That's 960 watt hours from the battery, so theoretically at max consumption you'd get about 48 minutes run time (excluding losses and any other electical services such as lights). So a round trip of maybe 30 miles max.

Can you factor elevation and luggage into those calculations?

No he can't "factor in elevation and luggage" into this, he simply divided "max speed" by "run time at max power". ~1.5kw is a tad more than what propels a sprinting pro cyclist in the last few seconds of a race, at a much higher speed and without the fairing which drastically reduced drag on this thing. At a constant 30 on level ground with no wind, I wouldn't expect the thing to draw more than ~200W.

Up the hill it's harder of course, but you get most of that back when you roll back down. What you have to realise it that a machine like that is nothing like a car, where kneading the tyres alone takes a few 100W because the thing weighs a ton.

Sadly, people who struggle to afford a car won't benefit from a ride like this because they sure can't afford a house with a garage. Same as your average EV, certain lower wealth limits apply. Being poor is expensive.

> Can you factor elevation and luggage into those calculations?

Yes. Less than about 30 miles round-trip.

Basic, draughty, limited practicality - but I still want one!

I approve of that - it is barmy that we drag a lot of stuff ½ way round the world when we should make it here. Reducing dependence on an increasingly aggressive dictatorship is also a good idea.

Unfortunately stuff from China is often cheaper. Is this just that wages are less there ?

And the environmental rules non-existent.

I'm always a bit surprised that Germany gets a free pass, as it burns the worst possible coal in many of its power stations. That pollution has to go somewhere.

Yes after Fukushima they shut down or started to shut down their nuclear power stations and largely replaced them with coal.

and most of that coal comes from one place, a surface level mine that's almost the size of a city.

Well, since they turned off all nuclear power plants the electricity has to come from somewhere (or they'll have to buy it from French or Czech nuclear power plants). And then there's the NIMBYs who oppose everything, like the much needed power grid infrastructure (wind power from the coast / off-shore), which means they are quite unlikely to hit their targets for renewable energies. The over-availability of home generated solar power in the summer also means that they actually have to pay money to get rid of excess power. Basically they are stuck... Serves them right for not having the ample sources of free hydro power like they have in Norway!

The coal is no longer quite as bad as it used to be ("fond" childhood memories...), things have improved quite a bit in terms of filtering out many of the nasties. Another issue is of course CO 2 .

The nuclear phase out was actually decided before Fukushima but Merkel reversed that decision and then did a U-turn with a plan to phase out nuclear faster and at vastly greater cost even though the Fukushima accident could never have happened in Germany.

Coal is being phased out, actually the industry wants to close plants faster than planned. Hydro isn't really an option given the geography and population density (almost a complete inverse of Norway) and nuclear has lots of unsolved problems including the original barmy compromise that waste disposal would be as far as possible from the plants. The high population density does make nuclear power, reprocessing and storage quite an issue.

Excess energy in the summer is less of a problem as France is happy to take it when it can't cool its nuclear plants properly in the heat, but high density storage would be better.

Personally, I reckon syngas would solve lots of problems and it's getting close to the necessary scale. However, the gas liquefaction industry has been better at lobbying, which is why money is being poured into this instead of improving the efficiency of syngas and working on fuel cells.

What does Germany have to do with this article?

Is this a paid for attempt at generating inter-european dissent, or is it just another xenophobic outburst similar to those found in the BBC comments pages?

Reading UK news sources, I continue to be amazed at how people in the UK continuously represent "the Germans" as the true rival and enemy.

FFS, WW2 is over. Almost all the perticipants / perpetrators on both sides are no longer with us.

At the same time, we have Russia perpetrating a war of agression, looting, murdering and raping, and all some people can say is "but Germany".

German guy: "why are you Brits so obsessed with The War?!" (read in German accent) - "because we won it."

Jokes aside, there's plenty reason to complain about nowadays Germany or rather its politics. But WW2 is none of it.

1: I am not German.

One grand-dad was imprisoned by the Germans because of illegally building radios,

the other was killed near River Kwai.

My mom survived with her mother in a Jap internment camp.

2: The Blitzkrieg did not reach the UK only due to the channel.

3: The UK would have lost anyway were it not for US weapons and Fuel, Norwegian merchant marine, Polish code breaking and fighter-pilots etc etc etc.

This was an article on an electric bike. The word Germany was not used once.

It is you who has mentioned WW2 and how British people supposedly think about Germany.

My point was about emissions, in response to another post about emissions. The country with the most emissions is indeed China. However on a per capita basis it is about half of that of the USA. Germany, another top exporter and leading economy, has a per capita emission rate about 20% higher than China.

So when somebody says "emissions" or "environment" + "China" in the same sentence, it is fair to ask why does Germany get a free pass as though it is a land of beer drinking happy people who recycle their corn plasters, but in fact their record is worse than China's?

-> we have Russia perpetrating a war of agression, looting, murdering and raping, and all some people can say is "but Germany".

It is rather telling that on the day Russia commemorated the Nazi German invasion of Russia, which murdered 20 million Russians, the Germans were busy sending more weapons to kill Russians.

"It is rather telling that on the day Russia commemorated the Nazi German invasion of Russia, which murdered 20 million Russians, the Germans were busy sending more weapons to kill Russians."

It is indeed rather telling that a nation, which unlike Russia, has spent the last 70 years trying to repent for THEIR unforgivable crimes to humanity, has decided to turn around decades of policy in order to try to avoid the same thing happening again.

Anyway in order to appear "western", you should complain about the LACK of German weapons aid, not about that it is too much.

With regards to mentioning WW2, this is a reaction to worrying trends I observe throughout UK media.

