Safety?
By senbassador on 2/20/2007 10:32:39 PM , Rating: 2
"Just extra mechanical agility, perhaps not, but that is one of the many factors that allows vehicles to avoid accidence. This is why import luxury cars pretty consistently come out as being the safest vehicles to drive in, while SUVs tend to be average at best and pickup trucks are some of the least safe vehicles to drive."

Or its also possible that you are confusing correlation with causation. It IS possible that people who buy luxury cars would also be more careful driving them (true, you can't avoid ALL accidents) and/or if they're car enthusiasts as opposed to just casual drivers who care about getting from point A to point B might make better drivers.


RE: Safety?
By Etsp on 2/20/2007 11:47:48 PM , Rating: 2
It's also possible that many people don't SEE motorcycles when they (the motorcycles) are behind the SUV's and Trucks, and so, people try to pull out in front of them not knowing that the motorcycle is there.


RE: Safety?
By rushfan2006 on 2/21/2007 10:22:38 AM , Rating: 2
Ok enough..you folks have to make something simple sound so complex just to get your little one ups on each other...its bullshit, granted I can't deny the entertainment factor though..but its mostly bullshit...

The number one factor to safe driving....I don't care what you drive....is the DRIVER. Not your fancy smancy roll cages, not your computerized stabilizier 2000 DX-9 5343 Ultra super great smooth rider system, not your NHRA certified super ultra delux-o-matic 9000 brakes.....

Its the driver....if you drive like a careless ass, if you don't pay attention to how others drive around you...it will catch up to you....and you will get hurt or even die.

Does this technology help - of course it does...but its not a substitute for paying attention and good old fashion good driving skills.

we are humans...as such we will always be prone to mistakes...sadly its when and where we make those mistakes ...because sometimes it can cost lives.

They call it an "accident" for a reason....so you can't always predict when one will happen and we sure as hell can predict what the folks around us are gonna do.

So you maintain your vehicle so its not a POS and that's fit for safe driving...you don't drive like a flaming moron, pay attention to the rode and others around you...beyond all that you just have faith just like anything you do and hope for the best.


RE: Safety?
By Ringold on 2/21/2007 5:22:51 PM , Rating: 2
I agree, but I think some peoples point here is that between having good driving skills or having mass and crumple-zones and plentiful space to pack in additional airbags, most people would like the latter (along with the former).

I don't know how many times during my own highway driving where I've been cruising along whistling dixie and some ass that doesn't see me tries to change lanes or do some other such idiotic thing. Maneuverability and awareness doesn't help there. Aluminum and airbags help there.

I saw the most potentially horific, but applicable, thing just about a month ago.

I was sitting at a stop light in a right lane that was backed up a bit, and motorcycle came up and was ahead of me in the lane to my left. I was checkin' out his sweet hog and hear the all too familiar sound of locked-up tires screeching against pavement. Car coming off the highway slowed down too late, and stopped with perhaps 2 inches to spare. Another half-second delay on the part of the girl driving and that'd of been a dead cycle rider. Same with one of these contraptions -- would've been smashed in to the back of the car in front of it. But a mid-size sedan or SUV in the same situation? One really banged up bumper.

So, yeah, I wouldn't call it BS. Calling it a death trap seems accurate enough; just like motorcycles are themselves. I'm not for banning small or heavy vehicles. Free choice. People that buy something like this shouldn't be surprised when they die violently, and people that buy a Tahoe shouldn't be surprised when they take a sharp turn and roll over ten times.


Looks roomy
By MonkeyPaw on 2/20/2007 9:09:21 AM , Rating: 2
Does the girl in the backseat have no legs? I don't think a 300-350 mile range will matter, as it doesn't look too comfy back there.




RE: Looks roomy
By marvdmartian on 2/20/2007 9:31:32 AM , Rating: 2
Yeah, something like this might be good for a single person, or a single parent with one kid, perhaps even for dad to take to work and leave the family car for mom to drive (in other words, a commuter vehicle).

