Elio Motors is crowdfunding its entire $25M investment round(startengine.com)
startengine.com
Elio Motors is crowdfunding its entire $25M investment round
https://www.startengine.com/startup/elio-motors
87 comments
Yep, pretty much every relevant state (representing nearly the entire US population) will require you to have a motorcycle license, and to wear a helmet. That's why Elio has been vaporware for nearly a decade and why they are trying to take their investor scam mainstream. They will never get to production.
According to their website, there's no helmet needed[0] in 45 states as of now.
[0] http://www.eliomotors.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/helmetl...
[0] http://www.eliomotors.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/helmetl...
http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/elio-motors-judicial...
This plus the fact that 45+ states have already passed helmet exemptions for the Ello and other three-wheeled vehicles with non-removable roofs/windshields.
http://www.technologytell.com/in-car-tech/5760/elio-motors-m...
This plus the fact that 45+ states have already passed helmet exemptions for the Ello and other three-wheeled vehicles with non-removable roofs/windshields.
http://www.technologytell.com/in-car-tech/5760/elio-motors-m...
What does "every relevant state" mean? The second and third most populous states don't require a helmet over 20, and the fifth doesn't require it at all.
They are claiming atleast '12' states have passed laws to not classify 'autocycles'[0] as a motorcycle and thus not require an endorsement or a helmet. That includes Louisiana, where the company is headquartered.
I suspect if they get a finished product off the line the number of states that classify certain 3-wheelers as cars will go up quickly.
[0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RJUXhK4pHx8&t=1212
I suspect if they get a finished product off the line the number of states that classify certain 3-wheelers as cars will go up quickly.
[0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RJUXhK4pHx8&t=1212
-- They will never get to production --
They said that about Elon Musk, on both Tesla and SpaceX. What do you want to bet if crowdfunding had been a valid option back then that he would have used it?
I don't think anyone on HN will disagree that transportation will look vastly different in thirty years time in ways we can't clearly project. Even Ford is now looking into manufacturing both motorcycles and bikes.
They said that about Elon Musk, on both Tesla and SpaceX. What do you want to bet if crowdfunding had been a valid option back then that he would have used it?
I don't think anyone on HN will disagree that transportation will look vastly different in thirty years time in ways we can't clearly project. Even Ford is now looking into manufacturing both motorcycles and bikes.
Completely public crowd-investment in startups is a bad idea. Crowdfunding is (mostly) great, but people invest money expecting a return, and startups do not generate returns the way the stock market does. Crowdfunding as a public investment vehicle is going to hurt a lot of people.
And this is the prime example of the type of product that should not be crowdfunded, under any circumstance.
The model makes some sense for simple branded products which (i) aren't that appealing to VCs and (ii) have chances of success closely allied to ability to generate buzz from evangelists (though I still expect the return on the asset class to be negative when its equity funding rather than pre-orders)
The model makes no sense whatsoever for technically complex but potentially very high return inventions, where the choice of crowdfunding as a fundraising strategy is basically a big red flag saying "we think people unable to do due diligence are our best bet for [the next stage of] funding"
The model makes some sense for simple branded products which (i) aren't that appealing to VCs and (ii) have chances of success closely allied to ability to generate buzz from evangelists (though I still expect the return on the asset class to be negative when its equity funding rather than pre-orders)
The model makes no sense whatsoever for technically complex but potentially very high return inventions, where the choice of crowdfunding as a fundraising strategy is basically a big red flag saying "we think people unable to do due diligence are our best bet for [the next stage of] funding"
>>for technically complex but potentially very high return inventions
Its worse! There is a good chance this is a technically complex but low return investment when compared to software startups (ie, snapchat).
Its worse! There is a good chance this is a technically complex but low return investment when compared to software startups (ie, snapchat).
When I read this comment I thought, this is exactly the kind of comment that people will link to in 2021, as a "can you believe this guy" comment, just as crowdfunding (and what it evolves into) begins to replace all other forms of investing.
Everything seems like a bad idea when you first start. That's the very nature of the new idea; it's something nobody else ever thought was a good idea... or else it wouldn't be a new idea. But this doesn't matter. We, almost all of us, simply cannot break outside of a paradigm. It has to be broken for us. The few that can break their paradigm are the same folks we read about on Forbes and Fast Company.
