Jennie&Tim on 19/3/2006 at 01:50
(
http://www.edmunds.com/insideline/do/News/articleId=108992)
Interesting vehicle, but it looks small for carting my family around. Still, for all the twenty-somethings who haven't started a family yet, or those who've graduated from kids, it looks really fun. I'd adore having one if it was practical for me.
SD on 19/3/2006 at 01:59
Hmm, three-wheeled cars. I thought they went out with the ark. They always seem a little on the unstable side to me. That certainly is a good fuel economy though.
I guess it'd be useful if you only have a motorcycle licence, these vehicles are generally classed in that bracket rather than as cars.
aguywhoplaysthief on 19/3/2006 at 05:29
I can't wait to see what would happen to that thing if my car should happen to come in contact with it at over 20mph.
If you want good gas mileage in order to save money you could get a $500 used Geo Metro. If my calculations are anything resembling correct (which is, I admit, somewhat unlikely), you'd have to put over 2 million miles on this sucker to make your money back at current fuel rates.
This company better pray for a nuclear war in the Mid-East before 2008 or they are going to go out of business quick.
Fafhrd on 19/3/2006 at 09:05
except you'd be spending an additional $400 or so a year on maintenance on a $500 used Metro (I believe this is a conservative estimate, probably closer to five or six hundred), plus the cost of gas, and the fuel economy wouldn't close the gap between expenses AT ALL. I drive over two hundred miles a week and get around 28 mpg and end up paying around $20 a week on gas. With this thing I'd be spending an average of $1.30 a week on gas, and since it would be new, maintenance wouldn't kick in until I put at least 10,000 miles on, so I'd save that. Since they're pricing it competitively with a standard new car, I don't see what the downside is, money-wise.
Other than the carrying capacity.
Komag on 19/3/2006 at 17:00
Quote Posted by aguywhoplaysthief
If my calculations are anything resembling correct (which is, I admit, somewhat unlikely), you'd have to put over 2 million miles on this sucker to make your money back at current fuel rates.
Well, many people drive over 1000 miles/month, and if they got 33mpg versus this new thing's 330, that's 10/1 ratio on gas expense. I spend around $100 to $120 per month on gas myself (I drive a guzzler though, only 15mpg). If this thing could save $100/month it would pay for itself completely in about 15 years. (It would be around 300,000 miles driven)
That's a long time, but the thing is that no one really thinks of buying a fuel efficient car in terms of completely paying for the car just from the fuel savings. It's more the issue of having a extra $1200 a year to spend on Christmas that's the point.
Also, on the stability issue, the problem only comes when the single wheel is in the front (as on those totty mobiles as pictured above). When it's in the back the car is actually quite stable, if a little weird looking.
Aerothorn on 19/3/2006 at 21:05
Yeah, the point isn't to save money buy bying a hybrid - you factor the money saved into the price point, but for many people it's a matter of environmental conscience [sp]. I, for instance, feel both guilty and ridiculous for driving a 5-person vehicle with only one person in it, horribly inefficient waste of space and energy, so something like this is just what I need.
aguywhoplaysthief on 19/3/2006 at 21:57
Motorcycle.
Komag on 19/3/2006 at 22:14
Quote Posted by aguywhoplaysthief
Motorcycle.
So, if these guys made a motorcycle version, would it get like 1000 mpg??? :confused:
Fafhrd on 19/3/2006 at 22:17
Quote Posted by aguywhoplaysthief
Motorcycle.
except that leaves you exposed to the elements, plus the "falling down in heavy traffic and getting run over" factor.
