evDaytona: electric motocycle with turgid windscreen

Feel like cruising upwards of 93 miles-per-hour on a motorcycle without using a single drop of fuel? How about being absolutely certain that a great egret could hit your windshield without even fazing you? If you're in agreement with those two tidbits, Triumph's evDaytona looks to be the bike for you, as it can go zero to 60 in a mere 2.9 seconds, roll 143 miles on a full charge, and sports a five-year battery life to boot. This aluminum alloy-framed machine sports all the amenities you'd expect to find on your average motorbike, but throws in a ginormous windscreen and removes the need for fossil fuels along the way. Of course, the bike currently still needs DOT approval, and while we've yet to see anything definite on price, word on the street is that this here ride will run you about $77,000 whenever it actually launches.

[Via MotorBiker]

[Vince Clarke @ Jul 2nd 2007 4:45AM]

Why do electric vehicles always have to be so ugly?

[missileman50 @ Jul 2nd 2007 5:50AM]

The tesla roadster doesn't look too bad to me. :)

http://www.teslamotors.com/index.php

[Phour ZwanZig @ Jul 2nd 2007 2:57PM]

Yeah.. and at 23k more, I feel the Tesla is a steal compared to this bike...

You'd think it wouldnt be much more than it GasSuckin Cuzins..

[dark69 @ Jul 2nd 2007 5:50AM]

its better option when fuel are at its end and we can generate electric power easily and speed of this bike is just enough for fun and its also nature friendly !!! Polution Freee !!!
i think its best option for all
thanks for sharing


http://www.softwareoutlets.info/

[Chris @ Jul 2nd 2007 8:24AM]

There's still pollution involved. How do you think they produce the electricity to charge this sucker?

On another note, this is what Lord Helmet would ride I think.

[strider_mt2k @ Jul 2nd 2007 6:07AM]

Pain it yellow and Robin can ride it.

Holy Oakley windshield Batman!

[john @ Jul 2nd 2007 6:26AM]

Shave the windshield a bit, lower the cost even more, and I may even ride this to work and around town.

[Aaron @ Jul 2nd 2007 6:55AM]

Hmm, very tempting. I can't even tell you how many times I've been smacked in the face with a great egret due to a wimpy windscreen.

Seriously though, I like this. But $77,000 is a lot of money...

[strider_mt2k @ Jul 2nd 2007 6:59AM]

Egrets, I've had a few.

-but then again, too few to mention...

[tekdroid @ Jul 2nd 2007 6:58AM]

"...and removes the need for fossil fuels along the way"
-----
depends on how the electricity was generated to charge it.

[Aaron @ Jul 2nd 2007 8:41AM]

Not really an issue in the US. I seem to recall electricity here being generated mostly through "clean" methods (hydro, solar, nuclear, to name a few).

[Joel @ Jul 2nd 2007 10:00AM]

Electricity in the US is generated mostly by burning COAL. But it is more energy efficient and cleaner to burn fossil fuels at the power plant than it is to burn them in your car.

[Yojimbo @ Jul 2nd 2007 11:04AM]

Aaron, do you live in some Utopian-Star-Trekian alternative future universe? If so, please send the coordinates to my coal-powered wormhole drive navacomputer.

[Aaron @ Jul 2nd 2007 12:34PM]

Coal takes care of about half. The other half is a combination of nuclear, hydroelectric, and natural gas, and a small percentage of other things. Although a large percentage does come from coal, as Joel pointed it out it's better to burn it at the power plant for electricity than to burn oil in your car.

I was only repeating something I remembered reading, however it's worth noting that I wasn't actually wrong in what I said: coal makes up just shy of 50% of our energy, which of course puts those other, "nicer" methods at over half. "Mostly" clean, you see.

But don't let facts stop you, guys. Keep clicking that minus button to send my post to oblivion, and keep on writing those ever-helpful sarcastic comments.

[koboy @ Jul 2nd 2007 7:24AM]

yeah, really ugly the windscreen... personal request...