Everything seems like a bad idea when you first start. That's the very nature of the new idea; it's something nobody else ever thought was a good idea... or else it wouldn't be a new idea. But this doesn't matter. We, almost all of us, simply cannot break outside of a paradigm. It has to be broken for us. The few that can break their paradigm are the same folks we read about on Forbes and Fast Company.
When I read this comment I thought, how does this guy not realize that crowdfunding whole companies from unsophisticated investors isn't new, it's very old.
And in fact, the regulation we have around it is because the problems didn't disappear after starting, they grew, as fraud in such a market is incredibly easy to commit, incredibly hard to improve, and extraordinarily lucrative.
Perhaps enough has changed with improved distribution of reputation to make it work this time, but... it's not new. It's old. It's widespread. And it's a common vehicle for fraud in every time and every place that it's existed.
Thus, I find myself thinking that yours is the kind of comment that people will link to in 2021 as a "can you believe this guy" comment, about how naive it was for you to believe that this time was different.
And in fact, the regulation we have around it is because the problems didn't disappear after starting, they grew, as fraud in such a market is incredibly easy to commit, incredibly hard to improve, and extraordinarily lucrative.
Perhaps enough has changed with improved distribution of reputation to make it work this time, but... it's not new. It's old. It's widespread. And it's a common vehicle for fraud in every time and every place that it's existed.
Thus, I find myself thinking that yours is the kind of comment that people will link to in 2021 as a "can you believe this guy" comment, about how naive it was for you to believe that this time was different.
What is so new and special about crowdfunding? This is basically the stock market (which already gets its share of ruining amateur players who don't know enough) but taking away all the rules required to participate.
There's no oversight, no required disclosures, no stock/ownership, no liquidity, no insurance, no fallback protection, no guarantee of product, etc.
And this is supposed to replace all other forms of investing? I'm sorry but that just seems very naive.
There's no oversight, no required disclosures, no stock/ownership, no liquidity, no insurance, no fallback protection, no guarantee of product, etc.
And this is supposed to replace all other forms of investing? I'm sorry but that just seems very naive.
You answered your own question so eloquently that I'm affraid I cannot offer too much more.
Airbnb removed all the expensive rules and oversight intrinsic of the hospitality industry and opened the market, leading to new gains in market efficiency that are tough to compete with.
Uber did the same for personal transportation.
Crowd funding does this for investing. The real gains will be seen when the intelligence and agility of emergent, fast-moving fund pools are able to out-pace and out-perform traditional funds, indexes, and VC. That will change a lot of things.
FTR, I am talking about investing, not just preorders, but this may not mean that you get stock certificates in all cases.
Airbnb removed all the expensive rules and oversight intrinsic of the hospitality industry and opened the market, leading to new gains in market efficiency that are tough to compete with.
Uber did the same for personal transportation.
Crowd funding does this for investing. The real gains will be seen when the intelligence and agility of emergent, fast-moving fund pools are able to out-pace and out-perform traditional funds, indexes, and VC. That will change a lot of things.
FTR, I am talking about investing, not just preorders, but this may not mean that you get stock certificates in all cases.
It's not just about the lack of oversight. If that's all it was, I wouldn't bring the concern up; it'd be banal.
The problem is that startup investing is nothing at all like investing in public company stocks.
Venture capitalists don't back a single company. The majority of startups fail. Pushing all your chips in on a single startup is like going all in on a queen high hand. Instead, VCs invest in whole portfolios of companies.
But that's not the only difference. Because most companies fail, there's a theme to VC investment theses. And it's not obvious, because it drives founders (who are atypically savvy about startups) batshit. It's this: the winners have to pay for the losers. A decent shot at a 2x return sounds like a no-brainer, but it isn't. The returns on the wins have to be so good that they make up for all the failures.
Then there's dealflow. Good VCs get preferred access to the good startups. Most startups that raise money --- and all the startups that fit the "win will pay for other losers" mold --- plan on taking more money. If your first round is low 7 figures, your second round is going to be 8 figures, and probably not crowd-based! If you know you're going back to PE/VC for money, you care about who take money from this time. So if you can take money from Sequoia, you do. Sequoia gets the best deals, and crowd-funders get adversely selected into crappier deals.
