# ZENN: Inspires Elation... and Fear



## Coley (Jul 26, 2007)

What did he expect!!!
The car is an NEV!!, not for use on roads that have a speed limit of up to 45+ mph!!

The money spent to develope this car, would have better spent on making a vehicle capable of 55 mph.

The market would be larger, so sales would be better.

Course, that is just my opine.....


----------



## david85 (Nov 12, 2007)

I'm with you 100% Coley. Zenn pisses me off to no end. Transport canada is understandably concerned about letting these vehicles on public streets at all, and when they delayed certifying the car, Zenn claimed that the government was trying to "kill the electric car". It made national headlines and TC's hand was forced after it got all political.

I don't think there is an excuse for an NEV anymore. How long has it been since the citycar? is this the best we can do? Currently BC is the only province that will even let these cars on their roads. I would have very little patience if I got stuck behind one thats for sure.


----------



## drivin98 (May 9, 2008)

It's not Zenn's fault the government won't allow it to go faster. It's very capable of higher speeds and would be perfect for many folks in cities. But maybe your dreams will come true and the good folks making these will lose their jobs as the factory is moved to the U.S.


----------



## david85 (Nov 12, 2007)

Zenn's cars are not crash tested, thats why the speed is limited. If zenn is doing so well in every other market as they claim, than they should be able to afford to go through the motions and have their vehicle properly certified as a highway capable vehicle. The GeeWiz is another low speed vehicle and its poor safety has been well documented. They have since revised the design, but only after some embarrassing headlines. I like electric cars, but this is not a solution that helps the cause, zenn is simply a steriotype of the electric car.

It has its place, but its very limited, and frankly I don't want LSVs on the same roads that I have to drive on.

If the law were to be revised to allow the car to go as fast as 35 mph, that is already a better solution. But thats already the speeds that conventional cars are crash tested at, so again, this brings up the matter of crash safety.


----------



## KiwiEV (Jul 26, 2007)

A car that cannot achieve the legal road speed should not be allowed on the road during peak times. I expect most active motorists would agree.

I must admit I'd take pleasure in tailgating a little ZENN going flat-tack at 40km/h until I decide to overtake it with a rush of amps and a whir of brushes.


----------



## Coley (Jul 26, 2007)

KiwiEV said:


> I must admit I'd take pleasure in tailgating a little ZENN going flat-tack at 40km/h until I decide to overtake it with a rush of amps and a whir of brushes.


LOL, you and I think alike.......


----------



## tazdotnet (Apr 9, 2008)

with my beast i would just run over it... she has the size and power to do just that...


----------



## david85 (Nov 12, 2007)

tazdotnet said:


> with my beast i would just run over it... she has the size and power to do just that...


I have two that could each do it. 

To be brutally honest, I kind of like the look and practicality of the zenn, but the company needs to get their act together and stop blaiming regulators for the short commings of their own product. While I did say that their is not crash tested, I feel that the use of an aluminum space frame may be a good platform for such an test. I think zenn can pull it off, and I hope they do.

However, I do NOT have any patience for vehicles that do not drive the speed limit unless they are farm or city equipment. That means no NEVs, no scooters, and to a lesser degree, no cyclists should be allowed on public roads if they are impeading traffic. At least a bicycle is easier to pass because of the narrow profile of the vehicle.

Lets be real here, there simply is no place for a low speed NEV on public roads when we all know what the technology is capable of. I demand better.


----------



## xrotaryguy (Jul 26, 2007)

I gotta agree with you guys. I never really understood why a company would invest money in a car like this. I mean, we already have plenty of golf carts on puttering around. All this car does is enclose the cabin, add a heater and throw in an air bag. Is that supposed to be some sort of revolutionary design? Lame. 

I did have a thought on the crash testing though. I was watching some of Aptera's vids and notived that they did some pretty extensive crash testing in model space. I don't think that Aptera's crash test program is necessarily as good as smashing up real cars, but it does pose some interesting possibilities. What if the federal government were to adopt standardized crash test software and model space crash test procedures? I wonder if this could drive down the cost of crash testing to the point that small manufacturers could afford it. I suspect that it could. Perhaps this sort of testing could be reserved for manufacturers that produce fewer than 1,500 cars per year or something like that.

As for the minor bicycle/scooter rant... This is where electric bicycles really outshine scooters; particularly slower scooters. With a scooter, the rider is stuck in riding in traffic. On a bicycle, the rider can opt to take the sidewalk, ride through parks, along bike paths, ride down canals, ride between neighborhoods on "pedestrian-only" paths, etc. While school was in session, I was riding my E-bike about 16 miles per day. I traveled on busy streets for about 200 ft per day and even then I used the sidewalk. Scooters blow!


----------



## david85 (Nov 12, 2007)

Similated crash testing has been a standard for over a decade now. It is already making a difference in planning for better designs that are more likely to succeed in a crash test..................... And more likely to fail in a 5 MPH test.


----------

