Editorial: Why make three-wheeled vehicles? Are they legal? Should they be?
Click above for more images of the Aptera Typ1 e
Gasoline prices in the United States are helping push along the development of many new vehicles such as the Volt from General Motors. Such game-changing vehicles as the Volt and the original Toyota Prius demand a huge amount of research and, even more importantly, money before they are able to get out of the most basic of planning stages. What's more, these hybrid or electric vehicles are often sold at a substantial loss for a number of years before they ever are able to turn any sort of profit. It's not surprising, then, that smaller manufacturers such as Aptera and Can-Am are beginning to appear on the scene which look to offer an alternative to run-of-the-mill hybrids by introducing three-wheeled vehicles.
We'll delve a bit into the three-wheelers which are already available and look into what makes them legal - or not - after the break. We'll also discuss what could take place in the near future as Washington takes notice of the three-wheeled trends.
Gallery: Aptera
Why choose to invest in a three-wheeled design in the first place? The answer is rather simple ... and complicated, though the main reason is that many states consider any vehicle with three wheels to be a motorcycle. For this reason, many rigorous safety standards and emissions requirements can be forgotten, as two-wheeled motorcycles are not forced into any sort of crash-testing and are subject to less stringent emissions regulations. This growing trend of three-wheeled vehicles needs to be addressed for a number of reasons, some of which we will take a deeper look into. Currently, each individual state is left up to its own to define what a motorcycle is or is not. Some states - such as Ohio, Massachusetts, Kentucky and Maine - have had to draft up new laws to allow vehicles like the Can-Am Spyder and the electric NMG (No More Gas) from Meyers Motors to be registered for road use. This makes it extremely difficult for each manufacturer to assure its customers that they won't have any problems when it comes time to get plates for their newly purchased vehicle.
Click above for high-res gallery of the Piaggio MP3 400 and 500
Let's take a moment to consider some of the vehicles which fall into this undefined category. As was initially mentioned, Aptera is the manufacturer which first comes to mind. It's important to note that Aptera's initial product, the Typ-1 e, will be sold only in California - a state which will allow the three-wheeler to be lumped into the motorcycle category. Officials from Aptera are quick to point out that their offerings are in fact crash tested and proven safe. Still, there are no official standards that the vehicle must meet in order to be sold to the growing list of early-adopters looking to save some money when it comes time to fill up their tanks... or charge up their batteries. Steve Fambro, co-Founder and CEO of Aptera, says, "From the start, the focus of our design and engineering has been on achieving groundbreaking efficiency and safety regardless of vehicle classification." Even if Aptera does offer safe products (and we have no reason to doubt that it will), will the next manufacturer looking to capitalize on the new market do the same?
Gallery: Cree SAM
Another vehicle which fits into the wide-open three-wheeled motorcycle category is the VentureOne from Venture Vehicles. This vehicle shares absolutely nothing in common with the aforementioned Aptera except that it looks extremely futuristic and has fewer than four wheels. Those wheels are arranged differently than the Aptera's tadpole style, as its single track is at the front. To maintain stability through corners, the VentureOne adopts a leaning posture, similar to a motorcycle. The Aptera does not lean into corners, relying on its wide front track for cornering stability.
There are other three-wheelers which also don't quite fit into an available category. Take the Spyder from Can-Am for instance. It features two wheels at the front, one in back, along with a saddle seat and typical motorcycle controls. This vehicle seems to share much in common with the layout of the Piaggio MP3, though the Italian scooter is capable of leaning into corners while the Can-Am product relies on various sensors and computer programming to keep its rider out of rollover trouble. Clearly, these two vehicles should not be classified in the same bucket as the VentureOne or the Aptera Typ-1.
