These cars are already available. Check out the Smart and Axiam. US buyers aren't interested because they seem too expensive and fuel is too cheap.

Motorcycles.

The answer is motorcycles.

How safte are motorcyles in a crash?

How safe are motorcyles in a crash?

The safety of motorcycles isn't the issue here, is it? The issue is small, eco-friendly transportation. If we are going to debate vehicle safety issues let's not forget to debate about how safe a small car is when hit by a larger car while we're at it.

My point was that if you want small, economical, fuel saving vehicles you need to look no further that motorcycles. Already available everywhere in the world. No new tech needed.

I think this is a great idea, but it's not new. The reason motorcycles aren't the solution is because they're not all-weather.

I have a 1982 Pulse litestar, which is an enclosed motorcyle and I don't know why they didn't 'catch-on'.

There are other people designing similar vehicles today--I hope one makes it.

www.autocycles.org --(the original that I have)www.ecomobile.comwww.acabion.com

I HAVE STUDIED MANY MINICARS - I HAVE SEEN MINI CARS WITH SEATS IN TANDEM.MY CONCEPT IS A MINICAR SINGLE CAR - IT WOULD BASICALLY SEAT TWO - THEPASSENGER SEAT IS BESIDE THE DRIVER AND NOT BEHIND. THE PASSENGER SPACEWOULD DOUBLE AS A LUGGAGE SPACE. THE ONLY CRITERIA IS A SINGLE DOORCAR WILL BE MUCH LESS POLLUTING THAN A V-8 CAR WITH A SINGLE OCCUPANT.IF YOU WANT TO DROP YOUR KID TO SCHOOL YOU DON'T NEED A V-8.

THE ONLY MAIN CONCERN IS TO MAKE THE CAR SAFE - ADD ALL AVAILABLE SAFETYFEATURES- IF THE TRANSPORT AUTHORITY AUTHORISE A SEPERATE LANE FOR ELECTRICCARS, LESS POLLUTING SMALL CARS AND BIKES IT CONCEPT WOULD BE A REALITY AND FEASIBLE THE C02 EMISSIONS AND MAKE THE EARTH A SAFER PLACE.

possibly a BMW Isetta is what you have in mind?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isetta

otherwise, I know of many other motorcycle based four-wheel cars...

http://thekneeslider.com/motorcycle-powered-cars/

I expect, however, that you're not as interested in performance as in economy.

The Smart car may be more like what you're interested in? Also, the original Cooper in Britain--its like a foot-shorter than the one sold here.

Maybe you're talking about a full-sized car with only a 500 cc engine--that way you'd still have your 'safety'.

I personnally think we're really too safety conscious. The last time I was involved in even a minor car accident was more than 20 years ago. But I still put on my seatbelt four times a day. I put my kids in those stupid car-seats that forced us to buy a sedan when a 2+2 is more my preference. And when my airbag module made a light on the dashboard, I spent $500 for no apparent reason, so it would go off.

It just boggles my mind the amount of effort car designers spend to satify an almost completely elusive 'safety' criteria-- because that's what a large number of people buy based on. Crumple zones, side air-bags, etc. Why aren't we wearing fire-suits and crash-helmets in cars yet?

I actually believe the carseats my kids are in make them less safe, because they move so much that when the car crashes, they'll be through the windshield before the straps are tight.

But as your original premise seems to imply, these small cars aren't popular in the USA and I just don't know why not. Well, maybe I do...perceived safety.

bikes or lite cars - the issue iswe need to get these massive gas guzzlers off the road. they are totally wrong for the city. they should get taxed more to make them unpopular.

THE MAIN IS GET THE GAS GUZZLERS OFF THE ROAD. THE IDEA IS TO HAVE ONLY EC0-FRIENDLY CARS. I HAVE STUDIED THE BMW ISETTA WHICH WAS INTRODUCED IN THEEARLY FIFTIES - IT HAS THE DOOR IN THE FRONT OF THE CAR WITH THE DASHBOARDAND STEERING- THIS DID NOT APPEAL TO ME AND MAY NOT APPEAL TO THE YOUNGERGENERATION. A DOOR ON THE SIDES OF THE CAR LOOK MORE APPEALING.

