>>At least desirable to those of us who fancy the idea of a twit-proof twist-and-go super bike

twit-proof? I'm glad that this bike will also make sure you have correct balance, observation, braking distance estimation, appropriate speed use etc. etc.

If my CBR1100 was automatic I'd no longer risk being a twit I guess? a superbike is a superbike, you're just as small and vulnerable regardless of the fuel used.

What is this? Constantly showcasing some half arsed 3D imaging talent?

Been trawling design colleges for copy?

Have they even got an assembly diagram for it or is it just a sketch?

Seems like a lot of time and money to produce something that's not a significant improvement on what these guys are doing.

http://www.evmotorcycle.org/home/node/29

I hope to buggery that it comes with some form of traction control, then, so if you grab too much throttle you don't end up getting spat off the back because you won't be able to slip the clutch to control the power!

(And WTH is with the trellis-work on the sides???)

Caught a radio interview with the designer here in IoM and the prototype has been ridden by professional racers already, and it's OK.

The big problem is battery technology is not good enough for the length of the TT course as yet.

Wow. That is one hideous design. So it comes as no surprise to read that it was designed by the same guy that designed the XO laptop. And what's with the recharge times? 8 hours from a 120V outlet, but only 2.5 hours from a 240V outlet? Assuming a standard US 15A 120V outlet, that's 1800W/hr, so 8 hours will consume a maximum of 14.4KW. To do the same thing in 2.5 hours, you would need to supply 5760W/hr, which comes to 24A at 240V.

> Anyone who drives a motorcycle like that isn't likely to make it past the first set of traffic-lights.

Yep:

Graham's three rules of defensive riding:

1) Don't assume they've seen you

2) Don't assume they'll respect your right of way

3) Do assume they'll do something stupid which will kill you unless you get out of their way.

It's not how it should be, but it's certainly how it is :-(

(And anyone who says the answer is Loud Pipes is just an anti-social git)

What do you think those "super bikes" are for? Going fast that's what. While not exactly safe you can easily cruise for very long distances here in the US as 150 MPH on the Interstate system.

In fact, back when Montana had no speed limit (the "limit" was reasonable and prudent during daylight hours) and I crossed the entire state at more than 130 MPH. Granted it wasn't on an electric motorcycle cause the batteries would have been dead before I got across the state.

This thing's got a battery and an electric motor.

A "normal" bike has an engine with loads of moving parts and sensors, plumbing etc. and is way cheaper.

WHY?

Not realy pointless? You ever been on the motorway on a bike with a top speed of less that 100MPH? It is not a nice thing to do. Unlike a car you have alot of noise and vibration due to the very nature of how high the engine revs (And an electric engine will probably be just as bad). You needs a minimum top speed of 120MPH to be ok crusing at 70, and having a little left if you need it in an emergency.

Hm. I like the styling but I always thought the VROOOM was a big part of the appeal of a motorbike. The VROOOM also has a big part in the safety of the vehicle. Moving at that speed, you want to be heard.

>Being me I would have built the motor into the rear wheel.

Then you need to read up on "unsprung mass".

Also generally it's beneficial to put the heavy stuff in the middle rather than out at the back end, although you could put the rider lower down if there was a gap there...

>This is a piss poor example of some idiots putting available 'old' tart technology with a bit

>of crapton fibre and aluminium with holes in it to come up with something that is 'pretty' (shit).

While I agree with the sentiment, they haven't done that at all, all they've done is drawn a sketch of how they'd like it to look.

Here's mine:-

O-Ó It's twice as fast as theirs and is made of recycled yack dung so it's even more environmentally friendly.

You can't add the motor directly to the week as you need the wheels to be as light as possible to reduce what's known as "unsprung weight" - suspension performance is critical for a performance bike as with any other vehicle where traction at high speed is required.

As much as I would like to see a good, high performance leccy bike showing their backwards 4-wheel brethren how to do the job properly I feel this won't quite be the one. And that's a shame because I'd love to see this be successful. As the detailed spec doesn't seem to be available - well, I couldn't find it anyway - it's difficult to comment about the layout beyond that it appears to have a clutch; if it contains a small CVT in the drivetrain then it would really get me very interested.

The relative silence of such a bike wouldn't be the major handicap you may think either. As any biker will tell you, you don't hope other people hear you, it's more whether the average car/HGV/bus driver is actually conscious that it uppermost in your mind.

But the killer is the price. £47,178. That's more than a Ducati Desmosedici RR, and one of those would go very nicely indeed with my Monster 750 and old 750SS. Why namecheck a very nice Honda when you could instead plump for an outageously gorgeous Italian?

Anyway, I think I'll go and wipe down my Termi's.........