I think Jim Bede made a "Trike" that was similar. It had two big wheels front and back like a bike and two fixes outriggers so it had 4 wheels but since only three could touch at any one time it was considered a trike.
Can you say "death trap"? It's a 3 wheeled car, damn it. Every few years someone foists a three-wheeler like this off on an unsuspecting public, touting a "breakthrough design". Didn't Yamaha try this back in the late 80's?
And let's remember where the 3 wheeled ATV went. Let's hope this abomination suffers a similar fate.
It's like those Gold Wing trike conversions. Yesterday I saw one bouncing through an intersection in Granada Hills, the guy riding (driving?) it was going about 30 miles an hour, hit a small pothole and almost ate it big. Tank-slapping an 800 lb. tricycle is not my idea of fun.
Maybe put some JATO bottles on it for some real excitement
I agree with mscuddy. Way back when I was in college, I saw a demo of similar three wheeled car that leaned but with two wheels in the front. The inventor was trying to get backers for it... It never went anywhere. It is kind of like quadraphonic sound vs. stereos etc. Why pay for quad when you can get a better quality stereo. Why pay for a gimmick when you can't get better quality in a more conventional package i.e. 2 wheels or 4 wheels ?
Disclaimer: I'm not a professional or even amateur engineer, so this is all speculation - please correct me where appropriate.
Now, I was actually thinking about something along these lines, but maybe a little bit more radical, based on the question: why can motorcycles with tiny contact patches generate such relatively high cornering loads when compared to cars with no aerodynamics?
I think that it really has to do with weight distribution; i.e., the weight on bikes when they are leaned effectively moves low and inside, pushing the contact patch, which is outside, pretty optimally. For a similar reason, I believe, the weirdo 911 weight distribution actually enables marginally superior braking performance when compared to cars where the engine is somewhere else (the 911 can use more of its rear brakes, I believe, as there is a heavy weight sitting right on top of the rear axle so it's not unloaded as much under braking).
Anyway, back to my point - consider a 4 wheel vehicle (bear with me) and a central pod similar to the 3-wheel abomination from that website that effectively moves the weight over the inside wheels via either a lean or shift corresponding with the acceleration of the turn. This would effectively move the weight over the inside 2 wheels and provide incremental usage of their grip. The tires could either lean or not - I haven't thought through the engineering.
The upshot is that the physics suggest that the weight of a vehicle needs to be in different places to optimize different characteristics: far back for braking, forward for accleration, and centered, low and inside for cornering.
Anyway, kind of a random post and probably too long, but it's an interesting idea.
That guy's trike I don't like because it's not radical enough.
Bucky Fuller pulled this stunt in the forties. Unfortunately, a couple perspective backers were killed in a test drive (the Buckster was known to have a lead foot). I'm with the, It's a car, contingent. Wonder what ever happened to the GyroCar: two wheels, with a large-enough gyroscope to keep it upright, while standing still (Holy Popular Mechanics). Always thought those things would be great for rural letter-carriers. I'm afraid the Carver is more Hoo****y than Harley.
If you liked the AMC Pacer, you'll love the Carver.
Dorks of the world rejoice, the Carver has arrived.
AP News: Company officials announced today that the Carver will be unveiled to the American public in Roswell NM. Rumor has it that a roll of aluminium foil, and origomi lessons, will be included with each purchase.