A SMALL HYBRID CAR POWERED BY A 500 CC ENGINE OR EVEN A SMALL MOTOR CYCLEENGINE WILL CAR A SINGLE PERSON. AS FAR THE SAFETY ANGLE IS CONCERNED A SMALLCAR WITH MINIMALISTIC SAFETY FEATURES IS FAR MORE SAFER THAN A MOTOR BIKE.

THE NEED IS TO HAVE EXCLUSIVE GREEN LANES FOR ELECTRIC, HYBRID AND MOTOR BIKES TO MAKE THESE FEASIBLE AND SAFE.

pepindia, your continued focus on a green-lane probably seems moot to most of america. I drive on a two-lane highway in Kansas with no congestion and can go as fast as I want.

SteveO, As for a tax on gas guzzlers, I don't understand why the government should profit from them. They already cost more to buy and operate and people still choose them. And saying they're wrong for the city--well, they're better in the city than in the commute because they get bad mpg. They're just 'wrong.'I have a real truck for when I need to pull the horse-trailer, but I don't drive it to work.

I want a micro-car that I can commute in--going fast at high mpg--not just a 'city' car. When I lived in the city, I rode a bicycle and walked.

I agree that the Isetta, while interesting, is not very workable.

I'm still convinced, however that the reason families drive SUV's and minivans is that we've forced them to--legislated safety. Regular-size or small cars don't hold multiple car-seats as well. We've done-away with the bench-front seat for safety reason. Also, Mom's are convinced that kids have to be in the back. No back seat in an Isetta.

I don't want to 'tax' people just because a stupid law means that you can't put four children in a car anymore, you need an SUV.

In the 30s, my Dad's family carried eight-people in a '32 Chev. regularly--about the size of a PT cruiser. Can't do that now.

I have a 1982 HMV Freeway, a single-seat, single-cylinder, 3-wheel "car" that gets real-world 65 mpg. It's licensed and insured as a motorcycle, has a top speed of about 65 mph. I seldom drive it over 45 mph in normal driving (it's a commuter, not a SuperSlab cruiser); when I need more room for more passengers I use my Buick sedan, for hauling bigger stuff I have a 12-year-old minivan.

A company that makes motorcycles, ATVs, or dune buggies could crank out a Freeway clone in any number necessary. It's a proven, efficient design, we just need to convince a manufacturer that a market for it exists.

Google "HMV Freeway," look up the Yahoo "Cabin Scooter" group.

Beaugrand, I think the freeway definitely qualifies as a cool vehicle. Except the 18 horsepower part.

For anyone looking at this post wanting to see a New similar vehicle, I understand the 'Corbin Sparrow' of five years ago will be reincarnated by a newly formed company as the 'Raven,' with a few changes. Also, a link to the Carver and the Messerschimidt, other vehicles of this type.

http://www.ravencar.com/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carver_(automobile)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Messerschmitt_KR200

THE RAVEN COMES CLOSEST TO MY CONCEPT - THE ONLY ADDITIONS WHICH I WOULD LIKETO MAKE IS IT SHOULD BE A FOUR WHEELER - SPACE FOR A CO-PASSENGER- A SMALL ENCLOSED LUGGAGE SPACE ON THE ROOF- THESE CARS WILL JUST BE LAPPED P IN COUNTRIES WHERE THE GAS PRICES ARE HIGH.

can you wait until 2009? I think this is your car...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volkswagen_1-litre_car

THE VW-1 CAR HAS A CARBON FIBRE BODY WHICH IS GOING TO MAKE THE CARVERY EXPENSIVE. WE WANT A COMMON MAN'S SINGLE DOOR CAR. THE VW-1 299 CC DIESEL ENGINE WOULD WELL GET INTO A RAVEN, IT MAY NOT GIVE THE MILEAGE OF A VW-1, EVEN ATREDUCED MILEAGE, IT WOULD MAKE A COST EFFECTIVE CAR.

