Quote:
Originally Posted by GoGogebic
|
I am in the mood to rain on this parade, so get your umbrella out. Don't worry, the criticism is meant to be constructive.
I think you are totally on the right track with the single occupant commuter idea. These people that are wanting a passenger seat or big cargo capacity are... well, they are looking for cars that already exist. The solo commuter car is a need that is definitely not being filled. And chances are, for the majority, it will remain unfilled as long as people are able to afford eating
and driving, and not one second before. That said, I think Vetter is right to demand at least a touring motorcycle level of utility of his ultimate commuter vehicle. Think of how often you throw some stuff on the seat or in the trunk and what an inconvenience- and expense when you have to make an extra, special trip to get the "real' car- it is when you can't.
It's long and low and red; that's all quite nice.
But the approach and departure angles look minimal, as in, driveway entrances and intersections and snow and whatnot look like they will result in scraping if not high-centering. I thought the whole reason you wouldn't consider a trike or bike was to go through snow.
Those fenders are waaaay too huge. They will act as rudders and steer the wheels, which is too bad because you want the wheels to do the steering. Even the Edison2 Very Light Car appears to have evolved away from turning fenders, if that is what they are. There is no need nor aerodynamic benefit from them being that big; in fact I am going to argue that in a crosswind- the most common condition- they will make aero
worse.
Why are they open to the insides? Splash will go all over everything- including the canopy- especially when the front wheels are turned.
Canopies: often dreamt about and rarely thought through.
They will create the nicest solar oven ever. And you won't be able to lower the window or hang your arm out.
Know how irritating it is when you can't quite get the visor in your current car to shield the sun? How are you going to shield your eyes with a canopy? With a visor?
It will be expensive. It will be plastic. Plastic will scratch if you try to run wipers on it. Does it have a shape that wiper(s) can conform to? So no wipers? Good luck, especially with that fender splash. But... but... motorcycles and airplanes have plastic windshields and no wipers. Yeah, well you aren't fogging up motorcycle windshields with your breath because you're basically outside on them. And when you do get caught in the rain on a bike you are basically looking over the windshield, not through it. Airplanes generally don't encounter much in the way of dirt and bugs and whatnot between flight legs because they are mostly above it all. But their windshields often do leave much to be desired as far as visual clarity.
How much does a canopy cost? A lot more than a windshield.
How often do you need to replace windshields? Often enough.
Then there are the optics of attempting to look through a sheet of material:
1) at such a shallow angle as this.
2) with such curves and waves.
What is that fin on top for? Rear view cam? Does it have to be up there? There's already a big flat spot on the back end.
Wow, for multiple protrusions with all those suspension arms. Most un-aero. Sure they may have teardrop-profile tubing or sheathing, but still. There would be substantial interference drag. It's like when Cessna built planes with wing struts and without; much faster and more efficient without. It would be like when Cessna put retractable gear on the Cardinal; the fixed gear version had a single spindly strut per faired-in tire but still the Cardinal RG (retractable gear) picked up more speed- and the RG doesn't even bother to hide the gear behind faired-in doors when it's up! Look at the Edison 2 for a good example of minimizing suspension aero drag. BTW I think their fenders were too big too, but they might be OK.
It looks like there is no room for feet and legs to move. Is that comfortable? Perhaps, but for what purpose are you denying yourself legroom? The body balloons out in the midsection so it's not like there's any less frontal area. An acceptable turning circle should be possible along with some footroom. It's the long tails on the front fenders that are the biggest obstacles to having a sharp turning radius but even more importantly, I see no means of attachment for the fenders!
This has been going on since at least May 2011 and there was five years for ideation/gestation before that. I know those CAD seats ain't cheap. You could have had several prototypes or mock-ups for less than the CAD by now.
Today
Other popular topics in this forum...
