Nickname: TEC

Review: I cannot understand why they always seems to mention an SUV in all of the articles. Ok fine, If you get hit by an SUV it would be a problem. But no worse then a standard passenger vehicle getting hit by a semi-truck or a motorcycle getting hit by a car.

Date reviewed: Oct 4, 2008 8:23 AM

Nickname: prodigy

Review: I've been watching the progression of the i-unit model for quite some time, and to my understanding its main purpose was to serve people with disabilities, and also non-commercial uses such as replacing the go-carts here and there. I myself would like to take a spin in one, but the fact is, I don't know how they can justify its efficiency when electricity is produced by burning fossil fuels such as coal. Still, the idea is intriguing.

Date reviewed: Nov 30, 2005 7:36 AM

Nickname: revans

Review: Most people in a technical environment understand that pure electric cars are being held back by the "Status Quo" auto industry who have learned that more stuff per car means higher profits, and the oil industry who want the piston engine to survive, and governments who do not want radical change and to have to learn to tax electric cars. Now we have NiMh and Lithium Ion traction batteries, there is no engineering reason why we cannot have small urban runabouts for shopping and second car duties. A small car with a large battery pack and a pancake motor in each wheel would of course mean small profits per car for auto makers. The press is doing the public a disservice by not providing the public with the engineering truth.

Date reviewed: Nov 23, 2005 9:59 PM

Nickname: Roman

Review: i think that this invention is interesting, however, to atually see it on a road seems distant in future.

Date reviewed: Nov 21, 2005 9:06 AM