More details about the Triac highway-capable three-wheel electric car emerge

We can't help but find Green Vehicles' Triac three-wheeled highway-capable electric car anything but stupidly adorable, and it looks like it's even better than we hoped. Our friends over at Autoblog Green scored some more info on the buggy, and found that the top speed it actually 80mph, and that range is just about 100 miles on a full charge, down from 120 miles as originally estimated. The Triac will also roll with a five-speed transmission, and charge from either a 120V or 240V power source. On top of all that, Green Vehicles is apparently working on a truck called the Buckshot based on the same motor, but with a three-speed transmission that will enable it to be a "true work truck." Sure, sure -- but when can we have a Triac? Seriously, we want to hug it.

[salut @ May 8th 2008 7:56AM]

Until they make a decent sized, 4 door electric car that does 0 - 60mph in 5seconds or less, i couldn't care a less!

[salut @ May 8th 2008 7:57AM]

PS. global warming is bullshit!

[Flashpoint @ May 8th 2008 8:12AM]

There are two possibilities here:

Either, #1 Global warming is BS and the earth is naturally getting warmer - while politicians are trying to use "green" as a way to consolidate power and money in new "green" technologies and corporations...

OR #2 Global Warming due to fossil fuel use is REALITY and we need to change our ways to decrease pollution and greenhouse gases and ozone depleting chemicals.


Either way, I'm not interested in green vehicles until they make 4 door sedans the size of the Chrysler 300; SUV's the size of Ford Expedition, Explorer and Edge and green buses/green shipping trucks, green boats and green jets.

The problem is, we CAN't achieve that with oil companies controlling our economy.

We can't achieve this with whore politicians.

We can't achieve this with Republicans in office.

CHINA will go green before America simply because their communist government leaves no room for the BULLSH*T we go through in AMerican politics. That's why their social services, and infrastructures are better than ours. And I lived there for years on business so I know.

[NHAnimator @ May 8th 2008 8:22AM]

"We can't achieve this with Republicans in office."

The House is led by the Democrats and the Senate, is, well, depends on who you ask. Yet we still have "global warming". Let's not make this a Red/Blue issue. It's all about the Benjamins - for both sides.

And how is it exactly that we got into and then out of the last ice age? The NATURAL cycle of the Earth cooling and warming.

[kev @ May 8th 2008 9:38AM]

There's a lot being done to make vehicles that are a ton more efficient..but they're not coordinating with each other, nor do they have the means to mass produce them.

For example, all you drivers should know that less than 1% of the fuel you use is actually being used to move YOU. Therefore, an institute in the Rockies is working on a carbon fiber chassis that's lightweight, and the rest of the car will be weighed down by people, the engine, and other stuff. A good amount of energy is being wasted with the friction in the pistons, so they're working on much better lubricants...this is at MIT. And, there's multiple teams working on battery technology.

The immediate solution is to start driving less. The real problem is not global warming, it's peak oil, because if it takes more energy to get petrol, and most of it is being wasted on fuel, then we're kinda screwed.

[kev @ May 8th 2008 9:52AM]

Furthermore, people like you, salut, are part of the problem. You want the world before you're willing to do something good, and you do not want to sacrifice anything at all. You do not need 500hp to move your stupid fat ass.

[Flashpoint @ May 8th 2008 9:56AM]

KEV


The true problem is that Oil and Coal are at the beggining of our infrastructure. EVERYTHING we produce gets its energy from oil or coal.

WHAT WE NEED is to cut them out of the equation. We need a NUCLEAR infrastructure. We need heavy investment in FUSION POWER. Oil companies don't want that because FUSION would have tremendous benefits over FISSION and PETRO FUELS because it leaves behind much less radioactive material (with shorter half life) .

FUSION is our future. Unfortunately, the Military will perfect it first and leave the cities hanging.

[Alexander @ May 8th 2008 10:00AM]

You have to look at reality. A car that gets 50miles per 8-hour charge would be fine for 90% of American daily-drivers.

