Motorcycle Forums banner
1 - 20 of 91 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
11 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
I'd rather see it classified as a car. It's an all-weather vehicle & it has seat belts. Since it doesn't lean into a corner, it's no fun...kinda like a GoldWing trike, only slower!



Classifying these as cars will help in the future if major automakers build something like it, in that they could include its emissions (none) and its fuel economy (?) in their CAFE average.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
640 Posts
It is more car than motorcycle. You don't have to balance it at stop signs with your legs. Personally I have always liked the idea of a three wheeled vehicle with the 2 wheels in front. As for electric vehicles in our future, I think the internal combustion engine will be phased out as time goes by. I'm sure the oil companies have more say in this than they should. The current administration is scalp deep in oil money and will make sure that alternative fuel vehicles get roadblocked at every turn. Sure, Bush, gives lip service to the fuel cell but it has been pointed out that he has give absolutely no deadlines for anything. Remember how President Kennedy said we would land on the Moon by a certain date. You didn't hear this type of talk out of Bush. Chances are, the car companies will never see any of that money that Bush spoke of. Heck, Bush hasn't even coughed up any money for his state Homeland Security mandates. Bush has got a one dimensional administration and that is the war dimension. Crap or get off the pop, George!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
179 Posts
Well, it's made by Corbin, the motorcycle aftermarket company, so it's "related?" to motorcycles.

As far as what it's registered as... nah, it shouldn't be classified as a motorcycle.

I live in N.J. and the three wheeled scooters that traffic cops use , you know, the cushman's? (fully enclosed things)

well, they're registered as motorcycles because it's less than 4 wheels. go figure.

what's even more weird is that driving that particular vehicle, you're NOT required to wear a helmet?

why anyone would spend $14K on a box with three tiny wheels and a motor that can barely wheez is beyond me.

I don't think that even a 90yr old grandma would mistake it for a motorcycle!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,465 Posts
I've learned, where politicians are concerned and with Mr. Bush in particular, to set my sights low. So far, GW has yet to disappoint, as his results are consistently mediocre. The guy is a low mental horse power unit.



I love performance vehicles but have no particular love of gasoline and don't really care for what it does after it has been burned. A great society like ours should have come farther (further? what it the rule anyway?) than it has in alternative fuel development. Hydrogen burns right nicely and the supply insn't too bad. I used to burn a gas/corn squeezin' mixture decades ago. But gasoline not only powers cars, it powers Washington. Living in the real world takes patience. Yeah, I voted for Bush. I wanted a change from Clinton's crew, but I'm no fan of GW so far. So, I'll ride a gas powered vehicle, leave the science to the scientists and watch the politicians get in their way.
 

·
The Toad
Joined
·
17,458 Posts
Don't start. There's nothing to be gained in a political flame war. Especially with people who supported Clinton's "lofty" goals.



Who is he with in the hayloft these days, anyhow?
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
2,752 Posts
Hey its cool if it is classified as a motorcycle. Better than having another SUV on the road. However, the advantage of using HOV lanes could be short lived if WA state Republicans have their way. They are on record as a party supporting the elimination of car pool lanes. They want to get a proposal on the ballot in Nov. to eliminate HOV lanes. I grew up as a Republican in Colorado. But the Republicans I knew back in Colorado are nothing like the looney Republicans in WA state. In WA state they are bible toting, Aschroft loving, church in school freaks. In Colorado Republicans were known as live and let live types like John McCain.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
878 Posts
Yes, and Kennedy wrote NASA a blank check (to be drawn on taxpayer monies) to do so. It's easy to mandate success with Other People's Money. The only reason I am dissatisfied with Bush is that he gives my money away for an unconstitutional purpose------research isn't authorized.



If you're so dissatisfied with the timetable on alternative fuels, perhaps you could go find and perfect one yourself. Then again, I doubt it. You seem to be more content sitting on the sidelines whining about how the federal government isn't showering your life with meaning and purpose.
 

·
The Toad
Joined
·
17,458 Posts
At the current and forseeable levels of technology the production of electricity for vehicles uses higher amounts of fossil fuels than just using a high efficiency gas engine directly. In essence you are merely shifting the pollution from the street to the powerplant nearby. In the process you are creating more CO2 and other gases than just using an engine directly. The amount of energy loses in transferring the power from fuel to electricity and then back to chemical battery potential guarantee this inequity.



Then add the problems associated with replacing and dealing with the lead-acid cells. These have to be replaced regularly, and at a fairly steep cost. Other chemical battery sytems like cadmium and lithium are incredibly poisonous. I like to think of what's called the "eighteen-wheeler test". What happens to your neighborhood when an eighteen-wheeler rams into Ford's electric van with the lithium cell that has to maintain a constant temperature of some 300C? You have to evacuate a substantial area and you will kill everyone who whiffs the escaped gas.



Unless we shift to some sort of clean nuclear power generation we'll gain nothing from electric cars. The idea of electric cars was promoted by environmentalist types who obviously had little undertsanding of the economics and physics of power generation. The idea stays with us mainly because it is politically unacceptable for these people to admit that they were wrong.



Maybe we should stop wasting a load of money on this electric car boondoggle and encourage industry to come up with new ideas, rather than use govt to ram bad ideas down our throats.



I'm still waiting for that Ice Age the eco-wacks warned us about in the 70's. Oh yeah, and I'm still waiting to starve to death like we were supposed to in the 80's.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,415 Posts
Looks like a car to me too, I guess we'll be dodging these in the carpool lanes now! Actually I thought these weren't allowed on the freeway because of not being able to reach the speed limit,But you're right, better these than SUV's. Republicans around here make Buchanon look like a lefty.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
33 Posts
I had the opportunity to drive one a while back. Those of us who test drove it now refer to it as a fiberglass coffin. It is highly unstable at speed due to the three wheels and the high center of gravity. It only has one door so if it tips over on the right side your f*cked. On the other hand, the zero speed torque of the electric motor makes for great burnouts.
 

·
The Toad
Joined
·
17,458 Posts
You don't get it do you? If we want something we just get the govt to order it! Who cares about constitutional issues or even the laws of physics?



Jeez. Get with the times.



 

·
Registered
Joined
·
26 Posts
Is this a motorcycle? Can you split lanes with it? Lean into a turn? Wheelie?

Sure, it's a fuel efficient vehicle, so maybe it should be allowed in carpool lanes (?) But nobody's buying these things, so it's almost a moot point. I know a guy who's a vendor to Corbin Motors, and while he was visiting their facility one time, he witnessed a dozen or so parked Sparrows get blown over onto their sides by strong winds. For $14K, I'd buy a Kia if I wanted a car that bad.
 
1 - 20 of 91 Posts
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top