How narrow is too narrow? Thinking in plan view.
 

The VW L1 Concept shows to be 1200mm wide, 1143mm tall, and 3813mm long, Cd0.195. (VW 1L Prototype; 1250mm wide, 1 meter tall, 3470mm long, Cd 0.159)
http://www.carbodydesign.com/archive...cept-17-lg.jpg
I found these numbers for the Geo Metro.

Wheelbase 2,265 mm (89.2 in) (3-door/Conv.)
2,365 mm (93.1 in) (5-door/Sedan)
Length 3,745 mm (147 in) (3-door/Conv.)
3,845 mm (151.4 in) (5-door)
4,095 mm (161.2 in) (Sedan)
Width 1,575 mm (62.0 in) (3/5-door)
1,590 mm (62.6 in) (Sedan/Conv.)
Height 1,350 mm (53.1 in) (3-Door)
1,380 mm (54 in) (5-door/Sedan)
1,340 mm (52.8 in) (Conv.)

So, it ends up being about the same length as a Metro. The width is 15 inches narrower. Height is 8 inches lower.

I guess the only thing that really matter is how low the Cg (center of gravity) is on the Volkswagen. If they can get it low enough, the car is wide enough.

Aerohead, what kind of handling effects do you get with a low Cg? The L1 has lithium batteries in the nose...so the Cg should already be ahead of the Cp. But I'm curious about the vertical height of the Cg in relation to Cp.

Hi,

I don't think this would be an issue. It might come in handy, actually, in getting past someone turning left.

It seems like the wheels of the VW are even closer to the corners and even with that, I've never heard of someone rolling a Metro...

I didn't even think about that. Good idea!

I think the narrow width will allow the car to take a better 'racing line' around corners. There might even be crazy owners in California that would drive through traffic jams like motorcycles do out there.:thumbup: Attempt at your own risk. heh heh

Hi,

The main reason that VW did this was to reduce the frontal area -- the Cd is very low, as well; so the CdA is probably better than any road-worthy 2-seat car.

I also like the very tiny side view video mirrors.

I hate when the motorcycles split the traffic at freeway speeds. The DMV site says this about it "Lane splitting by motorcycles is permissible but must be done in a safe and prudent manner." I don't think that splitting the traffic at 50+ MPH is save or prudent, but they do it all the time.

Of course they did it to lower CdA. They could lower CdA even more if they moved those cameras out of the airflow behind the car.:thumbup: OR they could just mount ONE camera on the roof. (The view is unrestricted up there.) OR they could move the cameras up on the fenders like Japanese cars. (So you could wave to yourself on TV.) OR they could ditch the electronics and use 3 curved rear view mirrors out of a fighter jet cockpit and mount them on the A-post/roof/A-post 'hoop'. Then there is the Isdera Imperator periscope option.

Boy did they ever screw it up.

For vehicles that do not lean during cornering, resistance to rolling over depends only on track width and the height of the center of mass. While the need to seat two abreast limits the width of most compact cars, it's the ratio of track width to CG height that limits the VW 1L and other tandems.

http://cache.gawker.com/assets/image...agen_L1_10.jpg

^^ That car needs a boat tail. Also note how they reduced ground clearance to lower the CG.

There are some unconventional approaches that might make for a better tandem car. You could have a faired, outrigger suspension like the Aptera's front, but detaching the wheels from the body raises your CdA, especially in a crosswind. Alternately, you could lean into corners like a bicycle or that new Nissan concept car.

lol

Metro roll over contest