I'm not sure why you object to the "18 hp" (too much or too little?), mine has the "bigger" 430cc engine, which is 16 hp, not 18, and 16 hp makes its 850 lb curb weight (1100 lbs with me aboard) scoot along just fine, and I certainbly have no objections to the mileage (which tops 70 mpg if I keep it at a steady speed just under 50 mph). A suspension upgrade shortly after I bought it, as well as a thorough overall refurbishing, makes it run and handle just fine, my only real complaint is that they were made without a reverse gear. I'm pretty sure it handles infinitely better then an Autocycle/LiteStar/Pulse.Freeways were made in far greater numbers than the LiteStar or the Corbin Sparrow, and, as far as I know, no buyers lost their deposits when HMV went bankrupt, not something Corbin motors can claim; there were at least a half-dozen lawsuits surrounding the LiteStar.I would NOT put a deposit down on a Raven, even if it ever actually begins to be produced. Considering Corbin's track record, anybody who plunks down any kind of deposit is tossing it away; let them begin actually producing vehicles before they begin taking customers' money.I really don't like the fixed outriggers on the LiteStar. I believe there was an intention to design a retractible version, but there were a number of other issues, financial, business, and legal, that prevented further development.I don't know what's stopping anyone from doing a similar motorcycle conversion today, many of the required bits are available off-the-shelf now (e.g., retractible outriggers).Maybe something to do with the several $millions needed to start up, the very high chance of failure, and the very long payback period even if it succeeds?As far as the success or failure of the Autocycle/LiteStar/Pulse, it has a great deal to do with the personality of Jim Bede and a good bit less to do with the practicality of the vehicle, quality and design issues aside.Now, who wants to pony up to have a modern-day Kabinroller (literally, "cabin scooter") designed, built, and marketed? Keep in mind, at the slightest whiff of success, you'll be blown away by serious competition from the likes of Honda, Suzuki, etc...

In fact, I began the Yahoo "Cabin Scooters" discussion group because I believe it's absurd to use 3,000 lbs of Buick to haul around my 250+ lb carcass; I do sometimes use a vintage Vespa for commuting on pleasant days, but where I live it rains and snows, making 2-wheel transportation impractical 75% of the time.

The Freeway functions a bit better in the rain than the Vespa, but because of the rear-wheel drive configuration doesn't work well in the snow. Still, it allows me to park the Buick a number of days, most of the year.

Good idea, but good ideas also have to be embraceable by their intended audience. Not everyone has ethics to drive them to do the right thing. Actually most people don't, the fundamental problem with society.

Now, make something about this cool and different (like the unbelievably unnecessary and anti-social Iphone...) and people will change their ways.

Elainamack, while I personally think there's no car 'cooler' than the Pulse-Litestar, Beaugrand has a point that it was a poorly engineered vehicle by a untrustworthy company. I hate to admit that I've yet to move mine under it's own power.

But even if you could build one of these today, first you'd have to contend with regulations, then lawsuits. Then competition--even if you could produce a successful 2-tandem car today, you'd have instant competition.

Also, I see BMW is investigating a new Isetta. http://www.autoexpress.co.uk/news/autoexpressnews/213099/bmw_isetta.html

The Peraves Eco Mobile (and its successor, the Monotracer) is the much-improved, present-day incarnation of the Autocycle concept, a motorcycle-powered, single-track vehicle with tandem seating, although, unlike the LiteStar, it uses retractible outriggers to hold it upright at rest. They're a bit pricey, costing about twice what a medium sedan costs, and driving them isn't intuitive. If they had a bit more of the LiteStar's "jet fighter" styling, I'm sure we would see more of them.

Given a bit more "idiot-proofing," such as automatically-deployed outriggers, and reducing the price to affordable levels, it might become a part of the overall solution, with a couple of caveats: it's every bit as long as a conventional car, and, with outriggers deployed, nearly as wide, so not so much less of a "footprint" on the road.