Most VC funds lose money. Those are funds whose investments come with control --- something no crowdfunding investor gets. They can fire the CEO. They get bespoke due diligence, not to mention the VC's network of other firms to syndicate with on future investments. And when they close a deal, they tend to get preferences built in. Despite all those advantages, they still lose money. Crowd-investors get none of those things. Why would they do better?
This is before we get into how comically subordinate common shareholders of private companies are. Startups routinely do things that would generate shareholder lawsuits in public companies. They get to do those things because they are taking money from people who know the game. Consenting adults. The crowdfunding public can't do that.
And finally, why do we grant the premise that normal people are capable of selecting startups to invest in? They're not even able to do that with public companies. In 2015, companies listed on the major stock markets have proven an ability to drive revenue. We know where their money comes from. Venture capitalists have to prognosticate about that. How are normal people supposed to compete with them?
It's just a bad idea.
The problem is that startup investing is nothing at all like investing in public company stocks.
Venture capitalists don't back a single company. The majority of startups fail. Pushing all your chips in on a single startup is like going all in on a queen high hand. Instead, VCs invest in whole portfolios of companies.
But that's not the only difference. Because most companies fail, there's a theme to VC investment theses. And it's not obvious, because it drives founders (who are atypically savvy about startups) batshit. It's this: the winners have to pay for the losers. A decent shot at a 2x return sounds like a no-brainer, but it isn't. The returns on the wins have to be so good that they make up for all the failures.
Then there's dealflow. Good VCs get preferred access to the good startups. Most startups that raise money --- and all the startups that fit the "win will pay for other losers" mold --- plan on taking more money. If your first round is low 7 figures, your second round is going to be 8 figures, and probably not crowd-based! If you know you're going back to PE/VC for money, you care about who take money from this time. So if you can take money from Sequoia, you do. Sequoia gets the best deals, and crowd-funders get adversely selected into crappier deals.
Most VC funds lose money. Those are funds whose investments come with control --- something no crowdfunding investor gets. They can fire the CEO. They get bespoke due diligence, not to mention the VC's network of other firms to syndicate with on future investments. And when they close a deal, they tend to get preferences built in. Despite all those advantages, they still lose money. Crowd-investors get none of those things. Why would they do better?
This is before we get into how comically subordinate common shareholders of private companies are. Startups routinely do things that would generate shareholder lawsuits in public companies. They get to do those things because they are taking money from people who know the game. Consenting adults. The crowdfunding public can't do that.
And finally, why do we grant the premise that normal people are capable of selecting startups to invest in? They're not even able to do that with public companies. In 2015, companies listed on the major stock markets have proven an ability to drive revenue. We know where their money comes from. Venture capitalists have to prognosticate about that. How are normal people supposed to compete with them?
It's just a bad idea.
As opposed to what? Forcibly stopping them from doing what they please with their own money because they're 'normal' people?
That's not the same thing.
1) Removing rules in any industry will almost always lead to increased "efficiency" in some manner. That's just a mathematical function of less layers in the way.
2) Airbnb, Uber and others did not "remove" the rules and oversight. They're just skirting the law and are not completely legal nor right in every market. We haven't seen anything final on how these companies will be regulated in the future nor what happens due to the various loopholes they create in consumer protection.
3) Airbnb, Uber and others deliver something in exchange for your purchase and fall under the basic commitment of all companies who provide products/service to not just take the money and run. They're also relatively small purchases with no lasting damages.
4) Finance is much more complicated and regulations are necessary for consumer protection, especially when dealing with something like cash that can have direct and lasting impact on people's lives with the amount invested and the reliance on future stability and returns. Like the other comments have said, it's been proven over and over again that deregulating actions can cause massive fraud and losses.
This is the same reason we have regulations for medical practice and law and banking and countless other situations where safety is paramount, even at the cost of some inefficiency.
1) Removing rules in any industry will almost always lead to increased "efficiency" in some manner. That's just a mathematical function of less layers in the way.
2) Airbnb, Uber and others did not "remove" the rules and oversight. They're just skirting the law and are not completely legal nor right in every market. We haven't seen anything final on how these companies will be regulated in the future nor what happens due to the various loopholes they create in consumer protection.
