TeamYankee2 (January 1, 1970 at 7:29 am)

Ahh it costs too much right now!Maybe 4th generation with AC motors and regen braking, lithium ion/polymer batteries.. now that would be an excellent one to have!

nepoereh (January 1, 1970 at 7:29 am)

Haw much it costs ?

Toophless1 (January 1, 1970 at 7:29 am)

And your considered professional opinion is? Your comment is nothing more that dribble. Atleast Rick had taken his idea to a viable, working model. You have done what? Posted a lame comment. Nicely done. That ought to earn you something I'm sure, but not sure what.

tsport100 (January 1, 1970 at 7:29 am)

A $10k target is just fantacy.

Toophless1 (January 1, 1970 at 7:29 am)

I recently rode in this car. I had dinner with Rick Woodbury and spent an evening talking to him about this concept car. Concept car? No, concept yes, concept car...no. His idea isn't to make a wooden Flintstone vehicle. Its a car that will protect a communter during rush hour traffic, get them to work on time, save space on the freeway, and at a cost per mile that so far can't be met by any hybrid or ICE. I'm going to buy one of these as soon as the price is at his target of $10k each.

DanFrederiksen (January 1, 1970 at 7:29 am)

you don't get me because you don't want to listen to reason. you don't want to move intellectually.you are absolutely correct it would fall over if it weighed much less. that is exactly the problem with the design. I'm not asking too much of the company, merely saying it's a fundamentally limited design. better with thin outboard wheels. stable and can be made ultra light thus more efficient and faster, more easily. it's not as narrow but that can't be helped. deal with it

ffsallnamestaken (January 1, 1970 at 7:29 am)

I dont get you, realy i dont. You complain about wierd things like weight, without that weight it should be limited to 10mph for safety as it would tip over in every corner otherwice. And the aerodynamic aspect lets just say this: Its half the size so half the air resistance already. You demand way to mutch from a tiny company building these things in a garage. Maybe when/if they get mass production you will get your superexpensive version.

DanFrederiksen (January 1, 1970 at 7:29 am)

sigh, yes I do need lighter.I know its performance but I also know what cost it comes at energy and cost wise.weight is good for safety but only against other overweight vehicles. otherwise low weight is fine and we have to think ahead.if you reduce the weight to 25% you only need 25% of the energy and power to drive it at low speed. the body can be made more aerodynamic too. because of its dependence on a heavy keel it is fundamentally flawed. deal with it.

ffsallnamestaken (January 1, 1970 at 7:29 am)

1. The weight is good for safety2. You dont need any lighter, did you notice the performance of the little beast?3. Efficiency.. Well its probably the most efficient car except for those extremely small solar cell cars they race with. Its more efficient then Tesla because of weight/power/size and efficiency cant even be mentioned when it comes to cars based on mechanical engines.Only problem is people dont like small cars, but the few years of oil left will help with that i think..

DanFrederiksen (January 1, 1970 at 7:29 am)

I like a lot about the idea but the design concept has a fundamental unsolveable problem; it relies on the lead acid keel to be stable which means it can never be made lighter. iirc it weighs a ton! same as a small 4 seater steel car. weight is an enemy of efficiency and therein lies its defeat..I applaud their efforts and I hope they go with the truth and offer other designs instead. but I know it's a touch pill to swallow