I just do hope that the Bot to Brit ratio is higher than it appears.

As for energy independence. Some nations are simply luckier with their geographic location than others. This is something one should be careful to view as a sign of superiority.

It is rather telling that on the day Russia commemorated the Nazi German invasion of Russia, which murdered 20 million Russians by murdering their neighbours/relatives from Ukraine , the Germans were busy sending more weapons to kill Russians.

That pollution has to go somewhere

Yeah, they pay someone else to take it. It's called "carbon offsetting", otherwise known as "greenwashing".

It is mainly wages but there are also subsidies and cheaper regulatory costs to consider. And shipping is dirt cheap. For example, and from few years ago, it costs about £0.09 to ship a bottle around the world. Once it gets on the road you'll cost per km…

But where does the stuff that's sourced from the UK come from? Has the UK got production facilities and local sources, or are they assembling Made-In-China parts and waving a Made-In-The-UK paintbrush over it?

I'm not criticising; I think it's laudable to make things without dragging the components half way around the world. I'm just not sure the UK has the sources for everything on this project.

I did wonder that too. How many of the components on the control boards are made in the UK? How much of the motor is made in the UK? Magnets? Copper wire? And at the end of the supply chain, how much is still coming from China?

Marking something as Made In Britain (or any other country, for that matter) hasn't really ever been 100% true for most countries for 1000's of years, before countries, as we know them today, even existed. Everyone imports something, even it's raw ore. After all, Cornwall has been exporting tin to Europe and the Med since about 2000BC and obviously importing a variety of stuff in exchange.

Given the limited range, I'm not sure of the appeal of the recumbent design for this kind of vehicle except, of course, that's where it's coming from.

Where I expect to see demand pickup is for small factor vehicles with reasonable storage for tradesmen (tools, etc.)

> I'm not sure of the appeal of the recumbent design

It's a nonsense design - there're plenty of electric bicycles that are either faster, or have longer range, or are more suited to transporting kids/goods/luggage. And there are electric scooters (think Lambrettas, not skateboards with a handle) which are faster and cheaper.

It's just an electric recumbent with a fairing.

I wonder why you Brits are so obsessed with 3-wheeled cars?

Licensing, taxing, possibly insurance, in some niche cases the fun factor of being different.

So it's a little bit like the kei cars in Japan, they take advantage of a specific regulation?

I would say yes, the French also have so different vehicles for the same reasons.

There are indeed specific regulations for "tricycles", but AFAIK those are mostly used by people who want to ride a Piaggo MP3 250cc or 400cc without having to get a motorcycle driving license. You can drive them with a standard car driving license.

France also has "voitures sans permis" (sometimes known as "coffins on wheels") which can be driven without any license at all, as the name implies.

To answer that briefly....

The regs in the UK post 2nd World War were such that you could pass a test for a Motorcycle and then were also licensed to drive a Tricycle weighing less than 8cwt and also a motorcycle and sidecar. Plenty of ex army surplus m/cs at the time and cars were expensive. Annual road tax was also cheaper than a car and fuel consumption a lot better.. The Reliant company(amongst others) built 3-wheeled fibreglass-bodied cars which met the 'Tricycle' requirements... so motorcyclists could now drive the family in the dry without studying for, and passing, a motor car driving test.

Mrs Zimm convinced me to sell my Triumph 500 T100SS to buy a Reliant Regal saloon in order that she could buy a dog!! (Regrets, I have a few..)

** The Reliant Regal van (yellow) shot to fame as the transport of Trotter's Independent Trading , in the TV comedy series 'Only Fools and Horses'.

As a young kid spent several years as a passenger in a Reliant 3 wheeler, which my dad drove with his mbike licence. It happily managed family holidays from Notts to Cornwall (and back)

When he could afford a 4 wheeler, he took 4 wheel test and got a 4 wheel car.

As a young kid I found the 3 wheeler fun at certain times, though as my idea of fun typically coincided with one of the wheels leaving the ground, most adults would have called it something totally unlike fun

Fun factor for sure, but the 'moped' classification is a little bit of a spoiler for me, having a license for a car, and not a motorbike.I'd rather it wasn't restricted to 28mph too,... maybe these are future options, especially if they add a fourth wheel to make a quadricycle? I just wish the Sinclair C5 had prospered and we'd seen more development, and investment for that class of vehicle.

The engineering challenges! Including: 2 wheels at the front or the back, keeping the thing on the road, etc.

Stability seems to be better with two wheels at the front. I have no idea if it is, but it looks like it might be.

Having said that, I'd not want one as shown in the article photos. I'd not feel comfortable anywhere other than maybe quiet suburbs ona trip to the local shops. Certainly not on a rural country road or a busy city centre.

Certainly the Reliant Robin suffered from the single front wheel but, of course, less stability means better turning… so you just need to solve the centre of gravity problem.

Where does the shopping or kids go? I'd rather have a Larry vs Harry e-Bullitt and some nice waterproof clothes.

" Where does the shopping or kids go? "

Who cares? It's the perfect excuse to get away from them.

The low position on the road is going to be a major safety concern. Not to mention how ridiculous you're going to look pootling about in one.

The C5 proved that all these sort of factors meant failure. And that's even before you get to the price. £4000 for an adult pedal car is not going to be a mass market winner.

Points taken but I don't think this is for the mass market.Like most Sinclair products, the C5 had lots of other problems other than the height. Recumbents can be perfectly safe, but with more power it's better to be able to carry more stuff over shorter ranges. 200 - 400 litre/kg capacity on a short wheelbase would make this interesting for the trade.

Technology improves, dumb ideas don't

Not much of this actually from 'China anymore' ... except that 'roof' which is clearly just an upturned wok.