3) Airbnb, Uber and others deliver something in exchange for your purchase and fall under the basic commitment of all companies who provide products/service to not just take the money and run. They're also relatively small purchases with no lasting damages.
4) Finance is much more complicated and regulations are necessary for consumer protection, especially when dealing with something like cash that can have direct and lasting impact on people's lives with the amount invested and the reliance on future stability and returns. Like the other comments have said, it's been proven over and over again that deregulating actions can cause massive fraud and losses.
This is the same reason we have regulations for medical practice and law and banking and countless other situations where safety is paramount, even at the cost of some inefficiency.
> it's been proven over and over again that deregulating actions can cause massive fraud and losses.
Sources please.
Sources please.
The entire 2008 financial crisis is a lesson in the dangers of deregulation and failure to keep up with oversight on changing market innovations.
Again, sources please.
I dunno, crowdfunding a company's investment rounds sounds a lot like an IPO to me. But with less oversight. I can't really see how this is a good thing.
Exactly. There's nothing especially novel about the concept of raising funds as widely as possible, and the reason that regulators have historically made it as difficult as possible to solicit funding for immature ventures through slick [recorded] pitches to as many retail investors as possible has nothing to do with the absence of the internet as a delivery mechanism until recently, and everything to do with people losing their shirts.
A few ideas that seem bad turn out to be good. Most turn out to be terrible, especially when the paradigm they're breaking was established precisely because most of the aspects of the idea have been tried, tested, and proven to be terrible.
A few ideas that seem bad turn out to be good. Most turn out to be terrible, especially when the paradigm they're breaking was established precisely because most of the aspects of the idea have been tried, tested, and proven to be terrible.
You can say the same thing about radium tonics.
people should know what they are getting in to. if they don't, just like the normal market, that's their problem. it would be very nice to destroy the vc market, or at least give them some more competition, and also to see some of the wealth generated returned to the people rather than back in the pocket of people who already have lots of money.
Venture capital funds tend to underperform the market, and are subsidized by allocation requirements at their customers (pension funds, university endowments) that encourage relatively small slices of huge funds to be put into longshots and stuff that isn't correlated with lucrative investments. At least, that's what Kauffman said about it.
To generate outsized returns for a small subset of investors, you don't have to be anywhere nearly as sophisticated as a VC fund: you can just run a lottery.
If you want to do something more socially useful than a numbers racket, crowd-investing probably isn't the best way to go.
To generate outsized returns for a small subset of investors, you don't have to be anywhere nearly as sophisticated as a VC fund: you can just run a lottery.
If you want to do something more socially useful than a numbers racket, crowd-investing probably isn't the best way to go.
It's a lot easier to outright lie and get away with it when you have a lot of people contributing a small amount of money. Even if someone gets proof you defrauded everyone no single party has the leverage to stand up for themselves.
Ipos are arguably just a form of crowdfunding.
Certainly back a few decades there's little difference, nowadays Ipos cannot be done without several volumes of paperwork by expensive lawyers.
If efficient IPOs were still around the crowdfunding market would be smaller. And IPOs of early stage companies certainly do not generate returns in a predictable way.
Certainly back a few decades there's little difference, nowadays Ipos cannot be done without several volumes of paperwork by expensive lawyers.
If efficient IPOs were still around the crowdfunding market would be smaller. And IPOs of early stage companies certainly do not generate returns in a predictable way.
Attempting to stop bad things from happening more
Often than not stops any good from being done. The magic 1 million dollar net worth requirement is no different.
Not disagreeing with tptacek but IMHO Kickstarter style rewards with an option to purchase a complete vehicle would be preferable.
84 mpg is a rather low number. Volkswagen Lupo 3L was about 78 mpg, but that was 15 years ago, and fuel efficient tech has advanced considerably in that time. And the Lupo was a normal 4-wheel car with a lot more space than the Elio. The Lupo 3L is probably slightly more safer, too.
The Elio does beat the Lupo in price, though, but $6800 is of course an estimate.
The Elio does beat the Lupo in price, though, but $6800 is of course an estimate.
European mpg is not the same rating as the United States mpg mostly because a gallon is not the same size everywhere, as ridiculous as that fact is.
http://jalopnik.com/5981938/why-do-european-cars-get-better-...