However, a family vehicle it's not. And I wonder how long it would be before someone would mod a larger gas tank onto it, to extend the range past 350 miles?? ;)


RE: Looks roomy
By AnnihilatorX on 2/20/2007 9:34:39 AM , Rating: 2
Check the logo of this article and you'll see a schematic of how the passenger fit into the chair


RE: Looks roomy
By johnsonx on 2/20/2007 10:25:25 PM , Rating: 2
looks comfy!


RE: Looks roomy
By e090 on 2/20/2007 10:37:25 PM , Rating: 2
If you go to their website and look at the movies, I see standard sized adults jumping into the backseat of them. Probably not a ton of room but neither does my car.


20k kills the deal.
By Mitch101 on 2/20/2007 3:41:44 PM , Rating: 3
20K for 1/3 the material of a typical car? Thats like buying a $500.00 PDA when you can get a laptop for the same cash.

Make it $7500 and I would consider it as that is all I want is a single to dual passenger vehicle for my commute to and from work.




RE: 20k kills the deal.
By idconstruct on 2/20/2007 3:54:19 PM , Rating: 2
...and 1/3 the typical car's gas usage (assuming the typical car in question can achieve about 33mpg)

According to specs they're making a 4 gallon tank last 350 miles... thats pretty darn good


RE: 20k kills the deal.
By Mitch101 on 2/20/2007 4:34:00 PM , Rating: 2
This is the worst case scenario.

The difference is 10 gallons a week between my car and this one. Times lets say $2.40 a gallon times 50 weeks a year for work = $1200.00 a year difference. Even if gas were to be $3.00 a gallon that would be $1500.00 a year in gas over my existing vehicle.

Over a 4 year period thats $4,800-$6000 which puts it in line with a $15,000 car or this thing. Which is around the cost of a Nissan Sentra New $16,000.

I would take the Nissan Sentra over this and that would close the gap on the $1000 difference because the Sentra gets better gas milage than my current car.

I would put a value on this thing at around $12 from my original estimate worth of $7500 though but it must be cheaper than the Sentra in cost off the lot.


RE: 20k kills the deal.
By Mitch101 on 2/20/2007 4:35:23 PM , Rating: 2
Corrected:
I would put a value on this thing at around $12,000 from my original estimate worth of $7500 though but it must be cheaper than the Sentra in cost off the lot.


Safety
By Egglick on 2/20/2007 12:15:49 PM , Rating: 2
This thing looks like an absolute blast to drive, and very economical. Like others have said though, the problem is how well it will stand up to getting hit by one of these big bastard SUVs.

Any car that gets less than 20mpg around town should be slammed with a heavy gas-guzzler tax, unless it can be shown that it's used for work purposes.




RE: Safety
By SmokeRngs on 2/20/07, Rating: 0
RE: Safety
By idconstruct on 2/20/2007 3:59:31 PM , Rating: 2
your first statement is fine, but why the hell would you want to increase our dependency on foreign oil? And if they give tax breaks for buying more gas, gas prices would go up because of increased demand.


RE: Safety
By typo101 on 2/20/2007 6:36:21 PM , Rating: 2
He is not suggesting a gas guzzling tax to help with the government's financial situation, he's suggesting it as an incentive to make North Americans more environmentally friendly when making car purchases.


RE: Safety
By FITCamaro on 2/20/2007 4:02:04 PM , Rating: 1
Almost all V8 SUVs are subject to the gas guzzler tax.

And I wouldn't drive that thing if you gave it to me. I wouldn't trust it 100 mph either. I'm not into giant SUVs that I don't need but I like 4 wheels. If the front tire blew out on that thing you'd be f'ed. And yes, practically any car short of a Geo hitting that thing would probably result in the passengers being severally injured if not killed.

First you'd smash your head into the glass on either side. Plus the other car would crumple the body of the "car" into your legs and or body. Even if it did have a roll cage metal has to go somewhere and with that thing, it goes into you. If you hit a tree or wall you wouldn't have legs anymore. An SUV would rip through that thing like paper (regardless of your personal opinion on them they are here and aren't going anywhere). Even a simple rear end collision would probably smash the rear of the thing through the seat. Finally, assuming you survived the crash and are conscious, I doubt you could get the door open because it'd probably be smashed. Hell, it might have just flown open subjecting you to whatever the car is about it hit.

