Ride CT & Ride New England Serving New England, NYC and The Hudson Valley!
WETHERSFIELD, CT – The future of Polaris’ new three-wheeled Slingshot in Connecticut will be discussed Monday at an 11 a.m. meeting between representatives of the state Department of Motor Vehicles, Polaris Industries and its dealers in the state.
Polaris builds the reverse trike that has two wheels in front and one in the rear. The company maintains that it’s a motorcycle, despite the fact the Slingshot has side-by-side seats in an open cockpit, a steering wheel and a stick shift located in a console between those seats.
Existing state statute may not recognize it as a motorcycle and, as of now, the Slingshot has not been approved for sale in Connecticut. Polaris announced the model on July 27 and began shipping to dealers last week.
“We have an open mind going into Monday. Our goal is to come up with a solution,” DMV spokesman Ernie Bertothy said today.
Bertothy reported that DMV Commissioner Melody A. Currey and Acting Deputy Commissioner Michael Bzdyra will attend the meeting.
Also expected to be there are Polaris district sales manager Bert Guerrette and (via phone) Polaris legal expert Amanda Rusin as well as representatives from Libby’s Motoworld in New Haven, Danbury Powersports, Advanced Powersports in Griswold and Shark Cycle in Stafford Springs.
In an email, Rusin said Polaris is “very involved with Connecticut and doing everything we can to move it along.” She said the company “will work diligently to get the Slingshot approved in CT.”
Damon Libby of Libby’s Motoworld calls the current uncertain situation “unfortunate” and expressed pessimism that Monday’s meeting will result in a positive outcome. “I think we’re going to have to go through legislation,” he said.
While the Slingshot doesn’t have handlebars or a saddle-type seat, it does have a swing-arm like a motorcycle and is belt-driven. Polaris calls it “a 3-wheeled motorcycle. It is not an automobile, it does not have airbags, and it does not meet automotive safety standards,” the company states in fine print on the Slingshot website.
The DMV takes the opposite view. “We do not think that the Polaris Slingshot meets the state definition of a motorcycle, but we have an open mind going into the meeting on Monday. This is an attempt to come to a solution,” Bertothy said.
Libby said his dealership has already taken three deposits for Slingshots. “A lot of people don’t want to ride a big Harley or a (Honda) Gold Wing,” he said, explaining that sales of Slingshots would be beneficial in terms of tax revenue.
He also said a Connecticut company, Alinabal Inc. in Milford, is making components found in the Slingshot – stabilizing linkage, ball joints, outer tie rods and steering gear.”
“You’d think they want it,” Libby said of the state in reference to the fact parts are made here.
The base price of a Slingshot is $19,999 with the premium “SL” model costing $23,999. The Slingshot is powered by a 2.4-liter, 173-horsepower dual-overhead cam engine. It has a five-speed transmission, electronic stability and traction control, and ABS on all three wheels. It weighs in at less than 1,700 pounds.
– By Bud Wilkinson
I’m happy people have brought up the Morgan and T-Rex. People have chopped Volkswagons into 3-wheelers, and Harley Davidson offers a Tri-Glide. Are these not three wheeled “things.”
My question is what happens when Massachusetts or New York allows these, but CT doesn’t? Will they not be allowed to drive on our CT roads? If one state allows them, I would think we all have to allow them.
This meeting may also open the can of worms of why quads are not allowed on the road. Why is that exactly and why is this 3-wheeler different? Quads are belt drive or chain driven like a motorcycle. A horn and signals can be added. Seat height is comparible to a motorcycle. Some would argue that the four wheels on a quad offers more stability than two wheeled motorcycles at slow speeds and turning. Granted they shouldn’t be allowed on the innterstate, similar to mopeds and scooters. I think these could be viable forms of transport. Side by Sides like the Razr could be argued for as well.
It will be very interesting to see where our DMV draws the line.
On the Slingshot, I think they look cool and wish Polaris the best of luck. Although I’m not sure if they’ll need it.
Good point on the T-rex having a similar setup, also the Morgan 3 wheelers new OR antique, Thoroughbred Stallions are another. Funny too would be motorcycles with the Voyager “trike” kit that actually has 4 wheels but doesn’t seem to bother DMV.
The actual wording of the CGS has nothing in it to disqualify the Slingshot. CGS Chapter 246, Section 14-1, (54) has the definition. http://www.cga.ct.gov/current/pub/chap_246.htm#sec_14-1
Please read the “or” and “and”
Leigh, that 26 inch seat height is only mentioned in defining a motor assisted bicycle (moped) as not less than 26 inch seat AND less than 5 HP. A number of cruiser motorcycles have less than 26 inch seats.
Discussions about swing arms and steering wheels are neither mentioned, or necessary in any context…
Three wheels, a seat OR platform, and it even mentions allowable enclosed drivers seat, so long as the motor is also in the enclosed area.
I think the state, and DMV are also not even attempting to comply with the ADA law, in that handicapped persons might want these 3 wheelers, AND since they passed the law requiring the MSF class for licensing, the classes DO NOT offer a 3 wheel course. MSF DOES offer a course, but no CT sites have it.
1st problem I see is seat height. The law says 26″ and this and the trex are under that minimum. Although it’s in the spirit of the motorcycle law as 3wheelers are concerned, what is to stop car makers from skirting the safety laws by building something like this? They can just point to this vehicle and say that safety laws don’t apply so we’re building them too…..
No different than the 3-wheeled Kawasaki or BMW TREX that has been around and on our roadways for over a decade with no major problems or issues. Getting a little tired of all the anti-motorcylist agendas out there. The state should be spending their time sanctioning locations for off-road motorized family recreation under CGS 23 – 26 c. Most other states have these but CT has zero.