Using your number of 78mpg imperial for the Lupo, this is only about 64mpg us.
http://jalopnik.com/5981938/why-do-european-cars-get-better-...
Using your number of 78mpg imperial for the Lupo, this is only about 64mpg us.
It's 78 miles per US gallon:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volkswagen_Lupo#Lupo_3L
The Lupo is not sold in the US, and this brings up something I've always wondered. Is 78 mpg calculated using imperial gallons? Because that would translate into a lower number in US gallons.
The hint is in the name. The "3L" consumes 3L/100km (under optimal conditions yada yada yada). That is 78.4mpg using US gallons or 94.2mpg using UK gallons.
It's crazy, with 84mpg this is just dead on arrival.
I drive an old, small car. I'm about to get in the market for a new car once this one bites the dust. In 12 years, I've put more than 2 people in my car exactly 3 times. I'm interested in reasonable price, fuel efficiency and most of all reliability.
I admit I'm a little extreme in my car buying habits, but here's what I think whenever I buy cars:
- Does this make model of car have extremely good reliability? I honestly can think of few things I hate more than servicing my car. I want it to be appliance-level reliable. My current car has been in the shop (outside of normal maintenance) maybe under 5 times...mostly as the vehicle has gotten old. How do I determine reliability? Years and years of compiled reliability surveys: Consumer Reports, True Delta, etc. I expect any car I buy to have been part of a legacy of at least 5 years of continuously high reliability. This immediately downselects and eliminates about 95% of the market.
- If it breaks, how expensive is it to fix? To return to a reliable operating condition, I don't want to have to rebalance my entire finances.
- What's the car cost to operate per mile? My current car runs around $.20-.25 per mile, fully burdened (repairs, tolls, etc.). I don't want to spend much more than that and this car could easily hit that mark if it's reliable and cheap to fix.
- Is it safe? I want top safety ratings all around. Period. I'm not going to fool with that stuff. As it turns out, makers that make reliable cars tend to also make very safe cars.
- Do I like how it looks/drives/etc? It may seem weird to lots of people that this is the last thing on my list. But I've already prevented any sort of decision paralysis by getting rid of 95+% of the market. At this point I'm down to just a handful of cars, and now I just pick the one I like. Now I know I'll at least not mind driving it, and it won't piss me off by being in the shop constantly. I don't really care much about the image I'm projecting, I'm not trying to fit into some kind of clique or club or express myself. I just want to get to work as cheaply as possible and with a minimum of hassle. I'll enjoy the clique I'm in when I retire with all the extra money I've saved not buying image cars.
Can the Elio support this? Maybe and it looks promising. I'd buy it if it met all the criteria. The price looks awesome. But I'm going to have to be patient for 4 or 5 years of general availability to see.
I admit I'm a little extreme in my car buying habits, but here's what I think whenever I buy cars:
- Does this make model of car have extremely good reliability? I honestly can think of few things I hate more than servicing my car. I want it to be appliance-level reliable. My current car has been in the shop (outside of normal maintenance) maybe under 5 times...mostly as the vehicle has gotten old. How do I determine reliability? Years and years of compiled reliability surveys: Consumer Reports, True Delta, etc. I expect any car I buy to have been part of a legacy of at least 5 years of continuously high reliability. This immediately downselects and eliminates about 95% of the market.
- If it breaks, how expensive is it to fix? To return to a reliable operating condition, I don't want to have to rebalance my entire finances.
- What's the car cost to operate per mile? My current car runs around $.20-.25 per mile, fully burdened (repairs, tolls, etc.). I don't want to spend much more than that and this car could easily hit that mark if it's reliable and cheap to fix.
- Is it safe? I want top safety ratings all around. Period. I'm not going to fool with that stuff. As it turns out, makers that make reliable cars tend to also make very safe cars.
- Do I like how it looks/drives/etc? It may seem weird to lots of people that this is the last thing on my list. But I've already prevented any sort of decision paralysis by getting rid of 95+% of the market. At this point I'm down to just a handful of cars, and now I just pick the one I like. Now I know I'll at least not mind driving it, and it won't piss me off by being in the shop constantly. I don't really care much about the image I'm projecting, I'm not trying to fit into some kind of clique or club or express myself. I just want to get to work as cheaply as possible and with a minimum of hassle. I'll enjoy the clique I'm in when I retire with all the extra money I've saved not buying image cars.