And yes, I doubt someone 6' tall could get in that back seat unless their legs are on the ground dragging underneath the car. That back seat makes my past Camaro's back seat look like paradise.


Hmm..
By Raidin on 2/20/2007 9:45:35 AM , Rating: 3
Wonder what the Carver thinks of this...

http://www.carver-worldwide.com




RE: Hmm..
By sdsdv10 on 2/20/2007 10:10:55 AM , Rating: 2
Go to the Venture One website and click on the "strategic partners" link. You will see that Carver is a partner of this company. Because of that, I believe Carver thinks quite highly of this endeavor and hopes they are successful.


cool eh...
By semo on 2/20/2007 9:20:41 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Hybrid technology just got a little bit cooler with the unveiling of the Venture Vehicles VentureOne
well that ... thing hasn't been released yet so i'd say the market is still just the way it was. if we're talking about 'cool', i think honda hybrids are winners (in terms of looks).

is this motorcycle thingy driven directly from the ice or electric motors powered by the ice?




RE: cool eh...
By e090 on 2/20/2007 10:40:19 PM , Rating: 2
This is the next generation of hybrids if you ask me. Honda has an electric boost of a gas engine. The Prius has a dual drive system. This is an electric vehicle with a gasoline generator which is why they talk about kilowatt. This is really an EV with a range extender. _Exactly_ the right model.


Light-Cycle
By Demons on 2/20/2007 1:46:28 PM , Rating: 4
Is anyone else reminded of Tron?




lol
By nomagic on 2/20/2007 4:44:44 PM , Rating: 2
From what I see in the picture, the crash rating will suck compared to a regular sedan. Imagine that a SUV runs into this thing on high way. I guess it is better than a motorcycle nonetheless.




RE: lol
By e090 on 2/20/2007 10:52:00 PM , Rating: 2
Size isn't everything as evidenced by this article comparing the Mini Cooper's crash test rating with a F150.

http://www.bridger.us/2002/12/16/CrashTestingMINIC...


Interesting comments
By bernardl on 2/20/2007 11:01:03 PM , Rating: 2
I was surprised to see how people here seem to be concerned by their own safety but care little about others.

It is rather obvious from a global standpoint that more large cars on the road (SUVs for instance) mean more deadly accidents for those people that drive the smaller cars.

Is there no sense of civic responsibility at all? Are we in favour of a society that promotes selfishness to that extend?

As far as I am concerned, I'd probably rather die than cause the death of someone else.

Back on the initial topic, this car seems to be a great addition to the marketplace, just like bikes are. Its small size and good fuel efficiency makes it a perfect candidate for many urban areas.

Cheers,
Bernard




RE: Interesting comments
By gotincon on 2/20/2007 11:45:44 PM , Rating: 2
Why would I care about someone else who I don't even know above my own life? I gave my F-150 to my fiance to drive over her civic because in a intercept event, mass wins. Being over 2x as heavy, higher, and more room between exterior and occupant due to larger size all leads to more safety. I'd rather her kill someone else than have them kill her.


Just like the movie.
By nurbsenvi on 2/21/2007 12:46:29 AM , Rating: 2
I don't know about you guys but this reminds me of that car in the Minority Report.

If they can reduce the price a bit and pull off the design exactly like the picture shown here, I've got a gut feeling that this might just have bigger impact than the Tesla Roadster. It could potentially spark the whole EV boom which Tesla Motors hasn't achieved so far.




RE: Just like the movie.
By mindless1 on 2/21/2007 5:43:04 AM , Rating: 2
If we could only convince China to make a few dozen knock-off clones then the price could be very attractive.


Is anyone else wondering...
By Woodchuck2000 on 2/20/2007 12:14:09 PM , Rating: 1
...about the car's centre of gravity in the cornering diagram?!?

Why on earth have they drawn it half-way up the chassis, and right over to the left? The centre-of gravity of a car does not move when you corner...




RE: Is anyone else wondering...
By gotincon on 2/20/2007 11:42:02 PM , Rating: 2
Because the marketing department has noone in it with a technical degree and in fact are physics idiots.

The CG is probably 2 feet off the ground and dead center and biased slightly to the front of the car. (for any typical car)

Maybe they were using a car with a 200 gallon gas tank on that side of the car right after filling up. Man it sure does lean during a corner.....


