This is the Isetta BMW should be going for

If you want to save money, why not save space at the same time. And save even more money. 90-95% of all cars normally carry just one person. So, why don't we slim down our mode of transportation that is showing signs of becoming obese? Sleek, lightweight vehicles have many advantages: better maneuverability, fuel economy, lower emissions and the ability to use the existing infrastructure more efficiently. The distinctive good looking Space Efficient Vehicle (SEV) will do fine as sole vehicle for singles, couples and one-child families and of course during rush hour when traffic is at its worst.
Read Article

Voyager - 5/8/2008 4:49:33 AM

+1 Boost

[img]http://voyager.myautospies.com/users/244/Sample-Gallery/image002.jpg[img]

Wazz - 5/9/2008 8:21:35 AM

+1 Boost

MadibaP - 5/8/2008 6:04:56 AM

+1 Boost

What has this got to do with BMW? This is a French design by Michelin! It's a sensible car! BMW my ass...

EnnNorak - 5/8/2008 8:39:04 AM

+3 Boost

This has everything to to with BMW. BMW wants to resurrect the Isetta in modern form and the car described here could be a formidable competitor to BMW's proposed new Isetta.

Batman219 - 5/8/2008 9:01:08 AM

+3 Boost

Americans have to slim themselves down first before thinking of slimming down their cars.

09CTSVforMe - 5/8/2008 4:08:49 PM

-1 Boost

Not all Americans are fat, bigot.

Rupert - 5/8/2008 5:26:18 PM

+1 Boost

No, just 40% of them.

w209w114 - 5/8/2008 9:24:58 AM

+2 Boost

I think a lot of people will be hesitant to buy anything that resembles a motorcycle. Plus the car is very lengthy compared to the original Isetta and say a Smart Car. I gottan give it credit for being sporty but it ends there.

ryskt - 5/8/2008 10:26:21 AM

+4 Boost

That staggered seating configuration would make road-head impossible.

w209w114 - 5/8/2008 11:26:52 AM

0 Boost

I just noticed that! Ok. Now Im definitely NOT buying this car!!!

Rupert - 5/8/2008 1:19:30 PM

+1 Boost

Lmao!

Voyager - 5/8/2008 1:08:20 PM

0 Boost

If this crossover is impacted from the side, passenger heads will not slam onto each other. It's 57.1 inches wide (small). That makes a classic four-wheel platform not desirable. A vehicle that small would tend to roll over when cornering. With the semi three-wheel layout this roll-over line is diagonal, which makes it much more resistant to tipping over. By the way, 57 inches makes it as wide (small) as the ol' Lotus Elan.

Wouldn't you agree that this package is safer, more comfortable (wheelbase), more practical (three seats) and more fuel-efficient (tapered shape) than the Smart For2?

Voyager - 5/9/2008 2:29:17 AM

0 Boost

And why is that? You probably haven't been reading the whole article. A (semi) three-wheel platform (and low center of gravity) is the only way to go if you have a small vehicle. Oversteer tendencies is compensated for by using two rear wheels. They will dramatically enhance lateral resistance to sliding sideways.

BMW995 - 5/9/2008 10:03:29 AM

+1 Boost

Let's face it, with energy prices increasing almost daily, something radical is going to have to be done. I was visiting a retirement community in Phoenix, and many are driving golf carts on the city streets! Talk about dangerous. More than a few fatalities have been reported when those carts have been hit by a car. So this study will be a quantum leap in safety vs a golf cart.
Something like this design study going into production in the new few years will be a reality.

Voyager - 5/11/2008 4:46:19 AM

+1 Boost

There will be a time car drivers will say: "Why the hell am I carrying so much load when going to work or running errands?" 93 to 98% of a gallon of fuel is wasted to move the car back and forth. With the Space Efficient Vehicle, the estimated fuel consumption using small, conventional engines is supposed to range between 75 and 110 mpg. That's at least three times more fuel-efficient than today's cars. If you make the SEV an all-electric vehicle then you just charge the batteries during the night, and spend even less money.

Voyager - 5/13/2008 9:44:17 AM

+1 Boost

Yes, it's FWD. If the back would be heavy then oversteer is a problem I guess. Rolling over in any case is not. Large diameter wheels means that it will have a low center of gravity, close to or underneath the wheel hubs. There is enough literature on the pros and cons of three-wheelers. Don't forget: the SEV is supposed to be a fuel-efficient urban runabout, not a performance vehicle. A 'last line of defense' i guess would be to use indirect steering. Like the Smart For2 makers did.

Voyager - 5/13/2008 9:49:16 AM

+1 Boost

By the way, obviously the stance could be altered. Dependent on performance requirements. Particularly the rear wheels could be set further apart from each other. Not too much. Otherwise it would change into a regular four-wheel car. And we won't have that, will we?

Voyager - 5/16/2008 4:35:30 AM

+1 Boost

... Last but not least: have the clustered rear wheels steer slightly in the same direction as the the front wheels are pointing, will most definitely prevent toppling over.