Advantages, applications, comparison to "FWD-car"
Project SAM-TOM
 = 3wheeler, single RWD (like Morgan)

comparison:  FWD | RWD | 3W-2F-1Rd (SAM-TOM) | 3W-2F-2Fd | 3W-1F-2Rd | 3W-1F-1Fd

SAM-TOM = KISKA 234 Design


FWD = front wheel drive | RWD = rear wheel drive | 3W-2F-1Rd (SAM-TOM) = KISKA 234 | 3W-2F-2Fd = 3wheels, 2 in front are driven | 3W-1F-2Rd = 3wheels, one in front, 2 rear driven | 3W-1F-1Fd = 3wheels, one frontwhell driven

Key advantages

  1. 3 wheeler: not a tandem seater like SAM, in Kiska-234 we sit side by side,
    more room, better leg and feet clearance plus better entrace.

  2. Driving licence: only car LIC are needet, no helmet by law.

  3. Smal footprint: smaler than MCC orginal Smart.

  4. Short wheelbase results in agile handling and smal turning circle.
    no powersteering are need

  5. Front face looks like a car, so CI can be adapted

Key disadvantages

  1. 3 wheeler: not a car

  2. Safety: "elktest" and extra development cost on ESP and ABS

  3. Training: driver need personal trainingS

  4. payload: smal, no roofrack system, no trailer posible?

  5. Short wheelbase: unstable in highspeed condition > 100km/h

  6. Side view: extra ordinary

  7. Rear view: not a car, not a bike

Comparing FWD to SAM-TOM

  1. Problems with 3-Wheeler layout: Problems with 3-Wheeler layout:,

  2. Compared we pay for a car, but we get a "sidecar"

  3. SAM #### can-am Spyder #### Kiska-234


Which 2, 3 or 4 Wheeler is best for which application?
A beautiful design does not by itself alone sell a vehicle. Like any other product, a vehicle must present many appealing attributes to attract consumers. Also, a vehicle is a compromise and cannot possess all appealing attributes. Right from the start, it's the general concept or component layout of a 2, 3 or 4 Wheeler, that determines its potential of appealing attributes. And with its own set of attributes, each vehicle concept performs better in different applications.

Hans-Peter Hemmer mail