Can the Elio support this? Maybe and it looks promising. I'd buy it if it met all the criteria. The price looks awesome. But I'm going to have to be patient for 4 or 5 years of general availability to see.
While you fall squarely into Consumer Reports crowd (such a category exists, according to the dealer I bought a Consumer Reports top pick from), a good portion of auto industry markets to early adopters. Saturn, Scion, Tesla (with Roadster model) and even Fisker did not have much of a sales problem at their respective early stages.
Lots of people, probably most of the industry, buys really exceptionally shitty cars - corinthian leather is not even a real thing, but it moved millions of haphazardly bolted together death traps for years and similar garbage-on-wheels still sells tens of thousands of units per year.
There's also quite a few small automotive companies around that haven't successfully made the transition from specialty maker to mainstream success. This goes back to the early days of the industry and carries on through today, from Tucker to the Rally Fighter.
I like to think I still represent a big part of the industry, after all somebody is buying those Consumer Reports used car guides.
There's also quite a few small automotive companies around that haven't successfully made the transition from specialty maker to mainstream success. This goes back to the early days of the industry and carries on through today, from Tucker to the Rally Fighter.
I like to think I still represent a big part of the industry, after all somebody is buying those Consumer Reports used car guides.
You will do MUCH better spending the $6,800 on a well-maintained secondhand real car.
You can't get a decent low mileage car for $6800. You also cannot reliably identify a well-maintained car. You can get an Accord or Camry with 150k miles or a Scion with a bit under 100k.
I bought my car for less than $5k, but I don't drive much and don't need to worry about occasional $1000 on repairs. For someone who needs reliability, buying a new, but extremely minimal $7000 car may be ideal.
If you want something you don't need to set aside money for repair on, you'll need to spend $10k+.
I bought my car for less than $5k, but I don't drive much and don't need to worry about occasional $1000 on repairs. For someone who needs reliability, buying a new, but extremely minimal $7000 car may be ideal.
If you want something you don't need to set aside money for repair on, you'll need to spend $10k+.
Do what I did: buy a motorcycle. I bought a Kymco Quannon new for $1600 plus taxes. It's 150cc, will do highway speeds, and looks great. It costs about $11 to fill the tank and that lasts a few hundred km.
This is not the car of the future. Still using gas? ICE (internal combustion engine)? 3 wheels? This has been tried before and did not work. This is a step backwards. Also who the heck names their company after themselves anymore? Talk about ego.
Why is the internal combustion engine a step backwards? Electric cars have some benefits, but they have had those benefits for more than 125 years. For more than a 100 years the problem has been cost and range and that hasn't been solved yet.
A three-wheeler! Unfortunately in the UK this is almost certainly no-go; we've had our fill of the Sinclair / Reliant / etc.
I'm really unsure about this whole 'equity crowdfunding' thing. Risky ventures are for a certain class of investor; you need a certain amount of information too. I'm all about getting public access into these things, but you really can't evaluate it on the information presented...
I'm really unsure about this whole 'equity crowdfunding' thing. Risky ventures are for a certain class of investor; you need a certain amount of information too. I'm all about getting public access into these things, but you really can't evaluate it on the information presented...
Two front, one back is much better than two back one front.
That may be true, but the image problem of 3 wheelers wasn't down to any specific handling issue.
And this is an image problem in a country which pays twice as much for fuel, prefers hatchbacks to pickups, and has the original Mini as a national icon.
And this is an image problem in a country which pays twice as much for fuel, prefers hatchbacks to pickups, and has the original Mini as a national icon.
Is there any reason to think this attempt at a three-wheeled motorcycle/car would be more successful than previous iterations? It's been tried a lot in the past, but it doesn't seem to have ever really caught on.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Three-wheeled_motor_v...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Three-wheeled_motor_v...
Maybe, and I do mean "maybe" the cost of vehicle ownership and fuel costs are factors that would incentivize such a purchase.
I know we are a corner case, but I would consider purchasing one of these. Well, if they get some YouTube crash videos up like the SmartCar video... My family works on a "primary car / backup car" basis. Most of our combined driving needs are covered by our TDI wagon. When we infrequently both need to drive on the same day, whomever is going on the longest trip takes the TDI, and the other takes the beater. I could see a car like this replacing the beater, or becoming the car used by whomever isn't driving our daughter on a given day.