There is no need to drive a SUV anything into work every day--unless you are a construction worker. Who hauls things in from home to work every day. Or you need to transport 5 full grown adult males on a daily basis.

But if you work in a cube, and have to pay for parking downtown... You will be fine with a car that only gets 50miles per charge. And if the parking garages would have plug-in ports, then it would fulfill almost 98% of the daily-drivers in America.

I work 12miles from where I live. With this car, I would have to 'fill up' once a week (in reality it makes no difference when I fill up as the price of electricity is pretty much stable all the time) and electricity costs pennies compared with gas--so I would be saving somewhere around $100 a month by switching to this vehicle. At least. I know there has been some months where I fill up 3 times a month.

I have tried biking (no good in rain/cold) I have tried public transportation (timing, reliability) and I have tried carpooling (same as public transportation, really) and it just dosen't work out. I am going to get a motorcycle and try that next. But that's not a solution as I can't use it in the winter... I just want it. :P

I await the Chevy Volt or any full EV with my checkbook in hand.

[SacredByte @ May 9th 2008 1:06AM]

@ Flashpoint:

I agree with you that we (the United States) need to invest heavily in Nuclear . Hell, even France primarialy uses nuclear. Right now, our fleet of nuclear power reactors has just about reached the end of its 30 year lifespan. Modern nuclear reactors are safer and more efficient than what we currently have, but the un-informed masses keep shouting "Not in *my* back yard."

As for the viability of fusion power, I will repeat what a professor of physics from ODU http://www.odu.edu (who is a member of their nuclear physics group) told me when I asked him about the viability of fusion power while staying as a guest in his home (I believe over Thanksgiving of 2006). He said "Fusion power is the technology of the future, and always will be." (or something very close to that). When I asked him to explain this, he started out by telling me that those working on it are saying that it is currently X (I don't remember if he said 20 or 50) years from being viable. Then he said that when he was in school (in the 1970's) they were saying it was just as far from being viable as they are saying today.

It seems to me that this is due to either unrealistic expectations (of what still needs to be developed) and/or unrealistic estimates (of how long it will take to develop the required technology/knowledge), OR that fusion power (on the scale we are talking about -- less than a star) is entirely unrealistic.

[Adam @ May 8th 2008 8:06AM]

I'd rather settle for it's 3-wheel alternative, the VentureOne (http://www.flytheroad.com/). Which also has a Hybrid version.

[OneLove @ May 8th 2008 10:34AM]

Triac is also three-wheeled?

[Jonathon @ May 8th 2008 10:59AM]

I've been following VV for quite a while now. If it meets the specs it says it will, then I'll (hopefully) be one of the first to own one.

That said, does anyone know what this will be going for? I'd love something fun and unique for my daily commute. If they can keep it ~$20k or under then I might snag one until the V1 is ready.

[George A. Romero @ May 8th 2008 8:07AM]

All thanks to Dubbya, we'll be driving this crap!

[Dan @ May 8th 2008 8:56AM]

How is it Bush's fault?? I mean, I'm not his biggest fan but nor am I a hyper-environmentalist. Yeah, I agree we need to live cleaner but corporations were polluting long before he came along and the idea that global warming is man-made is not new with his presidency. Stop blaming Bush for every stupid little thing and maybe people will pay attention to you and take you seriously.

[Ken @ May 8th 2008 10:36AM]

@Dan

You think oil is $100+ a barrel because of pollution? If Bush wasn't in office, we wouldn't have invaded Iraq. That's a fact! His administration took advantage of 9/11 to leverage our Senate and Congress to go to war with a country so that its neighbors and our military industrial complex could make profit. The principle cause of the rise of oil prices is Iraq. Don't let people distract you with China's consumption. Most of China's fossil fuels are domestic. This whole thing is big, dirty business.

[OneLove @ May 8th 2008 10:38AM]

Its his fault and the assholes/sheep who voted for him (both times), for putting the economy where it is now.

