Thread Rating:
  • 1 Vote(s) - 5 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Answers Part III
#21
(10-23-2016, 09:10 PM)flying_solo Wrote: Interesting.  I hadn't paid much attention.  They have several different designs / color schemes on the renderings page.  I actually like the treatment on the Solo #1 prototype the best.  It takes away some of the slab-sidedness from the side, and I like the contrast the body-color drops(?) give to the rear view.
That makes two of us. I like the contrast. I think that it helps to visually balance the rear of the Solo with the front tires.
I also like the fact that it gives the rear of the vehicle an "up-swept" look. And finally, I like it when viewed from directly behind the Solo.
As Lotus observed, it might well be just a simple vinyl covering. In fact, the lower front grill looks like it's done the same way.
If that's the case, it should indeed be an easy-to-provide option, or at least an easy fix.
Required listening... House of Lords - Can't find my way home
This version kicks. There's just no other way to describe it. Shivers. Turn...it...up!
Disclaimer: No false statistics were supported, displayed or harmed in the making of this post.
Reply
#22
(10-23-2016, 10:11 PM)DiscjockeyDale Wrote:
(10-23-2016, 09:10 PM)flying_solo Wrote: Interesting.  I hadn't paid much attention.  They have several different designs / color schemes on the renderings page.  I actually like the treatment on the Solo #1 prototype the best.  It takes away some of the slab-sidedness from the side, and I like the contrast the body-color drops(?) give to the rear view.
That makes two of us. I like the contrast. I think that it helps to visually balance the rear of the Solo with the front tires.
I also like the fact that it gives the rear of the vehicle an "up-swept" look. And finally, I like it when viewed from directly behind the Solo.
As Lotus observed, it might well be just a simple vinyl covering. In fact, the lower front grill looks like it's done the same way.
If that's the case, it should indeed be an easy-to-provide option, or at least an easy fix.

The best would be to show some more rubber at rear wheel. But maybe there are regulations that says you need protection from drive train (beltdrive)?
Reply
#23
Just an aside -since we are talking about the rear wheel, could you (theoretically) add another wheel alongside the rear one (centered of course) , say with 4 inches or so between them, would this make it a "car", since it now has "4" wheels?
[+] 1 user Likes Hog's post
Reply
#24
(10-24-2016, 09:34 AM)Hog Wrote: Just an aside -since we are talking about the rear wheel, could you (theoretically)  add another wheel alongside the rear one (centered of course) , say with 4 inches or so between them, would this make it a "car", since it now has "4" wheels?

I don't know about america, but in Norway (and also eu i guess) a twin wheel is defined as one wheel as long as center/center dist is less than 460mm. (divide by 25,4 to get in inches). 
Not only a wheel question, but weight of the vehicle might also define it as a car. Haven't studied these rules in detail yet. I read somewhere about a limit of 400kg without batteries.
Reply
#25
A swingarm is generally offset to permit the wheel to be centre. So, if a further wheel is to be fitted, the swingarm would have to be replaced (as well as the line of the drive belt etc.). This would not seem to be feasible ... (thus, fitting a further wheel would result in the line of drive being excentric .... and probably exacerbating the vehicle´s already intrisic tendency to ground loop while accelerating in a curve). Any change to the rear wheel (i.e. a fatter tyre) would likely have a similar effect.
[+] 1 user Likes paravil's post
Reply
#26
(10-24-2016, 02:29 PM)paravil Wrote: A swingarm is generally offset to permit the wheel to be centre. So, if a further wheel is to be fitted, the swingarm would have to be replaced (as well as the line of the drive belt etc.). This would not seem to be feasible ... (thus, fitting a further wheel would result in the line of drive being excentric .... and probably exacerbating the vehicle´s already intrisic tendency to ground loop while accelerating in a curve). Any change to the rear wheel (i.e. a fatter tyre) would likely have a similar effect.

Yes, the current drive design is simple and correct. The only change that maybe could do better is having FWD, but this would make everything more complex and expensive. If more expensive, most people would choose a car ( i think Blush )
Reply
#27
Yes, maybe .... until they experience the effect of having a single drive wheel at the rear on snow and ice.
Reply
#28
(10-24-2016, 04:35 PM)paravil Wrote: Yes, maybe .... until they experience the effect of having a single drive wheel at the rear on snow and ice.

From the specs, 80hp/140lb/ft, 1000lbs, single-rear-wheel-drive, the Solo should be a lot of fun on dry pavement.  It would be tail-happy on lower-traction surfaces.  It will most likely be a handful, if drivable at all, on snow and ice.

IMHO, the fwd system of the SRK would seem to be the better option for drivers who have to deal with poor traction surfaces on a regular basis.

One of the main attractions of an enclosed motorcycle is the ability to deal with sub-optimal weather conditions.  With the motor in the back, and the batteries low and to the sides, the Solo may be able to deal with adverse weather in an acceptable manner.  Ice is hard on any vehicle without studs.  Snow definitely favors awd over fwd, and fwd over rwd, especially single rwd.

I don't think that will worry people who by the Solo as an inexpensive, economical sports car.  If may affect those who look at it as a 4-season econo-commuter.  My take is that it should work okay as a 3- to 3 1/2- season vehicle.

Where I live, if the summers don't kill it, it would be a 4-season vehicle.  Summers her are rough on batteries.
I'm done.
Reply
#29
(10-24-2016, 04:09 PM)Lotus Wrote:
(10-24-2016, 02:29 PM)paravil Wrote: A swingarm is generally offset to permit the wheel to be centre. So, if a further wheel is to be fitted, the swingarm would have to be replaced (as well as the line of the drive belt etc.). This would not seem to be feasible ... (thus, fitting a further wheel would result in the line of drive being excentric .... and probably exacerbating the vehicle´s already intrisic tendency to ground loop while accelerating in a curve). Any change to the rear wheel (i.e. a fatter tyre) would likely have a similar effect.

Yes, the current drive design is simple and correct. The only change that maybe could do better is having FWD, but this would make everything more complex and expensive. If more expensive, most people would choose a car ( i think Blush )
Or choose the twin motor front wheel drive SRK for $11,900 + the $3K enclosure option.

The enclosed three wheelers are being marketed as a supplement commuter vehicle to the primary family car. It's not meant to replace it. Drive the primary vehicle when less than optimal weather conditions apply.
White Hot Solo #166
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)