Why The Prototypes Have To Wait On The Engine

[Ekh]

I seem to remember several classifications of four-wheel vehicles, including Neighborhood Electric Vehicles (up to 25 mph and Low-Speed Vehicles (up to 32 mph) that were born out of the golf car industry, modified to achieve higher speeds. Top speed was critical because it classified the vehicle for mandatory crash protection. As speeds went up, seat belts, rollover protection, and even crush zones became mandatory - each with an impact on cost. These were originally intended for use in gated communities - some even had provisions to selectively limit speed so they could drive to the country club, select "cart" mode, and travel on the course as a speed-limited golf cart. The sight of one of these in my neighborhood lead me about a year ago to start looking at alternative commuter vehicles, in the process of which I discovered Elio Motors.

With the exception of EM, most makers were developing products for use in suburbia, where traffic congestion was minimal and the vehicle would serve nicely to run around neighborhood for light shopping or other errands. Most of these vehicles, because of their speed limitations were electric - a good choice for low-cost reliability. But DOT standards are MUCH higher once a vehicle is capable of speeds over 35 mph. Now, all kinds of safety equipment and crash testing are mandated by law at this level. You are traveling at speeds that can produce serious injury or death in the event of an accident.

IIHS crash testing is another expensive hurdle for a new automaker. Sure, it's not necessary for a motorcycle, so I think Paul Elio saw a loophole in the regulatory paperwork where motorcycles are not required to be crash-tested. EPA certs are much less regulated as well for motorcycles, so it was a win-win for EM that by developing a tandem vehicle, eliminating half the car, one wheel, brake, and suspension system, the cost of development and certification could be cut drastically. Conventional automakers spend untold millions on testing to qualify for sale in the US, where the Elio vehicle would work around that restriction by being registered as a motorcycle. It's all perfectly legal, but there are potential problems ahead.

EPA certification is not easy, considering the level of emissions and reliability testing required and the length of the test procedure. It's not just lengthy and difficult, it's incredibly expensive, particularly for a small, start-up manufacturer. That's why development of a proprietary engine has been critical to the process. Most small automakers opt to use an existing, fully certified engine built by one of the major automakers for just that reason. Ford, or somebody else could easily sell small engines to EM, and that would be the end of it - but there is a potential problem there. Ford would hold the future of the Elio in its hands - they might just suddenly decide NOT to sell any more engines to EM - and that would be the end of the Elio, forcing it into a sale to Ford just to get it off the market. OK, that's just a scenario, but such a hostile takeover IS possible.

If conventional automakers ever realize the Elio is a serious threat to at least the lower end of the auto market, the big guys are going to start screaming for the Elio to be regulated as a full-fledged automobile, not just a "motor vehicle". They have the money, and they can play rough. Witness the Tucker story in which a revolutionary vehicle was developed for the market - and through manipulation of the "Big 3", was put into a financial hammerlock that spawned congressional investigations, draining Tucker's cash reserves and destroying the company.

Thus far, Paul Elio has managed so far to fly under the radar of the big companies, but as release day approaches, look for that to change. But here's where PE's been smart: by doing all the primary engineering to allow the Elio to be certified as an automobile (albeit a three-wheeled one), the expensive development stuff has already been done. Crush zones, airbags, ABS, VSC, etc, are already built in to the "first article" production. Whether the Elio still slips in under the bar as a "motorcycle" by 2016 is yet to be seen, but it won't require a complete overhaul of the product to build it as an automobile. The engine, drive train, suspension, brakes, and all of the safety sub-systems are approaching completion. Small details like windshield wipers, door latches, lighting, and dozens of other details have been addressed. At this point having to cert the vehicle as an "automobile" will probably increase the cost of the Elio a bit, but it looks like practically all the expensive work has been anticipated and completed.

Whatever, it's going to be far ahead of the "Neighborhood Electric Vehicle", because it will be fully capable (and tested) for highway use, and still have the range to make it a good alternative mount for a real road trip.

Excellent analysis.

 

[ecdriver711]

I seem to remember several classifications of four-wheel vehicles, including Neighborhood Electric Vehicles (up to 25 mph and Low-Speed Vehicles (up to 32 mph) that were born out of the golf car industry, modified to achieve higher speeds. Top speed was critical because it classified the vehicle for mandatory crash protection. As speeds went up, seat belts, rollover protection, and even crush zones became mandatory - each with an impact on cost. These were originally intended for use in gated communities - some even had provisions to selectively limit speed so they could drive to the country club, select "cart" mode, and travel on the course as a speed-limited golf cart. The sight of one of these in my neighborhood lead me about a year ago to start looking at alternative commuter vehicles, in the process of which I discovered Elio Motors.

With the exception of EM, most makers were developing products for use in suburbia, where traffic congestion was minimal and the vehicle would serve nicely to run around neighborhood for light shopping or other errands. Most of these vehicles, because of their speed limitations were electric - a good choice for low-cost reliability. But DOT standards are MUCH higher once a vehicle is capable of speeds over 35 mph. Now, all kinds of safety equipment and crash testing are mandated by law at this level. You are traveling at speeds that can produce serious injury or death in the event of an accident.