I want one with laser walls
By haris on 2/20/2007 9:24:37 AM , Rating: 2
If they come with a laser wall projector in the back I want one!




pretty cool
By ElJefe69 on 2/20/2007 10:52:45 AM , Rating: 2
It's a nice design and probably a blast to drive.

until some bimbo in a fake hummer like a hummer2-3 decides to talk on her cell phone and runs over you. the air bag will deploy and make your corpse available for an open casket.

G I JOOOOOOOOEEE!!




Motorcycle category?
By Cybercat on 2/20/2007 2:46:00 PM , Rating: 2
I guess I shouldn't be surprised, but I bet a motorcycle would be harder to drive than one of these things, and yet you'd have to learn how to drive a motorcycle to get the required liscense to drive this vehicle. I've never felt comfortable on a motorcycle, but I probably wouldn't have a problem on this.




It does not make sense
By Davelo on 2/20/2007 6:04:52 PM , Rating: 2
They market this thing as a gas saving commuter. Who would use a death trap like that to commute? I know I would not want to be out in the hiway of semis and suvs especially if it was raining. Commuting is already enough of a nightmare.




Slightly misleading title
By Madzombie on 2/20/2007 8:40:36 PM , Rating: 2
The title implies that the car can do 100mph at 100mph, which really would be an impressive feat, but 100mpg by itself is nothing special anymore. The VW Lupo 3L was a production car that could get 78mpg. It had 4 wheels, could seat 4 passengers, had luggage space and did not skimp on safety features. In short, it was a real car. If VW could make a 78mpg car without hybrid technology then a 100mpg glorfied motorcycle that does use it is not particularly impressive.




Two seats?
By 9nails on 2/21/2007 2:06:24 AM , Rating: 2
As long as the passenger is free from lower extremities such as legs, this vehicle will accommodate two occupants.

One of my small gripes about riding a motorcycle to and from work instead of driving my cage is the lack of climate control and cargo space; well, that, the need to fix your helmet hair where ever you end up. Seems this will do instead, but the real test to see if this is a "motorcycle" is to find out if the other riders wave back to you!




I dont want to die.
By sc3252 on 2/20/07, Rating: -1
RE: I dont want to die.
By DocDraken on 2/20/2007 1:48:22 PM , Rating: 2
Logical solution is of course to outlaw large vehicles or atleast tax them so highly that much fewer are sold.


RE: I dont want to die.
By mezman on 2/20/07, Rating: 0
RE: I dont want to die.
By Brainonska511 on 2/20/2007 2:25:21 PM , Rating: 3
Fine. Let's all drive tanks. That'll solve the problem, until someone gets a bigger tank.


RE: I dont want to die.
By raionz on 2/20/2007 4:26:23 PM , Rating: 2
bingo!

this obsession over bigger vehicles because its better for a 'crash' is absurd.

If you ask me, I would want to avoid an accident rather than making sure in a crash I have more metal tonnage.

Its the same idea you have smoke detectors in your house instead of fireproofing everything.


RE: I dont want to die.
By BladeVenom on 2/20/2007 6:12:02 PM , Rating: 2
Are you even old enough to drive? None of the accidents I've been in have been my fault, and in half of those my car was stopped. None of them have been avoidable by me. Try avoiding an accident when your car is stopped.


RE: I dont want to die.
By mindless1 on 2/21/2007 5:41:39 AM , Rating: 2
I'd like to see some people get charged with manslaughter if the occupants of an opposing smaller vehicle die, no matter what caused the accident! It's about time people take responsibility for their choices in life. The prime candidate to charge will one who had fewer than 3 passengers or insufficient cargo to justify a large vehicle for regular commuting, who were essentially driving around a battering ram without justification, and one that is less agile than a smaller car at that.


RE: I dont want to die.
By SmokeRngs on 2/20/2007 3:20:05 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I like this vehicle, so when that go-cart smashes into the side of my vehicle I am guaranteed to die. Thanks, that just what we need a small vehicle that will get many people killed.


Fixed for accuracy.


