August 12, 2007

The Vectrix zero-emission scooter unveiled - Zero-emission advocates got their first test ride recently on a zestful new all-electric motor scooter that can take two commuters on a silent ride that will cost them mere footling small change in electrical power.

The 462-pound Vectrix scooter takes two hours to recharge its batteries on 220-volt house current and three hours on a 110-volt current. Its makers say it has a top speed of 62 mph and, when traveling at a constant speed of 40 to 45 mph, has a range of about 60 miles on a charge. It is freeway legal, bitches.

posted by Hank Mabuse 17 years ago
  • As mentioned in the article, the price is the issue. At $11,000 it is just too expensive. Other issues: 62 miles per hour is way too fast on something with wheels that small, a fault in the road or a hole would be a bit of a problem. On the other hand, 62 miles per hour max speed would make it too slow for most highways, and for a lot of major secondary streets, a safety hazard. It might be fine for those that commute 5 or 10 miles to work. My commute is 35 miles each way, I would be pushing it the last 10 miles. And, quiet is nice, but I sort of like the fact that folks can hear the Sportster, even with a bit of noise people still tend to cut off bikes way too often. That said, it's a neat little toy... :-)
  • Unfortunately, I agree with HuronBob's concern about sound. It is a dangerous world out there for people on the roads who are driving anything with two wheels around here. However, it is a great step in the right direction for the time when I am in charge of the world. One of the first things I would do is to ban all automobile traffic from large cities. I would obviously increase mass transit extensively. I would allow for taxicabs (rich people need to be able to separate themselves from poor people in our society), possibly buses, delivery trucks, and emergency vehicles. There would probably still be a fair amount of traffic on the road. But it would decrease pollution. It would consume less gas. It would make for much faster commutes. It would reduce traffic-related deaths. It would eliminate DWI. It would reduce crime (police being the only people with vehicles would make it much harder to get away). It would make goods cheaper because it would be faster and more efficient to deliver them. There are really only one major downside that I can think of: American men would have to have their cocks surgically removed from their vehicles to do this.
  • It's obviously not a highway vehicle, but, if the price ever comes down, it could be quite the boon to townies. I currently commute 10 miles to work on a scooter that has a max speed of 30 mph, so that's not really an issue for this kind of use.
  • I've always been curious about electric and other alternative fuel source vehicles (i.e. hydrogen, ethanol. fuel cell, etc.) regarding the claims about "zero emissions" and better mileage. If I remember correctly here in the US most of our electric supplies are produced using old school, "dirty", land and air despoiling resources (oil, coal, hydroelectric). I can see the cleaner claim making sense as it seems easier to clean a single exhaust source from a generating plant than a bunch of cars and motorcycles, but the more efficient claim seems more dubious. Does producing the electricity at a generating plant and then using it to power individual vehicles make for a more efficient use of BTUs (or however you want to measure the power)? And how about the switch to ethanol? For every gallon, how many gallons of fossil fuel was needed in it's production? BTW, I'm not against alternative fuel sources, but I am curious about how they really stack up in terms of efficiency and emissions. Any monkeys have any data on this?
  • I'd love one of these. I'd be scared to drive one on the winding, hilly roads around here (afraid of getting hit), but I'd risk it. I live 2 miles from the mall and grocery store, 10 miles from work, so it'd be great for me.
  • Does producing the electricity at a generating plant and then using it to power individual vehicles make for a more efficient use of BTUs (or however you want to measure the power)? That depends on the local energy source and the number of such vehicles which drain the grid. If it's nuclear, wind turbine, geothermal, oceanic, solar or hydro at least the drain has minimized air/water pollution impact (depending on how you dispose of that nuclear waste, o' course). And how about the switch to ethanol? For every gallon, how many gallons of fossil fuel was needed in it's production? This guy says ethanol is a terrible choice resulting in a net loss of 65% energy.
  • #2 test-drove an electric scooter here a year or two ago. It was slow and awkward to turn, and I think its top speed was just under 50km/h or about 25mph but it cost a relatively cheap $2500NZ. It's good to see they're more desirable now. Affordable is another thing entirely.
  • Yeah, it wouldn;t be for everybody, but I'd certainly get a lot of use out of it.
  • I'd train a bear to drive one. No one would hear him coming.
  • I used to ride a Piaggio, and you could sure as shit hear that coming. I got rid of it after some nasty occurrences in South London. Plus I was moving house, needed luggage space etc. Life changes. And yes, I did get comments about the macho thing. Guys at work said I should get a 'real bike'. I said that at only 30 years old (then), I was too young for a mid-life crisis, and so I would not yet need to buy a bike, leathers, and some blues records. Anyway, I hope this scooter does well.
  • That is an awesome retort. I wish I had had you around in high school!
  • I'm still giggling at SilentScooterBear.