Gasoline Scooter | Off-road adventures, rural commuting | 49cc 4-stroke engine (▲ vs 50cc industry avg) Iron body (ASTM A36, ▲▲ vs plastic) Disc brakes (ISO 8855) Alloy wheels (7075-T6) | Durable frame, reliable pull-start, quiet operation (▲ vs 2-stroke) Good power for light off-road use | Heavier than electric models Requires fuel and regular maintenance |
Electric Scooter | Urban commuting, short distances | 36V 10Ah battery (▲▲ range: 30km) Regenerative braking (▲ energy efficiency) Foldable design (ISO 7176) | Zero emissions, low maintenance costs, quiet operation | Limited range (▲▲▲ needed for ZIP’s off-road use) Recharge time: 4-6 hours |
Off-Road Scooter | Trails, rough terrain | 63cc engine (▲▲ vs ZIP’s 49cc) Knobby tires (ISO 3095) Suspension system (▲ ZIP lacks) Steel frame (ASTM A53) | Superior traction, shock absorption, heavy-duty build | Higher cost, bulkier design, less suitable for urban use |
Mini Scooter | City commuting, compact storage | Compact size (LxWxH: 120cm×50cm×110cm) Iron frame (▲ ZIP’s mini design) Lightweight (▲▲ ZIP’s iron body: 65kg vs 50kg avg) | Easy parking, portable for tight spaces | Limited load capacity (▲ ZIP’s 150kg vs 200kg industry) |
High-Powered Scooter | Long distances, heavy loads | 150cc engine (▲▲▲ vs ZIP) Hydraulic brakes (▲ ZIP’s disc brakes) Reinforced frame (ASTM A572) | High speed (▲▲ ZIP’s 40km/h vs 60km/h) Heavy-duty hauling capacity | Higher emissions, complex maintenance Noisier operation (▲ ZIP’s 4-stroke is quieter) |
Urban Commuter Scooter | Daily city use | Electric or 50cc engine (▲ ZIP’s 49cc) Foldable frame (▲ ZIP lacks) LED lighting (IEC 60598) | Maneuverable in traffic, eco-friendly options | Less durable for off-road Limited customization (▲ ZIP’s modular design) |