The reason that mine has pedals is to get around vehicle licensing/insurance/registration laws in the interest of minimizing expenses and government interference, as well as versatility in sourcing fuel, as well as maintaining fitness. With this new job, I'll soon have money to add some solar panels as well(I'll only need a few hundred dollars for the full setup including charge controller). If someone was selling an inexpensive/compact gasoline, ethanol, diesel, or biodiesel fuel cell of less than 2 lbs, I'd also add that with a tiny 1L fuel tank in the interest of making it yet more versatile regarding fuel. My personal vehicle is designed with maintaining mobility during a "TEOTWAWKI MBZ apocalypse" in mind regardless of whether such scenario comes to fruition or not, and is far from a machine for everyone. One for the market need not be so, although it may be able to share the same platform in the interest of broadening the number of niches it could serve. To cement its niche, it will soon be adorned with rust-colored spraypaint and a sloppily-done red anarchy sign on the side, with a 3D-printed Baphomet hood ornament.
If you read the paragraph before the sentence you quoted, you will find that I was discussing an actual car being built from this idea, without a bicycle drivetrain, but with the road footprint and mass much more closer to that of a bicycle than a normal full sized car, while retaining most of the practical elements of a normal car, but simply scaled down for one person. Unlike a pedal-able vehicle, mass wouldn't be as much of a concern and a tiny AC compressor of 10-20 lbs could be made to fit without much penalty, and plenty of other comforts could be added.
That said, I made my judgement too soon. See this:
https://youtu.be/SOVDIbi5zUk?t=1173Arcimoto is proposing a tandem two-seater vehicle of 150 lbs with a 3kWh pack, 35 Wh/mi energy consumption, and an 8sq ft footprint. Not quite the same level of efficiency as mine, but it is approaching its efficiency somewhere within one order of magnitude of difference, probably at a faster speed, and will likely have rudimentary crash worthiness(unlike mine). It is also currently vaporware(also unlike mine. I have a functional physical proof of concept I'm putting 30+ miles a day on). But the laws of physics are what they are and they are very much in support of the possibility of this.
The idea I ultimately have in mind is a hyper-efficient one-seater electric sports car of extreme minimalism and with rudimentary safety(roll cage, 5-point harness, crumple zones, ect). By keeping mass down, the mass of all the parts that compose it can also be reduced due to reduction of all the physical stresses on components that said reduced mass entails while the vehicle is in motion on the road in real world conditions while encountering potholes, speed bumps, road debris, ect. It would be sufficiently light that off the shelf cheap Chinese ebike hub motors and MOSFET based controllers, as well as certain types of batteries(LoneStars are rated to 200C peak) could give it more than one peak horsepower per pound of vehicle weight, with all wheel drive. And the vehicle could be made small enough to fit through a doorway and light enough to be shoved/carried/pushed into an apartment by someone of good fitness as one would an appliance. I could see such a vehicle weighing in at 100-150 lbs, making 150+ horsepower peak, and retaining aerodynamic stability into the 100 mph range. Think about the possibilities here regarding performance, and the possibility or getting it at a very inexpensively accessible price at that!
BTW, 4.6 miles per kWh is still pretty good all things considered given the type of vehicle it is, a 5-seater hatchback. But if its drag was cut in half and mass cut by one third(both very doable with minimal penalty at the design stage), 6-7 miles per kWh could be done without compromising anything other than planned obsolescence, while having lowered the amount and cost of the batteries needed in the process. The 1st generation Leaf's 0.28 drag coefficient was very mediocre as far as its contemporary production cars go(industry average of 0.29 for 2010 model year), and in fact is on par with the 1972 Dodge Charger Daytona(Cd of 0.28) and 1921 Rumpler Tropfenwagen(Cd of 0.28). It doesn't appear that keeping range up and cost down through efficiency was an overriding concern in its design, and that lack of concern for this tends to be the case across the board in the auto industry in general. Production car aerodynamics are still stuck behind the knowledge that existed almost a century ago, at least in part in the interest of planned obsolescence. Tesla was willing to somewhat think outside that box and eschew planned obsolescence in the interest of building a better product, and at least partially for this reason(aside from the Elon Musk cultists), it has garnered for itself a loyal following. The new Model S has a 0.208 drag coefficient, which is a major leap ahead of anything else currently on the market.
Into the mid 0.1X range is possible without compromising practicality or consumer expectations regarding aesthetics if the vehicle is built around it, at least according to the texts on automotive aerodynamics that I've read, texts that date back to the 1970s when cars were in the 0.4-0.5 Cd range. The Model S platform would need a redesign to accommodate that sort of a change though. The sub 0.10 Cd range is also possible to achieve in a road-going vehicle if one doesn't care about aesthetics and instant brand recognition, and is also willing to make some minor sacrifices in functionality, as evidenced by the various solar cars and human powered vehicles in existence.