I like the utilitarian aspect, but I'm fairly certain if you put my samsung frige in a wind tunnel next to that truck my fridge would exhibit less drag.

If you're going to use batteries your range is going to be limited if you're driving a brick -- more attention to aerodynamics would pay dividends in mpe and overall cost -- fewer batteries required to go the same distance...

This car obviously wasn't built for driving on highways.

And yet, that's how you get from point a to point b in many places! The lack of safety is a HUGE concern, and drag causes safety problems in high wind areas (think: the midwest).

It's a pretty pointless car, and unlikely to ever be available to buy.

Every 2-door, V8, 4wd, long-box work truck ever made is a pretty pointless car. Towing power, ground clearance, an open bed, weight capacity, and most of the other things that distinguish these vehicles are utterly wasted and often counterproductive on a San Francisco street.

But these utility vehicles are instrumental in getting real shit done at countless farms, industries, and construction sites across the globe.

Don't think "Tesla alternative" when you look at this thing. Think of something more like a pickup truck, at home alongside a farm tractor, a 4-wheeler/side-by-side, a skid steer, a flatbed, or a horse.

I'm pretty sure the 200 mile range goes out the window pretty quickly if you start using to tow stuff.

Many "farms, industries, and construction sites" would not require a 50 mile daily range. Many such situations would have access to electricity, and a truck like this might reduce required fuel deliveries.

Even though they seem sometimes to be the majority of pickup truck owners, those who use pickup trucks for commuting or driving the kids on vacation are doing it wrong.

Speaking as someone who grew up in the middle of nowhere and currently lives in the middle of not very much, a 200 mile range plus a charging time is a deal breaker.

200 miles is great for commuting in cities. $60,000 is rather expensive for a farm truck.

Indeed, much like how high MPG ratings also go out the window in those situations.

The internal-explosion-engine approach to solving this problem is usually to stick a much larger fuel tank in the vehicle to provide the added range. The most direct equivalent in the battery-powered approach would be to add more batteries, whether to the vehicle itself (lots of room in the front and back for a bunch of battery packs) or to the trailer.

Any car's range goes out of the window quickly if you start using it to tow stuff, that's pretty much the lifeblood of a work truck.

The error here is in the word "car". It's a truck.

I don't think this is a truck either, an SUV would probably be more appropriate of a label.

If a Land Rover classic is a SUV, this thing is, too.

Looks more like its inspired by the Land Rover Defender 90 to me. I don't really see the resemblance to a Bronco.

I see elements of both. All three are in the same rough genre. http://imgur.com/a/E5XKY

That was my immediate reaction as well - looks very like a "proper" Land Rover!

1966-1977 Ford Bronco.[1]

The Defender was a lighter vehicle, closer to a Jeep Wrangler. Both came with roll cages. The Bollinger lacks that, and has a flimsy cab. It needs a roll cage.

[1] http://www.broncoparts4u.com/

No, the Defender didn't come with a roll cage, at least not most of them. The American-spec versions that were imported for three years in the 90's had factory-supplied Safety Devices cages but most rest-of-world (ROW) Defenders did not.

Source: I am the co-founder of NAS-ROW, the Defender forum. https://nas-row.com

Looks like a Series III Land Rover from The 70's. The steering column, analog dials, front end and light placement are very similar.

I knew someone else would see it was a D90. :)

Yes, that stands out immediately. Great way to draw the right sort of attention for this concept.

This is from the Motor Authority article;

"One interesting regulatory note is that the weight rating allows the B1 to qualify as a Class 3 commercial truck which considerably reduces regulatory requirements compared to vehicles intended purely for passenger use."

It'll be interesting to see how they can sell this as anything other than a kit car. Kit cars do not get held to the same standards as a manufactured vehicle, but you have to put it together or pay a shop to do it. Plus, you know, they are pretty deadly in accidents.

Love that they stripped all the controls out. Part the nice aesthetics from the old Broncos is the really clean interior. It's so much less junky than numerous obscure controls on most modern cars.

Tesla solves the same problem, in a completely different way, by pushing everything to an iPad like display in the middle. Both end up with nice clean interiors. The mass market cars look like flea markets in comparison.

To me it looks more like one of the old Land Rover series I(1). Boxy and high perched. Hopefully much more reliable than the Land Rovers.

It's actually got aluminum skin like the orig Land Rovers.

(1)https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Land_Rover

Well, a cynical person would note that, in deciding to call it a truck, they no longer have to worry about such restrictions.

There is some crazy legacy regulation in the US. This classification of vehicles doesn't exist elsewhere so I don't understand why you'd tailor a vehicle for such loopholes. The only answer would be that it's aimed at the US market only (which would be a weird commercial decision) or it would need a completely separate export model.

I wonder if they are targeting this for developing markets where safety is not a major concern.

Developing nations are well-known for the reliability of their electrical utilities.

It’s more of a straight-up Land Rover Defender clone to my eyes.