I know we are a corner case, but I would consider purchasing one of these. Well, if they get some YouTube crash videos up like the SmartCar video... My family works on a "primary car / backup car" basis. Most of our combined driving needs are covered by our TDI wagon. When we infrequently both need to drive on the same day, whomever is going on the longest trip takes the TDI, and the other takes the beater. I could see a car like this replacing the beater, or becoming the car used by whomever isn't driving our daughter on a given day.
It does seem likely that this could end up being Aptera Part II.
I was wondering when someone would bring that up:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aptera_Motors
"As of January 2010, the number of unique deposits tracked at the unofficial Aptera forum surpassed 5000."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aptera_Motors
"As of January 2010, the number of unique deposits tracked at the unofficial Aptera forum surpassed 5000."
Maybe. It looks like that vehicle never even reached production. Very difficult to tell how such a vehicle would have fared in the market given that it was never tested. I mean, "could be an Aptera 3e situation" is an accusation that could be leveled at almost any first-vehicle from a company. The fact that they're both trikes is barely relevant.
There are some reasons to think so. It's fully enclosed. It might be better constructed. The price is pretty low. Fuel efficiency is good.
Maybe it will, maybe it won't. Personally, I like to see marginal ideas tried again every couple of decades. An idea might click with the public in one decade that wouldn't have two before, because of changing perceptions and needs.
Maybe it will, maybe it won't. Personally, I like to see marginal ideas tried again every couple of decades. An idea might click with the public in one decade that wouldn't have two before, because of changing perceptions and needs.
I wonder how it will handle a crash test, for some reason I think it will be as unsafe as regular motorcycle.
So you basically getting all the downsides of a motorcycle: safety, limited space, no passengers ,wearing a helmet (some states), without getting any upsides: beating traffic by skipping between lines (I know its illegal but most of the motorcycles do this), finding a parking easier, looking cool...The only thing it shares with a car is having a roof and easier driving.
Imho it's better to get a $3K cheaper honda bike: http://powersports.honda.com/2015/rebel.aspx
So you basically getting all the downsides of a motorcycle: safety, limited space, no passengers ,wearing a helmet (some states), without getting any upsides: beating traffic by skipping between lines (I know its illegal but most of the motorcycles do this), finding a parking easier, looking cool...The only thing it shares with a car is having a roof and easier driving.
Imho it's better to get a $3K cheaper honda bike: http://powersports.honda.com/2015/rebel.aspx
> So you basically getting all the downsides of a motorcycle
Assuming your guess is correct, you capture the safety downside. But that is only a guess on your part. To me, it seems like a silly guess -- I'd expect that this will be less safe than a subcompact, but still a good deal safer than a motorcycle.
There are still a few downsides you don't get. You get AC in this vehicle. You don't have to wear leathers because you can't fall. You have a sealed cabin, so road noise, while likely worse than a normal car, will be much better than a motorcycle. A trike is a lot more stable than a bike.
> without getting any upsides
Price? Fuel efficiency? Parking in such a small vehicle will be much easier than the smallest car, even if it's not quite as easy as a bike.
Assuming your guess is correct, you capture the safety downside. But that is only a guess on your part. To me, it seems like a silly guess -- I'd expect that this will be less safe than a subcompact, but still a good deal safer than a motorcycle.
There are still a few downsides you don't get. You get AC in this vehicle. You don't have to wear leathers because you can't fall. You have a sealed cabin, so road noise, while likely worse than a normal car, will be much better than a motorcycle. A trike is a lot more stable than a bike.
> without getting any upsides
Price? Fuel efficiency? Parking in such a small vehicle will be much easier than the smallest car, even if it's not quite as easy as a bike.
usaphp(2)
I don't think you'll find it very easy to low-side crash the three wheeler, whereas if you hit a slippery patch on a two wheeler it's not that hard to do. You're also probably better protected from debris.
Not sure it's the safest thing, but it's likely as another commenter mentioned, somewhere between a car and a two wheel motorcycle in terms of safety.
Not sure it's the safest thing, but it's likely as another commenter mentioned, somewhere between a car and a two wheel motorcycle in terms of safety.