Gallery: Piaggio MP3 ride pictures
We decided to contact the Motorcycle Riders Foundation for their qualified opinion on what should be done to combat this growing issue. Here's what Jeff Hennie, Vice President of Government Relations Motorcycle Riders Foundation, had to say on the subject:
The federal government is aware of the issue of three wheeled enclosed vehicles and the fact that they are titled and licensed as motorcycles as is legal under current law. The Motorcycle Riders Foundation has asked the Federal Department of Transportation Secretary Mary Peters to create a new class of vehicle that is seperate from motorcycles for these "autocycles" in a July 1st meeting in DC. Three wheeled enclosed vehicles (even if enclosed with a simply a rollcage) are for all practical purposes a car that is allowed to skate around the rigorous federal safety standards that all autos built for use in the USA must meet. These autocycles are meant to perform as a car, yet do not have to meet any of the hundreds of Federal Motor Vehicle Safey Standards (FMVSS). We must be careful to not unwittingly create hardships for trike and sidecar setups or even vehicles like the new Piaggio MP3. For the safety of the future owners of enclosed autocycles, these vehicles must be put into their own class of road worthy vehicles and not just be considered another motorcycle.
Gallery: XR-3 Kit Hybrid
It's interesting to note that meetings are currently taking place in Washington while powerful lobbyists like Mr. Hennie try to tackle the issue of a legal classification for enclosed three-wheeled vehicles. The MRF would like to see these vehicles get separate status from motorcycles and be known as 'autocycles.' The criteria proposed by the MRF is that any type of enclosure should disqualify a vehicle from attaining motorcycle status. This would mean that the VentureOne and Aptera Typ-1 would be autocycles while the Can-Am Spyder and Piaggio MP3 would remain motorcycles, along with sidecar outfits and unenclosed trikes.
What's clear that not all three-wheeled vehicles are created equally. Machines like the Piaggio MP3 and Can Am Spyder are in no way pretending to be cars, while others, like the Aptera Typ-1 e and VentureOne defy classification entirely. These manufacturers have certainly taken notice that consumers are ready to accept new and exciting options for their daily travel. Still, many states have ambiguous laws, which could either make it entirely too easy to register a new three-wheeler or make it nearly impossible.
Gallery: TRIAC
Technology marches on, as these amazing new concepts for personal transportation clearly show. Unfortunately, legislation often lags too far behind. Regardless of classification, it is clear that the future holds plenty of unique ways to get from point A to point B, whether by a motorcycle, an autocycle or a plain old automobile or bike. As our mobility choices continue to expand, we look forward to following along and hope that any new legislation would encourage manufacturer's creativity while still allowing the safety that consumers deserve.
Gallery: VentureOne & Carver three-wheelers
We agree that some sort of legislation should be drafted in order to allow these innovative vehicles to be road-worthy on American highways. A separate class should be created which would ensure that some level of safety and emissions standards are met while the goal of reduced fuel consumption remains achievable. The Federal Government has already set a precedent for the creation of a separate vehicle class for Neighborhood Electric Vehicles. We hope that the recently scheduled meeting between Mr. Hennie and Transportation Secretary Mary Peters proves successful in beginning the process of creating a way to get such high-tech vehicles on our roads... legally.
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 3)
stevefazek 8:11PM (8/18/2008)
the cost a fraction to develop of a 4 wheeler.
True they dont have to meet the safety requirements of a real car.
I think they are great platforms for trying new technology and manufacturing techniques
Reply
DJL 8:43PM (8/18/2008)
I propose a mandatory large sized Mr. Yuck sticker on all two and three wheeled vehicles that don't meet four wheeler safety regs.
;)
Reply
Hans Wurst 8:48PM (8/18/2008)
I never understood why people keep asking for more and more laws, as if we were still too free and needed ever more restrictions.
Can somebody explain that to me?
Reply
john 10:07AM (8/20/2008)
Don't stop making sense now!
Indeed. Why do we need more and more and more and more and more laws and regulations?
(Although that should not surprise you on a left-leaning "green" blog).
How are we supposed to have lighter cars if every year cars have to move closer an dcloser to a solid iron block on wheels as possible?
BlackbirdHighway 9:10PM (8/18/2008)
I personally wouldn't buy a three wheeler, but if others want to, I don't see any big reason to stop them.
The sellers should be required by law to make sure that buyers know that these vehicles aren't required to meet the same safety regs are four wheelers.
That will scare away a lot of buyers, but it's the simple truth. There's still a significant number of people who will want one anyway.
Reply
JL 9:22PM (8/18/2008)
Don't kid yourself into thinking otherwise, these vehicles have only 3 wheels to skirt those safety standards that add significant cost to development. 4-wheeled and 2-wheeled vehicles have much better vehicle dynamics and are actually much safer. As soon as safety standards are imposed, these companies will go back to 4 wheels. I think these 3-wheelers look cool, and energy conservation is cool, but I also know that I am safer on my motorcycle.
Reply
Blar 12:22PM (8/19/2008)
What do you mean "go back to"? this isn't a three wheeler Corolla or Impala. These are upstart companies, most of which have not made anything before. Based on your argument that they choose three wheels to avoid crash regs but still produce a car-like product (I agree) they are more likely to go four wheeled if three wheelers were required to pass crash regs.
Neil 1:15PM (8/19/2008)
"Safer on my motorbike"?!? ... don't kid yourself. I used to work at a long term care hospital for quadriplegics, most of the residents were motorcycle riders. The Aptera is much more visible than a (somehow invisible to other drivers) motorcycle. In a collision who's likely to win?
Kevin 8:58PM (9/07/2008)
As stated above 3-wheelers are able to sidestep a lot of safety regulations which cost a lot to meet. I expect that if Ford, GM, Toyota, or Honda started showing off a 3-wheeled vehicle that didn't meet car safety standards (no crash tests, no airbags etc), that the EPA and or Congress would stand up and take action. It isn't a level playing field.
Reply
dm789 9:48PM (8/18/2008)
Hey its a free country you can buy anything you want. Even though its not safe for everyone, many people still own guns. So three wheels vehicles are welcome. But like gun owners they must know what they got into.
Reply
Gene Clement 9:56PM (8/18/2008)
A. One of the reasons for 3 wheels is less rolling resistence ( better mileage capability) than 4 wheels.
B. A 3 wheeler tadpole configuration can be designed into a more aerodynamic shape (a raindrop) than a 4 wheeler (again better mileage capability).
C. If you are going to get into the open/enclosed scenario, what are you going to do about enclosed 2 wheelers.
Reply
stevefazek 10:08PM (8/18/2008)
yeah i agree they should be sold but people should be aware they are not as safe as cars.
True the Us goverment has the most BS laws regarding safety. most of our safety laws care about insurance companies fiscal safety over peoples actual physical safety
Reply
Bill 10:33PM (8/18/2008)
"Officials from Aptera are quick to point out that their offerings are in fact crash tested and proven safe."
There are only references to computer-simulated crash tests on the website.
Have the live crash tests happened yet?
Reply
ug 12:44PM (8/25/2008)
They are going to do real crash tests. This is a big reason why I'm taking Aptera seriously now.
Paul Sallmen 11:09PM (8/18/2008)
Hans Wurst said: "I never understood why people keep asking for more and more laws, as if we were still too free and needed ever more restrictions.
Can somebody explain that to me?"
Well said. In fact, I think the European model for safety is best: Give each vehicle a crash safety scale from 1 to 5 stars, but allow everything to be sold. Allow the public to decide if they feel safety is a concern. If they hardly drive, or only do city driving, then maybe it's a lower priority. The Chinese Brilliance BS6 did horribly in a crash test. Should it be sold in North America? It is, after all, still safer than a motorcycle.
Which brings me to my next comment. I find a place like Canada (where I live) has a lot of double standards when it comes to safety. And I'm sure America has a lot of similar double standards, too.
For example, new cars are subjected to ever increasing safety and emission standards, meanwhile they share the roads with many older cars that wouldn't even meet the most basic of safety and emission standards. As it stands, the rules vary from province to province. For instance, in the Lower Mainland (Vancouver) of British Columbia, there is a regular (1 or 2 years) pollution test (Air Care), but no safety test (unless the car is brought in from out of province). In Ontario, there is a regular pollution test (E-test) in the larger urban centres, and a safety test when vehicle ownership changes.
Until recently, many cars from the United States could not be imported since they had different bumper standards. Meanwhile, many American visitors could drive on Canadian roads. Fortunately that silly rule has since been changed. Now it's relatively easy to import a car from America with very little modification. Daytime running lights being one of the required modifications.
Cars from other foreign countries cannot be imported unless they are 15 or more years old. Never mind the fact that the Japanese Shaken (safety) or German TUV (safety) are far stricter and more frequent than anything you'd see in Canada.
Cars, trucks and motorcycles all share the same road, however, they all have vastly different safety and emission standards.
Personally, I think Transport Canada should relax the rules and allow a wider variety of cars to be sold/imported. Then the provinces could follow up by having a safety test once every 5 years.
In some sense, I've wondered, by adding all these safety features to vehicles, if we've forgotten about personal responsibility. I remembering seeing a crashed late model Porsche 911 at a wrecker's once. I asked the owner if the passengers survived the crash. He said yes. Would the driver had driven like a maniac had they been in a 1970 911 instead?
Reply
meme 11:42PM (8/18/2008)
As previously mentioned, they also give better aerodynamics. They're also lighter. And cheaper to build (one entire less wheel well, drive shaft, etc). And lower maintenance (same reason).
As an example, take a look at the VW 1L car, which has four wheels so that it's legally a car, but shoves its rear wheels so close together that it's practically a three wheeler. There are significant benefits to the design.
Reply
GenWaylaid 2:31AM (8/19/2008)
While I appreciate the innovation that comes from having a loophole big enough to drive a (three-wheeled) car through, I generally agree with the MRF on where the line between the car model of safety and the motorcycle model of safety should be.
Basically there are two dominant schemes for keeping a vehicle passenger safe in a serious accident. One involves seat belts, roll cages, protective bodywork, airbags, etc. The idea is that the vehicle is loaded with enough safety features to protect any fool who runs it into something. That's the car model.
The other scheme involves helmets, leathers, pads, armor, and so on. The vehicle is just a means for getting one to the accident scene quickly. The operator must take responsibility for their own safety and dress appropriately for being a speedy projectile in oncoming traffic. That's the motorcycle model. Thinking about it this way, I'm thankful that motorcycles are still legal.
I believe that any vehicle that makes an attempt at enclosing the occupant should be judged according to the car model. Poor attempts would be shamed by highly visible crash-test ratings. If the raters get to zero stars and that's still not low enough, we start adding skulls. Open vehicles deserve to be judged by the motorcycle standard. Let's just hope that stays relatively loose.
There are some interesting marginal cases on this issue that don't have three wheels. There have been a handful of enclosed two-wheelers over the years, from the Monotrace to the BMW C1 to the Bede Pulse and others. Most have had stabilizer wheels to prevent tipping over at a stop. Craig Vetter has been working on a scooter that's mostly enclosed for aerodynamic reasons but still works like a motorcycle. On the other side, there are numerous road quads that resemble the Can-Am Spyder with one more wheel.
The C1 was a special case, a scooter with a roll cage and seatbelts. The manufacturer wanted it classified as a car so riders wouldn't have to wear helmets. I say that if the manufacturer can make a compelling argument they can choose which standard to meet. That might not inspire as much innovation as today's loopholes, but maybe it would inspire more people to start with super-efficient motorcycles, which is something I'd love to see.
Reply
BGJ 10:30AM (8/19/2008)
Very good comments. People are dumb in general and they'll see a 3-wheeler with an enclosed cockpit and assume that is safe as a normal car. And slick-haired salesmen will not be lying when they say it meets all federal regulations - since there really aren't any specifically for crash safety.
People must be made aware that if the "car" does not have 4 wheels, it is a death trap no different than a motorcycle. The argument that these vehicles are safe because they have "better vehicle dynamics" means nothing when you get blind sided by someone running a red light. All new 4-wheel vehicles offer a level of survivability for crashes that you don't see coming. Motorcycles and 3-wheelers do not.
non-socialist- 11:04PM (8/19/2008)
"People are dumb in general and they'll see a 3-wheeler with an enclosed cockpit and assume that is safe as a normal car."...
So the "smart" people make laws to restrict freedom (including that of the well informed) ?
Do me a "favor", try not to be such a socialist that you reduce my freedom to that which you feel the least common denominator can handle.
Mechanicaldan 7:52AM (8/19/2008)
This is where rules don't change quick enough for changing times.
In all fairness, there should be a 3rd catagory for 3 wheeled vehicles, which should further be divided between enclosed and not enclosed. If it's enclosed, it should have a round steering wheel and a car like seat and conform to similar automobile standards. It it's not enclosed, it should have a handlebar and motorcycle style seat and conform to similar motorcycle standards.
This is a big gray area regarding regulations and rules, and unfortunately isn't defined well at the moment, making it more difficult for 3 wheeled manufacturers.
Reply