RE: I dont want to die.
By Merry on 2/20/2007 3:21:43 PM , Rating: 2
I think it would stand up pretty well in a crash, it has quite a sturdy rollcage by the looks of it. Besides big doesn't always square with safe.

Its a shame you know someone who lost somebody in a car accident, but i presumer you're referring to an old beetle, which, in terms of design, is over 50 years old. It really isn't going to be safe regardless of what you hit.

If they ever released it, and i could afford it, i'd have one, probably as a second car for when theres just me driving somewhere or something.


RE: I dont want to die.
By Hoser McMoose on 2/20/2007 5:28:38 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I think it would stand up pretty well in a crash, it has quite a sturdy roll cage by the looks of it.

Just in case anyone is in doubt of what a good roll cage can do to protect an occupant, check out this video of Katerine Legge from last year:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MWYPa-Aqt_E

Then you like you can check out this interview with her from a few minutes later after she walked away with only minor bruises and a stiff neck:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8h2iqmliVMk

Point being, 50 tons of metal does not make a vehicle safe, intelligent design does.


RE: I dont want to die.
By Hoser McMoose on 2/20/2007 4:48:02 PM , Rating: 2
To EVERYONE who believes the "bigger is safer" concept, I'd HIGHLY recommend you read the following:

http://www.gladwell.com/2004/2004_01_12_a_suv.html

They do not list the Beetle's safety record, but I'm fairly certain that it is based off the same chassis as the Jetta which is listed. The Jetta actually came out as being one of the safest cars on the road to be in, about equal with the Suburban and safer than any of the other 6 SUVs listed.

The Jetta was also more than twice as safe to drive in as a Ford F-series truck. For every million drivers of Jettas only 47 were killed as compared to 110 drivers per million for the F-series. Basically large SUVs and especially large pickup trucks represent the worst of both worlds. They are absolutely no safer for the drivers of those vehicles while at the same time making the roads much LESS safe for all drivers, cyclist and pedestrians.

Bigger is NOT safer. The numbers are there to prove it!


RE: I dont want to die.
By timmiser on 2/20/2007 7:43:01 PM , Rating: 1
In safety tests, vehicles are driven into a brick wall where the mass of the vehicle comes into play which is why trucks and large SUV's, which are about twice as heavy as cars, don't fare as well.

However, in real world crashes, trucks and large SUV's are safer because they are usually not smashing into brick walls, they are smashing into smaller vehicles and therefore doing better than they do in the labratory testing.

Same thing goes for very small cars, they will tend to smash into bigger vehicles and typically do much worse in real world crashes when compared to crashing into that brick wall.


RE: I dont want to die.
By Etsp on 2/20/2007 11:44:58 PM , Rating: 2
I don't think they kill people in lab testing... he said specifically more people per million die in an accidents in larger cars/trucks/suv's than people in smaller cars. This is real world statistics, not lab tests.


RE: I dont want to die.
By Ringold on 2/21/2007 5:04:15 PM , Rating: 1
And statistics lie, you ought to know that.

What factors were accounted for? Does it account for the fact that young (inexperienced) guys are much more likely to be driving (wrecklessly) a red 2-door pick up truck than a girly VW Beetle or a more expensive Jetta?

They'll only account for that if that jives with what ever bias they wish to reflect in the data.


RE: I dont want to die.
By timmiser on 2/22/2007 2:54:03 AM , Rating: 2
Possibly this is because everybody is driving Ford pickups. (Ford F-150 is the highest selling vehicle in the USA by far)


RE: I dont want to die.
By e090 on 2/20/2007 10:34:43 PM , Rating: 2
The problem with this thinking is that the majority of crashes are single vehicle crashes where large vehicles do significantly worse. The safest car on the road per mile driven is supposedly the Honda Civic. It is underpowered which resists understeering and other high speed accidents and you don't feel invincible. SUVs are 25% more likely in being involved in a fatal crash:

http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/pdf/nrd-30/NCSA/TSF20...

Oh, and you are more likely to kill someone if you drive a SUV.


"Intel is investing heavily (think gazillions of dollars and bazillions of engineering man hours) in resources to create an Intel host controllers spec in order to speed time to market of the USB 3.0 technology." -- Intel blogger Nick Knupffer











botimage
Copyright 2010 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki