4 ms·
There may be legal differences between types of car, but I don't see why three wheels should make it "not even a car". For example in the UK we had a mass-mark
by corin_ 12y ago
There may be legal differences between types of car, but I don't see why three wheels should make it "not even a car".
For example in the UK we had a mass-market three wheeler called the Reliant Robin, which was culturally considered to absolutely be a car (albeit a car worthy of having jokes made about it). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reliant_Robin http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reliant_Robin
- fractallyte 12y agoI prefer the Bond Bug as the exemplar of classic three-wheel design ;-) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bond_Bug http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bond_Bug
- 001sky 12y agoFrom your citation: It is markedly different from most mainstream cars due to its fibreglass bodyshell and compact three-wheeled platform which allow it a special taxation and licensing class under British regulations. Also, the Morgan I linked to is British and is very capable--far more so--as a piece of engineering. My guess is that three-wheel regulations were originally set up for motor-cycles with side-car. These evolved a seperate lineage of both engineering and regulation. For modern examples, see: Can-Am Spyder.
- corin_ 12y agoMy point is that culturally they can be considered cars, if they look like cars and function like cars. I'd argue that they are cars, even if they get taxed differently than most cars.
- 001sky 12y agoFair enough, but in the linked article the example would not meet even your test of "Look like cars and function like cars"...because the thing is basically a luge-position with an aero-fairing. This was the starting point of my comment--its not a "car" really in any sense--because it fails the technical/legal/regulatory (not obvious) in addition to the practical/function (more obvious).