Dan Frederiksen wrote:
> It's not ugly and it has a lady bird cuteness to it but it won't
> make the masses think twice.
> we need normal cars or great looking cars or cheap super fast cars
> to make a dent in the impression.
> why Think doesn't make an oem deal with an attractive car maker
> like Audi and mass convert those I do not know. that would be
> thinking, ironically.
>
> besides, aren't you the one converting a Yaris to electric drive?
>
> Dan
>
> Mark Dutko wrote:
>> I think the think is not bad looking and makes a great city car,
>> so much so I bought one of the first and it will be here in the
>> states in a couple weeks. It is the original body style and has a
>> new saft pack (was on display with no pack).
>>
>>
>> Mark
>>
>>
>> On Jul 30, 2007, at 9:36 AM, Dan Frederiksen wrote:
>>
>>> I don't care for the think because it suffers from stereotype
>>> problems. it's unattractive and feeds the impression that EVs are
>>> fugly.
>>> what I do like about it is the Kamen stirling motor, at least in
>>> theory. probably cost too much, never arrive and be too weak in
>>> reality but a small clean range extender we sure could use. if it
>>> works he might even sell to the big boys too if they ever make
>>> phevs. we could get lucky and he could be the wild card big oil
>>> didn't count on

>>>
>>> Dan
>>>
>>> Richard Acuti wrote:
>>>> This is a great article about the impending resurrection of the
>>>> Think:
>>>>
>>>> http://money.cnn.com/magazines/business2/business2_archive/
>>>> 2007/08/01/100138830/index.htm?cnn=yes
>>>>
>>>> Rich
>>>>
>>>> _________________________________________________________________
>>>> http://newlivehotmail.com
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
>