Or maybe that bizarre shape makes it more aerodynamic?
"This thread has gone so far south it's surrounded by nesting penguins. " — MadrugadaThat's a distinct possibility, given that we're dealing with former NASA engineers (at least, according to the article).
Expergiscēre cras, medior quam hodie. (Awaken tomorrow, better than today.)My concern with it is that it's so light and tiny that you will be in a very bad position in even a minor accident.
"This thread has gone so far south it's surrounded by nesting penguins. " — MadrugadaHey, 3.4 seconds of 0-60 time requires dipping into stuff like advanced aerodynamics and lighter weight. Cars that are shaped in a windtunnel will end up looking very curvy.
Plus, I think it's more that people will buy cars that look like they came off a showroom floor.
edited 19th Oct '11 9:01:23 PM by RocketDude
"Hipsters: the most dangerous gang in the US." - Pacific MackerelThat wouldn't be so much of a problem if everyone drove smaller vehicles. Size = safety is a mindset that also says "screw the other guy".
Hey, look at it this way:
If a Ford Explorer were to crash into a Lotus Elise, the Ford would be less damaged since it's so big and heavy and the Lotus would be a total wreck.
However, the Lotus could avoid the accident by swerving out of the way, as it handles better due to being so lightweight.
And given that this "Treycycle" must be even lighter than an Elise...
edited 20th Oct '11 6:27:49 PM by RocketDude
"Hipsters: the most dangerous gang in the US." - Pacific Mackerel
"Now if only they could make one that looks like a damn car.
I seriously don't understand why this is such a difficult thing for all these "vehicles of the future". Wouldn't far more people buy them?"
They make them look bizarre because you can't pretend to be a time traveler in a normal looking car. Duh.
edited 19th Oct '11 8:16:13 PM by Endrael
"All propaganda is a lie, even when it's telling the truth." - George Orwell