[Velomobile] Affordable velomobiles

Thu Jan 5 13:56:14 EST 2012

Rob, et al,
I was just about to comment on that.  The objection isn't really to the
cost of the velomobile but to the value since most prospective buyers don't
know the cost.  You may buy a car for $10K USD, but you'll spend about the
same amount every year to fuel, maintain, insure it (and then there's
depreciation - the biggest cost and something you don't even get anything
for).  A few years ago I remember someone sharing a study that showed all
the costs for comparison.  Does anyone still have a link to it?
Thanks,
Nick Hein
Morgantown, WV

On Thu, Jan 5, 2012 at 12:19 PM, Rob Hague <rob at wrhpv.com> wrote:

> And the response to "I could buy a car for that" is "... and what is the
> total cost of ownership for that car?" - how much per year does it *really*
> cost you?
>
> The Automobile Association here in the UK claim that an average car costs
> 45p (92.5 US cents) per mile all in. Note that these figures do not include
> the additional cost of gym membership that may then be necessary to address
> the sedentary lifestyle of the car driver.
> (http://www.theaa.com/allaboutcars/advice/advice_rcosts_petrol_table.jsp)
>
> That is looking almost break-even on a new 'standard' velomobile each year
> :)
>
> Rob
>
>
> On 5 Jan 2012, at 15:43, Terry Rouse wrote:
>
> > I agree with most of what John says. I have gotten a lot of favorable
> responses
> > from motorists as I cruise about in my homemade velomobile. And a lot of
> > questions from interested persons. The biggest hurdle for many folks and
> the
> > reason I made my own is cost. When I tell people what a commercial
> velomobile
> > would cost the typical response is, "I could buy a car for that". The
> cost has
> > to come down for these to become practical transportation. For several
> years I
> > rode a Catrike Speed to which I added a body. My main objections to it
> were the
> > harsh ride and lack of good road hazard vision due to the body and
> reclined
> > position. There has been a resurgence of single speed bikes around here
> and I
> > suspect that is mostly due to the simplicity of the design. It is very
> hilly
> > here and I can't imagine why anyone would want to pedal up some of our
> hills,
> > but they are doing it. So in short I think the KISS principle applies
> here. Keep
> > it simple stupid. My current homemade velomobile has a small amount of
> > suspension to dampen the jarring effects of bad roads and I plan to add
> Schwalbe
> > Big Apples when my current tires wear out to see how that affects the
> ride and
> > handling. I think the big challenge will be coming up with a design that
> can be
> > economically produced on a big scale. Sort of a Model T version of the
> > velomobile. Making them one at a time is never going to be cost
> effective.  I
> > see some major design challenges making them light enough to be
> practical, while
> > relatively easy to manufacture. To me the Rotovelo is step in the right
> > direction.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: JOHN TETZ <jgtetz at msn.com>
> > To: velomobile at hupi.org
> > Sent: Wed, January 4, 2012 8:09:57 PM
> > Subject: Re: [Velomobile] Intellectual Property
> >
> > David Eggleston
> >
> > Thank you for giving your experienced and wide ranging overview on
> various VM
> > issues. Very valuable information.
> >
> > I agree we have a lot yet to learn but we have accomplished a lot in
> these last
> > 10 years of VM development.
> >
> >
> >> An all-around velo has a better chance of commercial success than one
> that is
> >> only good for a few things.
> > ......Too much of a range is asking a lot of a design, given the power
> source is
> > so weak. Seems to me that honing a design for a specific area of need is
> more
> > apt to be accomplished. Cars range from small to large with few to many
> features
> > to accomplish various needs.
> >
> >
> > What I have set my sights on is a practical suburban human powered
> alternate
> > transportation vehicle to be  used by average folks to do their shopping
> and
> > running errands in the 2 to 5 mile radius. Average speed 14 mph. These
> design
> > limits give the opportunity to come up with a viable vehicle.
> >
> >
> >> You can fairly easily put an aero body on an existing unsuspended
> trike, but
> >> you are likely to end up with many difficulties, including body
> attachments to
> >> the trike, noise of thin shells vibrating, and many others.
> >>
> > ........How true this is. But I look at the fact that the bare trike
> business is
> > booming. Although adding a shell of some kind may not be ideal it does
> change a
> > trike into a vehicle, a vehicle that is first of all not seasonably
> limited, has
> > weather protection, some crash protection, more visible to cars  etc.
> This will
> > change the consciousness of the trike rider into using the vehicle more
> as local
> > alternate transportation rather than just recreation.
> >
> >
> > Second, by being seen by the public these vehicles will affect their
> awareness.
> > I see and hear a change in the publics response to my VM over a 7 year
> period.
> > They more often comment now - it doesn't use gas, its good for the
> environment,
> > and its good for the health of the rider, etc.
> >
> > I am hearing more and more happy - I like what you are doing horn honks
>  -  from
> > drivers.
> >
> > The publics environmental awareness is changing. We need a viable
> practical
> > vehicle.
> >
> > It doesn't need all the wish list of advanced features.
> >
> > I designed my present VM 8 years ago coming from a long background with
> > streamliners and the thrill of speed.
> > What's important to me now is weather protection (head in), light
> weight, quiet,
> > ease of access to decent cargo space, some amount of suspension, small
> physical
> > size for parking reasons. Aerodynamics is there but further down the
> list.
> >
> > This is accomplishable given what we know.
> > In another 10 years more viable vehicles will be developed.
> >
> >> I guess we will have to rely on our own ideas and resources for
> low-budget
> >> design and development paths.
> >>
> > .....Yes, but some method of sharing ideas is very important. Look at the
> > advancements made after the birth of the IHPVA in 1975   - which
> eventually lead
> > to present day Velomobiles.
> >
> >
> > In some ways its less a technology issue than a change in consciousness
> as to
> > why and how we use these vehicles. Requiring the wish list of advanced
> features
> > hints of 19th and 20th century thinking where the Earths energy and
> resources
> > were thought to be limitless. Efficiency - doing more with less - is the
> 21st
> > century password. HPVs are up with the efficiency of railroad trains and
> super
> > tankers.
> >
> >
> > Notice for one how I have skirted the issue of funding.
> >
> > John Tetz
> > --
> > This message comes to you via the Velomobile at hupi.org mailing list.
> > Visit http://hupi.org/mailman/listinfo/velomobile to manage your
> subscription.
> > --
> > This message comes to you via the Velomobile at hupi.org mailing list.
> > Visit http://hupi.org/mailman/listinfo/velomobile to manage your
> subscription.
>
> --
> This message comes to you via the Velomobile at hupi.org mailing list.
> Visit http://hupi.org/mailman/listinfo/velomobile to manage your
> subscription.
>