Personally, I think vehicles like the HMV Freeway, Bob Keyes' TriVette, and the tilting van den Brink Carver (in a less-expensive, mass-produced version for the North American market) have a better chance of acceptance.

When you consider the physics of a motorcycle leaning in a turn, you realize that is does not increase the traction. It's just necessary for balance because you don't have an 'outrigger'. A vehicle with a fixed outrigger that doesn't lean can actually have more traction because the tires aren't required to be round to compensate for lean-you can get a larger 'patch' in contact with the road.

Pulse drivers testify that the fixed outriggers are great and not dangerous in corners, whereas leaning a larger vehicle could be.

MY CONCEPT OF A SINGLE DOOR CAR -

1. IT SHOULD BE A CONVENTIONAL CAR NOT A MOTORCYCLE CAR

2. IT SHOULD BE A PEOPLE'S CAR LIKE THE BEETLE - MASS PRODUCED FOR THE COMMON MAN - NOT A DESIGNER CAR DESTINED TO BE LOST IN THE DESIGN ROOM.3. FRUGAL ON FUEL - 500 CC FOR A PETROL VERSION A 300-400 CC DIESEL ENGINE.

"1. IT SHOULD BE A CONVENTIONAL CAR NOT A MOTORCYCLE CAR"

Google "Kei Car."

Most KEI cars have Engines which are 600 CC Plus. I am looking fora Petrol/diesel car with Engines in the 250 - 400 CC range with a Fibre Body much smaller than a KEI Car

If these cars were egg shaped, very streamlined and made of carbon fiber they would be virtually crash proof and with a small 500 cc Diesel get 100 MPG and be fun to drive.

"...I am looking for a Petrol/diesel car with Engines in the 250 - 400 CC range with a Fibre Body much smaller than a KEI Car..."

That fairly well describes the 1980s HMV Freeway: single-cylinder 12 or 16 hp engine, CVT transmission, single seat, composite body over steel tube frame, 3 wheels so it can be licensed as a motorcycle (less restrictive emissions and safety requirements). It should be relatively easy to get 16 hp out of a present-day 250-350cc engine, most of the chassis could now be made of composites, scrape together $10 million or so and it can be in production in a few months.

What you want is technically quite feasible. The real trick is securing the funding, to do that you need to prove the market for it exists. And at the first hint of success you'll have serious competition from major manufacturers.

I know that you really like your Freeway, but what I've considered is doing a one-seat version of a Pulse Litestar type vehicle with a conversion from a Ninja 250.

The 250cc engine puts out 38 BHP in stock form. I believe with an aluminum tube-frame-cage and fiberglass panels over them, the weight could be kept to less than the weight of a second rider. The bike is already liquid-cooled--the major failing of the first Litestar. I'll design the 'outriggers' on a johnson-bar like control to please all of the motorcycle purists that think it should travel exclusively on two wheels.

I really believe I could build these cheaply. A brand new Ninja 250 can be bought for $3000US--used 2006 for $2000--I think my welding and panels could come in under $2k.

But like I said in an earlier post--new cars in the USA are expensive and wasteful because the frugal people don't buy them; they're not targeted at us. I don't know how to stop that. Cars are just so reliable, you can get good used ones for very little money. Maybe in India the Tata doesn't need to compete with really good used cars? Pepindia?

I know for sure that you get a well maintained CIVIC or an ACCORD forless than 4k USD. When you get a second hand car no one is going to buya new sub 3000 USD car with much less safety features. This car maynot be suited for the Big city traffic or a long haul.It could be usedin small towns in the US, farmhouses and ranches. They could contributethese mite in reducing the CO2 emissions.

New one.

http://www.aptera.com/

Aptera appears to be a electric-mobike car. My concept is a mini car(a conventional design of a car) not a KEIL. Preferably powered by a dieselengine with a mileage of 200KM per gallon.