IIHS crash testing is another expensive hurdle for a new automaker. Sure, it's not necessary for a motorcycle, so I think Paul Elio saw a loophole in the regulatory paperwork where motorcycles are not required to be crash-tested. EPA certs are much less regulated as well for motorcycles, so it was a win-win for EM that by developing a tandem vehicle, eliminating half the car, one wheel, brake, and suspension system, the cost of development and certification could be cut drastically. Conventional automakers spend untold millions on testing to qualify for sale in the US, where the Elio vehicle would work around that restriction by being registered as a motorcycle. It's all perfectly legal, but there are potential problems ahead.

EPA certification is not easy, considering the level of emissions and reliability testing required and the length of the test procedure. It's not just lengthy and difficult, it's incredibly expensive, particularly for a small, start-up manufacturer. That's why development of a proprietary engine has been critical to the process. Most small automakers opt to use an existing, fully certified engine built by one of the major automakers for just that reason. Ford, or somebody else could easily sell small engines to EM, and that would be the end of it - but there is a potential problem there. Ford would hold the future of the Elio in its hands - they might just suddenly decide NOT to sell any more engines to EM - and that would be the end of the Elio, forcing it into a sale to Ford just to get it off the market. OK, that's just a scenario, but such a hostile takeover IS possible.

If conventional automakers ever realize the Elio is a serious threat to at least the lower end of the auto market, the big guys are going to start screaming for the Elio to be regulated as a full-fledged automobile, not just a "motor vehicle". They have the money, and they can play rough. Witness the Tucker story in which a revolutionary vehicle was developed for the market - and through manipulation of the "Big 3", was put into a financial hammerlock that spawned congressional investigations, draining Tucker's cash reserves and destroying the company.

Thus far, Paul Elio has managed so far to fly under the radar of the big companies, but as release day approaches, look for that to change. But here's where PE's been smart: by doing all the primary engineering to allow the Elio to be certified as an automobile (albeit a three-wheeled one), the expensive development stuff has already been done. Crush zones, airbags, ABS, VSC, etc, are already built in to the "first article" production. Whether the Elio still slips in under the bar as a "motorcycle" by 2016 is yet to be seen, but it won't require a complete overhaul of the product to build it as an automobile. The engine, drive train, suspension, brakes, and all of the safety sub-systems are approaching completion. Small details like windshield wipers, door latches, lighting, and dozens of other details have been addressed. At this point having to cert the vehicle as an "automobile" will probably increase the cost of the Elio a bit, but it looks like practically all the expensive work has been anticipated and completed.

Whatever, it's going to be far ahead of the "Neighborhood Electric Vehicle", because it will be fully capable (and tested) for highway use, and still have the range to make it a good alternative mount for a real road trip.

Well done.

 

[John Painter]

Remember, the larger the corporation, the more overhead, unless production is massive enough to overcome overhead. It would probably stun us to know how much Toyota has spent, overhead included, on that I-Road. Easily absorbed by a large corporation.....
A well-managed, lean start-up company should be able to produce fewer vehicles for a lower out-the-door cost. Elio shouldn't have to produce their planned 250,000 per year to look good financially initially.
I am still totally convinced that the Elio concept will be the way humans move about in the future. Every day when I see lone individuals driving four-door pickups and Burbs, I think about the difference in fuel consumption if folks had a "runabout" that used 1/4 of the fuel.
This said, I think the Elio certainly is an important part of cutting down on emissions, fossil fuel consumption, and protecting the biosphere. The ATVM loan should not be a difficult decision for the DOE to make.
I also still think this little engine will have all kinds of applications. Lots of alternative uses need a simple, long-lived engine.

I think Elio is purely a means, not an end, it's an affordable bridge vehicle that is just similar enough to a conventional car that people might start to be willing to one day think of cars differently than most of us currently do, and move towards electric, hydrogen, pickled beets or what ever the next fuel source is.

 

[Sam]

I think Elio is purely a means, not an end, it's an affordable bridge vehicle that is just similar enough to a conventional car that people might start to be willing to one day think of cars differently than most of us currently do, and move towards electric, hydrogen, pickled beets or what ever the next fuel source is.

Oh great. Now the price of pickled beets is going to skyrocket.

 

[WilliamH]

Going back to the original subject of this thread "Why The Prototypes Have To Wait On The Engine" , Sr.MailMan, in The "Elio Engine" thread posted a link to a story in Jalopnik. (Pg 102 #1015) ..... http://jalopnik.com/why-fords-tiny-1-liter-3-cylinder-is-the-future-of-ga-1543662936
I extracted a paragraph which relates to this subject
........"Three-cylinder engines, since they have one less cylinder than the engine has cycles, are known for their distinctive back-and-forth pitching motion as they run. Most triples solve this with balance shafts, but those can add weight and rob power. Ford tackled the issue by sort of skirting it: they used an eccentrically-weighted flywheel and front pulley to compensate for that missing-cylinder cycle, and they're essentially translating the vertical pitching motion into a lateral motion, which the car's special engine mounts can easily absorb. The result is that very little engine hopping happens at all."..............
So it appears that in a very lightweight body, positioning and motor mounts could be critical to the handling of the car.
Not to mention that the motor mounts become more critical than in a lot of other vehicles.
If you've ever been in a car with a broken motor mount you understand the issue.

