The bodywork looks OK, but I wonder what on earth Sinclair were thinking of by giving it tiny 16" wheels and no suspension. The ride will be dreadful, all the more so because it's a recumbent - all the shock loads will go straight up your back, with no leg 'flex' to take out the worst.
The wimpy little motor (why didn't they use the full 250 watts allowed?) is another minus point, as is the inefficient 24V supply. It's almost as if Sinclair are now strong on the aesthetic design but have lost all their technical know-how.
A higher battery voltage (for lower I²R losses), bigger wheels (for a better ride and lower rolling resistance), the full 250W legal power limit etc. The manufacturing cost difference would be small to have got it right.
At least they learned the need for visibility lesson from the C5..................
Too right Jeremy, 24v hmm, upping it to 36v would give the 250 watts (and bit more
Wonder if Clive has this in mind as an no doubt, expensive
Those small wheels = everything smaller = everything cheaper
The A bike is the same, tiny wheels, at 90 PSI
Don't see how that can smooth out the ride.
Doh - silly me, it's a Light Goods Bike
(HGVs run tyre pressures around 110 PSI)
No variability in the gears either. "Twin Chain Drive" is it overdriven
e.g. 1:0.5 = example only.