Pepindia, it looks like the new Tata Nano is close to your specifications.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tata_Nano

The Nano no where comes to my concept car. It is a 5 door hatchback.The dealer price is 2500 USD the on road cost is appx 3400 USD. It hasa two cyclinder engine. The earlier people's car in India was a Suziki Maruti800. The fuel economy of this car is about 52 mpg against the Suziki Maurutiwhich is appx 48mpg and a much superior car.

I am looking for a much single door car with a fuel economy of around 100mpgand a basic two seater car and not a motor cyle car.

Aero aids added to Honda Civic to get 100 mpg. Doable now.

http://forum.ecomodder.com/showthread.php?t=290

This motorhead is talking about a 100 mpg Lincoln (he'll probably do it):

http://www.fastcompany.com/magazine/120/motorhead-messiah.html

For your 100mpg "single door car", I think you're talking about something like a Messerschmitt Tiger (FMR TG500).

http://www.microcarmuseum.com/tour/messerschmitt-tiger-yellow.html

Sounds like a great idea but I don't think the availability of such a vehicle is the issue here as similar models are already available. The transportation system is what needs to change here. At the end of the day, people go for what will either save them time or money, so unless it is faster to take the subway or the overall cost of owning 2 cars and driving the more appropriate one is lower, our behaviour will not change.

Why not just use bumper cars on the street? They probably get good mileage and when there is a conflict the involved can just bash each other. It would make teh drive home fun.

http://www.modernmicrocars.co.uk/tg500.html

Uses a Renault 5 powertrain. Figure £10,000 for the kit, plus the donor Renault, twice that before it's done. It's a car, has four wheels, seats two, with a single "door."

Maybe Tata could make them for under US$2500?

This 'scootcoupe' is a similar car that exists today--I've seen them on the streets of Chincoteague Island--they're really cool, but slow and not suitable for weather. I know that they don't meet pepindia's 'one-door' spec, but just while were discussing future small cars...

http://www.scootcoupe.com/

I don't think there is any 'car' that really gets 100 mpg, but a 50cc moped engine might be close. Website doesn't list the mpg.

They do say they're planning a retractable-top 500 cc version, so that one may be more the future-cabin-scooter for 100mph commuting that I'm looking for.

For sale now for just over $6k US.

Tandem electric car, two seats three doors. 0-60mph in 4 seconds, top speed 120mph. Not 500cc or one door. Four wheels.

http://www.commutercars.com/

These vehicles would not do good in the winter. Like many others have said, just get a motorcycle.

I've driven a motorcycle as my sole winter transportation. It's not much fun. Dangerous on ice, too. I'd prefer an enclosed vehicle that can't fall over. All of these enclosed three-wheelers and four-wheelers with outriggers are still better than a motorcycle in winter.

I am developing 3 wheelers/BUVs for the International Market.Pl wait for release for my first model by October -2008 in India and a second model by April -2009 in USA

We are looking at a four wheeler and not a three wheeler, it shouldlike a car and not like a auto-rickshaw. People would prefer a aesthetically looking single door car than a ugly looking three wheeler.

Pep, I know that this is your post, so you want to keep the subject focused on your original idea, but I for-one am not biased against three-wheelers. Cars can have two-to-six wheels and still appeal to me. Fewer wheels can also mean more efficiency and lower parts-count.

What's with all the very annoying SHOUTING by pependia?

They already exist, and are becoming more popular. But how are these any safer than motorcycles?

CoolioNeee5, all of these car ideas are safer than motorcycles because you won't freeze to death, you won't fall over on ice and you won't be be compromised driving because of the elements. Rain, snow, wind, bugs, birds and even hot sun are dangers and fatiguing on a motorcycle.

Yes, the crashworthiness would still be low, but all of the things above are worthwhile. Also, the aerodynamics of any car are far better than a mounted motorcycle.

These cars may already exist; however, I rarely see them. They don't appear in advertising, commercials, magazines, movies, and the like. If they were given more attention, maybe it would make more sense to drive one. Just saying.. It works for disgusting fast food, sugar-packed candy bars, and artificial food. I think it would work for hydroelectric, alternative-fuel engine powering a power generator, solar powered, and rechargeable cars! ;)