[SteveJ @ Jul 2nd 2007 7:26AM]

You won't have to worry about an egret, but you will have to worry about all those cars that not only can't see you, but can't hear you either.

[jason woodruff @ Jul 2nd 2007 7:53AM]

Electric is a good idea...but $77,000.00 is not. Why the high price tag? It's understandable for a new, innovative product to cost more, but must we pay for the research and development all at once?

[Unbathed @ Aug 4th 2007 3:20PM]

Charge the cost of innovation to the people who like innovative products.

[jon @ Jul 2nd 2007 3:08PM]

Uh, sure there are no 'drops of fuel'. However you store electrons in the battery, and those electrons come from a power plant somewhere, most likely fossil fueled.

It's an interesting exercise and nicely resolved, even if the windshield is a little oversized. It looks better than a prior electric motorcycle I've seen.

But motorcycles are inherently much more efficient than cars, so their fuel use is rather minimal to start with.

Any thoughts on a highly efficient four stroke gas powered motorcycle with good emissions controls, with a motor sized for moderate performance, load carrying and high mpg?

[Joe Maki @ Jul 2nd 2007 8:38AM]

Hope it's not using Lucas electrics :)

[/eric @ Jul 2nd 2007 8:58AM]

Yea, but does it cause hearing loss? Is there an easy way for the end user to make it cause hearing loss? Will it make enough noise to set off dog barking alarms all over town when it goes by? If not, it will be a failure in the US.

http://www.napa.ufl.edu/2004news/motorcyclenoise.htm

Of course, the rest of the (civilized) world has a little more sense.

[James Ryan Worrell @ Jul 2nd 2007 9:15AM]

This is crazy. $77,000. That is an electric converted Yamaha R6, I drive an R6. Brand new they are $7999, and seeing how I get 50+ mpg I don't forsee spending $70k on gas the next 5 years. Also, who the hell wants to wait to recharge, not to mention I can pick up speed quicker, and I have hit 153 on my bike, same bike mind you just not electric and not $77k. Cool idea, crazy price, good luck selling that one.

[Kris @ Jul 2nd 2007 10:02AM]

Actually it's a converted Triumph Daytona. Of course, it's still not worth $77K.

[anonymous @ Jul 2nd 2007 9:52AM]

I'm sure their price includes R&D dollars and is not truly indicative of what the bike will come out to cost when it becomes available.

[foxdude0486 @ Jul 2nd 2007 10:40AM]

I'm guessing the windscreen is for that extra bit of aerodynamics to give the thing better top speed and mileage. But it does cause the thing to look not so "cool" to the regular sportbikers.

[Yojimbo @ Jul 2nd 2007 11:10AM]

You would think that at around 77k a bike, the company that converts them to EV could afford a better website! Bad website = low consumer confidence. It seriously looks like it is from 1996.

[worth @ Jul 2nd 2007 2:16PM]

I think a lot of the cost may come from the lithium ion batteries from A123 Systems. Sweet tech from those MIT nanomaterial boys, but pricey (they're also one of the 2 battery suppliers for the upcoming Chevy Volt all electric). I had also read where Tesla, developing its own lithium ion battery tech, is spending $25k per vehicle (out of $98k total vehicle cost) on the batteries. http://electricmotive.blogspot.com/

[D4MO @ Jul 2nd 2007 10:16PM]

Umm is that huge Windshield just put over top of a normal one.......

[Ryan @ Jul 31st 2007 2:18PM]

To be correct:
Range is about 103 miles / half if hot rodded.
Triumph was the donor model, not affiliated with the Triumph motor company.
Zero to sixty = 2.7 seconds.
It's being sold already (limited sales) as a spec purchase by buyer preferences.
Purchaser can supply the Triumph roller or we will, but we will not use other brands.
Prices start now at $55,000 US and the intention is to maintain only one build per month.

[Unbathed @ Aug 4th 2007 3:21PM]

Ahh, a craftsman / bespoke / jewelry business model. I applaud.