Re: EV Needs (was Spouse EVs)

["Nelson" <nesenrik@bellsouth.net>]

I have to disagree with one part of your comments.  A single occupant
vehicle will never meet with great success in the US.  What we need is the
equivalent of a two seat Sparrow.  Perhaps a "1 + 1" design.  An example of
the American desire to carry a friend is in the world of aviation.  There
are hundreds of designs for exceptional single seaters, but the two seaters
sell 10 times as many units even though the two seaters do not perform as
well as the single seat machines.  Stranger still, the two seaters are
usually flown solo.  Some of the popular designs are being
redesigned...stretched and beefed up so that a second person can fit,
usually not comfortably, in what was originally a single seat design.  I'll
bet the Corbin guys would triple their sales if they produced a similar
design that would not lose any performance.

Rick Nelson


>
> If a small company such as Corbin can do it... you have to know it could
be done
> world wide. True, their cars are $14K, but with the distribution channels
of the
> big-3, they could probably sell 10 times the cars they currently are
selling...
> and probably around $10-11K, at a profit.
>
> Chrysler is an excellent example, although belated in their appearance on
the EV
> front. They can produce very limited production cars, 18 months start to
> production, and make a profit.
>
> If CA folds, Corbin may continue to provide a nitch market, but, again, it
could
> be very hard pressed. I would not be surprised, if CA holds fast, to see
the
> Sparrow offered at dealerships, under a different name tag... and
thousands
> less. Few people are going to drive the Think, and few can afford the
EVII, as
> nice as it is, nor even the full sized Ford EV. We need a small car, one
of
> capable mileage, single occupant, that will meet commuting needs.
>
> If CA does hold fast on their car needs, I think you'll see significant
cost
> increases for ICE cars in that state... and possibly for all states. If
they
> hold true, you'll eventaully see these EV cars offered to other states,
rather
> than trying to hold them only for this limited market. This will be a
marketing
> effort... it's better to spread the costs across all states, rather than
absorb
> a loss in a single state. Perhaps, if they wish to back down on the state
laws,
> they could just limit parking to non EVs... or could somehow make it less
> desirable to drive an ICE within the city limits.
>
>