> beating traffic by skipping between lines (I know its illegal but most of the motorcycles do this)
This is called lanesplitting and it's not illegal in California or most of the non-US world.
This is called lanesplitting and it's not illegal in California or most of the non-US world.
I wonder why only CA allowed lane splitting, I know that it's illegal everywhere except CA.
Until recently, lane sharing was not specifically legal in California, and it was also not specifically illegal. Then someone decided to write it into the law, for some reason.
Anyway, the reason California allows this is because most of the country's good ideas start here ;-) It's demonstrably safer for motorcyclists and it saves everyone time, so why not?
Anyway, the reason California allows this is because most of the country's good ideas start here ;-) It's demonstrably safer for motorcyclists and it saves everyone time, so why not?
Then make it into this: https://www.pinterest.com/pin/520939881867172271/.
At $6800 this will make for a good transplant of a poor mans t-rex[1]. Swap in a zx14r motor and you've got yourself an animal.
[1] https://www.campagnamotors.com
[1] https://www.campagnamotors.com
Hmm, so I wasn't able to find any technical information at all about the vehicle (engine specs, suspension, electronics...etc) neither on the linked page nor on their official website.
There is some info in their PDF (http://www.eliomotors.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/Elio_33...). Link is available on their website.
Ah, this appears to have a little more information, thanks.
Unfortunately, most of the people who they're targeting for this round probably don't have the training to evaluate that type of information even if they had it. Are there any reliable third party experts who have given their opinion of the tech one way or the other? That's probably the next best thing to understanding it yourself.
Exactly, I was kinda shocked at how much they've raised (via crowdfunding) given the absence of vital information.
> Today, there’s a new trailblazer working tirelessly to alter the course of history. His name is Paul Elio. He is gearing up to become the next Henry Ford and this is the public’s first opportunity to invest in Elio Motors at the ground level. You can be a part of the $52 billion U.S. personal transportation industry and own a part of the next new U.S. vehicle manufacturer. But you have to act now!
That reads like an infomercial. Kind of makes you worried about crowd-investment...
That reads like an infomercial. Kind of makes you worried about crowd-investment...
Interesting idea with the front/back seating, but honestly I can't image it actually drives well at all. The front with the pushed out wheels is super fugly as well.
But... why? I don't understand why an entrepreneur would prefer crowdfunded money to venture capital. And if he can't raise venture capital with the glut of money in venture right now, that's doubly worrying.
The only thing that makes any sense to me at least is a marketing angle -- by getting lots of people as "shareholders" you now have a base of evangelists to advocate for your car.
The only thing that makes any sense to me at least is a marketing angle -- by getting lots of people as "shareholders" you now have a base of evangelists to advocate for your car.
As of right now 5,365 people have registered their (non-binding) interest in $21,462,675 worth of shares -- making the average reservation ~$4k.
Not so fast.... these numbers are not confirmed in any way and can be gamed easily. I expand on it here.
https://www.launchticker.com/story/automotive-co-eliomotors-...
this is really bad for crowdfunding....
https://www.launchticker.com/story/automotive-co-eliomotors-...
this is really bad for crowdfunding....
I would be terrified of getting trapped in the backseat of that.
Translation - no institutional investors were stupid enough to give us [any more of] their money, but we think you are!
One great thing about crowdfunding is that it will enable companies to raise money without having to move to the Bay Area.
I'd prefer it if companies were not significantly disadvantaged in fundraising outside the Bay Area because VCs had some of the ability to think outside the box they are supposedly blessed with...
Slightly related: does anybody know how Terrafugia's Wefunder round went?
the thing i dont like about this is the misleading way they put a picture of the earth on the car and say 'environmentally friendly!' - its not obviously, it still uses fossil fuels. shouldnt we have already got past those by now, seeing as we are all going to die if we dont ? :) yeah you can vote it down oil loving motherfucker, but you still going to die if we dont get rid of this oil shit.
Technically it's a motorcycle very similar to the Spyder - http://www.brp.ca/spyder/ - and (as of 12 months ago) some states would require you to wear a helmet and/or take a motorcycle test for you to legally be able to drive this thing.
https://eliomotors.wordpress.com/2014/05/16/lets-talk-about-...
(I have no idea what progress they made on getting those laws changed in the past 12 months.)