[M Burke @ May 8th 2008 7:12PM]

actually, the reason oil is at $120+ a barrel has very, very little to do with the Iraq war and more with supply and demand. The fact that you mindless liberal slaves keep repeating the same lines over and over proves that neither you nor your candidates deserve a fair hearing during the revolution when our robot overlords take over.

[ugg.tryptophan @ May 8th 2008 3:06PM]

this is electric, how do gas prices affect it at all? GM had the EV1 out before Pres Bush was in office and before global warming was popular; to save the environment? no, to drive innovation in electric drivetrain systems; if you want a car that gets better gas mileage, get a diesel jetta; if you want a car that gets no gas mileage, get a tesla

[Eitel @ May 8th 2008 8:12AM]

Anybody wants to bet on how many air turns this thing is going to do if another car sides it at 50mph? I say 3.

[Flashpoint @ May 8th 2008 8:13AM]

3?

Try 13 !!!!

This thing is so narrow, it will roll like a goddamn hotdog.

[shanoboy @ May 8th 2008 8:36AM]

Salut above is obviously not a "beleiver!"

Regardless of whether global warming is BS or not, I am very interested in things like having less dependency on oil and having cleaner air to breathe.

Politicians and climatologists can argue all they want about Global Warming being real or a hoax, but you can't argue that air pollution from burning fossil fuels is harmful.

With that being said, I'm all for the electric cars, now we just need to go all nuclear (here in the states).

And as far as the comments above stating they wouldn't be interested in electric vehicles til they meet the standards of current gas SUVs and sports cars, we'll see what tune you're whistling when gas eventually hits that golden $5 a gallon and above mark here in the US.

[Michael @ May 8th 2008 9:01AM]

Wait until it gets to $10 a gallon like it is here in the UK. Any electric vehicle will look appealing at that point.

The sooner we switch to electric in the west, the better. At least then we won't have to pussy-foot around the Arab world anymore.

[BigD145 @ May 8th 2008 11:46AM]

Oil is expected to hit $200 a barrel by the end of the year. We'll have that $10/gal very soon.

[Carter @ May 8th 2008 9:03AM]

I appreciate green vehicles but why do they have to be soo ugly

[Michael Chastain @ May 8th 2008 2:08PM]

It was because of people like you that the first cars looked like carriages. Aerodynamics and other characteristics determine the design. If you want something that looks like a Civic there are options, but don't expect to get nearly the efficiency from it.

[LarryLarryLarry @ May 10th 2008 3:36AM]

This design disaster was created to meet the safety standards of motorcycles, not cars. There's only so much you can do to improve the looks of a 3-wheeled electric motorcycle.

Having said that, they didn't do it. I'm looking at that picture of the back wheel and it hurts my eyes.

[digitallysick @ May 8th 2008 9:06AM]

Doesnt look bad at all, i would drive it. Problem for me is 100 miles just isn't far enough, make it about 200 miles and make it affordable and i will buy

[muddyh2o @ May 8th 2008 9:19AM]

any indications on price for this (and for the ventureone)?

[drivin98 @ May 8th 2008 9:25AM]

Price starts at $19,995.

[drivin98 @ May 8th 2008 9:27AM]

The Ventureone doesn't exist yet. The other 3-wheel EV alternative is the Aptera which begins manufacturing this Fall and will sell around $28,000. Google 'em.

[ugg.tryptophan @ May 8th 2008 3:10PM]

shazam!

[Ed T @ May 8th 2008 9:34AM]

Has anyone here looked into auto insurance for these EVs? I checked with my carrier, and they only insure NEVs, and only if they are driven in a specific area (like a golf community) and the policies exclude any highway driving.

If we can't get insurance for the damned things, what good are they?

[Frankenstein Black @ May 8th 2008 9:37AM]

The world is in “ARRESTED DEVELOPMENT” right now because the greedy Oiligarch and their Mideast Cohorts run the planet! Vote OBAMA/PAUL 08! Your world (and the one you leave for your children) is depending on it!! VOTE!!!!