 

[RUCRAYZE]

Had an old KZ400. Later an '86 Super Glide.
Belonged to a group called ABATE. (American Bikers Against Totalitarian Enactments)
"Let those who ride decide!"
Don't mind the safety features in the Elio but they all add to the price.
And somehow as the bureaucrats add more and more, I'm beginning to feel like the next will be to pack us in cotton and put us in a bell jar for our own safety.

What's your position on riders who choose to ride without helmets and sustain serious head injuries, who, when their usual medical coverages ( if they have any) expire, turn to medicare to sustain them for the rest of their lives ( residential care)?
Perhaps a helmet sign-off waiver- that should you "F" yourself up it won't be the rest of us to pick the tab ?
"Pack us in cotton" (read helmet laws) is, at times to protect you from yourself.
(Nice Healy BTW)

 

[CompTrex]

What's your position on riders who choose to ride without helmets and sustain serious head injuries, who, when their usual medical coverages ( if they have any) expire, turn to medicare to sustain them for the rest of their lives ( residential care)?
Perhaps a helmet sign-off waiver- that should you "F" yourself up it won't be the rest of us to pick the tab ?
"Pack us in cotton" (read helmet laws) is, at times to protect you from yourself.
(Nice Healy BTW)

Well this is a dilemma, now isn't it?
We all want the freedom to choose to be safe or not. But once someone chooses to be unsafe and now all of a sudden, that impacts ME...well now we have a problem. It's the same for:

• Helmet use. If they are a vegetable and my insurance goes up, I have a problem.
• Smokers. If I have to pay extra for their medical issues, I have a problem.
• Extreme sports people. If you decide to risk your life by climbing that mountain, then I have to foot the bill for a rescue, I have a problem.
• Seat belts. I don't care if you wear a seatbelt or not, but if because of your lack of safety precautions, I'm effected, I have a problem. This actually goes even deeper. If I am in an accident, and it's my fault, and someone ends up dying, but they weren't wearing a seatbelt... I know, we can't blame the victim, but should I be held liable for killing someone, when they were actually just as reckless as I was?

* drops mic...steps off soap box *

 

[WilliamH]

What's your position on riders who choose to ride without helmets and sustain serious head injuries, who, when their usual medical coverages ( if they have any) expire, turn to medicare to sustain them for the rest of their lives ( residential care)?
Perhaps a helmet sign-off waiver- that should you "F" yourself up it won't be the rest of us to pick the tab ?
"Pack us in cotton" (read helmet laws) is, at times to protect you from yourself.
(Nice Healy BTW)

Yes, a lot of that was discussed.
But then again there is the issue of the folks who wore full face and rolled while sliding on the pavement. They ended up as very pretty bodys in their coffin because their helmet stuck on the pavement causing their C1/2 to break. (I think it was referred to as "spinal stickstion")
On the other hand, I always wore leathers. Didn't like the idea of road rash to the bone. Cringed at the sight of kids riding wearing full face helmet, flip flops, and cutoffs. Gave up riding because of back problems.
(wish I still had the Healey, but that was over 50 years ago)

 

[RUCRAYZE]

Well this is a dilemma, now isn't it?
We all want the freedom to choose to be safe or not. But once someone chooses to be unsafe and now all of a sudden, that impacts ME...well now we have a problem. It's the same for:

• Helmet use. If they are a vegetable and my insurance goes up, I have a problem.
• Smokers. If I have to pay extra for their medical issues, I have a problem.
• Extreme sports people. If you decide to risk your life by climbing that mountain, then I have to foot the bill for a rescue, I have a problem.
• Seat belts. I don't care if you wear a seatbelt or not, but if because of your lack of safety precautions, I'm effected, I have a problem. This actually goes even deeper. If I am in an accident, and it's my fault, and someone ends up dying, but they weren't wearing a seatbelt... I know, we can't blame the victim, but should I be held liable for killing someone, when they were actually just as reckless as I was?

* drops mic...steps off soap box *

hopefully, some day, I'll be able to express my (limited) thoughts, in your style of clarity. After I look at my posts, then read your insights, I'm humbled. Maybe there is something to be said for home schooling!

 

[RUCRAYZE]

Yes, a lot of that was discussed.
But then again there is the issue of the folks who wore full face and rolled while sliding on the pavement. They ended up as very pretty bodys in their coffin because their helmet stuck on the pavement causing their C1/2 to break. (I think it was referred to as "spinal stickstion")
On the other hand, I always wore leathers. Didn't like the idea of road rash to the bone. Cringed at the sight of kids riding wearing full face helmet, flip flops, and cutoffs. Gave up riding because of back problems.
(wish I still had the Healey, but that was over 50 years ago)

I had a Sunbeam Alpine about the same time- only sports car with roll-up windows, no plastic curtains for me.
It also had a removable factory hardtop -not sure if that too was unique.