[Frankenstein Black @ May 8th 2008 9:52AM]

OR DIE! LITERALLY!!!

[Xtort @ May 8th 2008 11:03AM]

Neither of those two are on the same ticket and almost no one who would vote for one would vote for the other, including myself.

[Will H. @ May 8th 2008 9:49AM]

I read the article and said 'I bet that's Nilay Patel" and lo and behold, I was right. Just the kind of insightful blather we've come to expect from him.

[BillyBones @ May 8th 2008 9:50AM]

Safety is always an issue with these type of vehicles but at some point cost per gallon will take the SUVs off the road. I'm shooting for an XR-3 design from Robert Riley. Most states you can title it as a 3 wheeled motorcycle so plates are cheaper (for me anyway) and insurance is reasonable as well.

Mine will have the paul bearer's handles already built-in.

[Sma @ May 8th 2008 12:20PM]

Yeh, I like the XR3 too. Will be nice to see it out on the road some day. I wouldn't mind getting one/building one my self if I had the money and space to do so.

[chadow @ May 8th 2008 10:04AM]

Basically a safer motorcycle that you can commute year round in, all the while not emptying your wallet to the oil industry......and people complain? Where did I make the mistake of thinking Engadget readers were technology aficionados and possibly slightly intelligent?

[Mykola Ostrovskyy @ May 10th 2008 10:41PM]

Well said, even the design is not bad; I think it looks quite good. There is nothing negative about it, it might be not as safe as an average automobile but a lot safer than a motorcycle.

[EMaster @ May 8th 2008 10:11AM]

That looks like an old MesserSchmitt KR200... WTF!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Messerschmitt_KR200

[Benson @ May 8th 2008 10:15AM]

That's one hopped-up SCR...

[Jeff @ May 8th 2008 1:56PM]

Nice... I was waiting for someone to comment on the name
SCR just doesn't have the same ring, though.

[DarkUltra @ May 8th 2008 10:28AM]

5 gears??? I thought one advantage of electric motors was almost no need for second gear, much less FIVE. Small battery pack and DC motor maybe? Brushless AC motprors are almost 90% efficient throghout its RPM range. Posted with an iPhone :-)

[Xtort @ May 8th 2008 11:36AM]

I'm sure the gears are there to help increase efficiency just as when they are paired with engines. Posted with a blackberry pearl.

[LarryLarryLarry @ May 10th 2008 3:42AM]

The whole point is that an electric motor automatically exchanges RPMs for torque when the load demands it. That's also what gears do, so there's no point in having both.

There should be four gears: Forward, Neutral, Park, Backward.

One of the biggest attractions of a pure-electric vehicle should be its mechanical simplicity.

[Brian @ May 8th 2008 10:43AM]

It's a shame we have to pay such a premium, since these things aren't made on assembly lines.

If they made a three wheel electric for $16,000, I'd buy it tomorrow. But $20k is too much for a little motorcycle that needs a 3-7k dollar part replaced every few years.

[Joylove @ May 8th 2008 11:05AM]

ll the dangers of a motorcycle combined with all the disadvantages of being as wide as a small car. Where do I sign?

[Benjaminx @ May 8th 2008 9:05AM]

No kidding, can't wait to see the environmentally-friendly recyclable pancake that gets created upon meeting its first SUV.

[Chris @ May 8th 2008 11:14AM]

We need some major breakthroughs in high density battery technology before electric cars go prime time. Unfortunately I think we are about 10 years from that at least.

I can't wait until everyone hooks up to the grid and the electric companies jack up the KWH rates. Then we will hear all the whining about "Big Power" corporations and our dependency on "Big Power". Home solar panels will help but don't be so delusional as to think that electric cars won't be heavily dependent on the grid and won't cause a significant increase in power costs.

We don't even have EV's on the road yet and already power companies are scrambling to keep up with demand. I used to work for a Power Plant construction company and they can't find enough people to staff the current projects on the books.