New Company Set To Resurrect the Aptera 98
Zothecula writes "Ever since it was first unveiled in 2007, many people were captivated with the sleek, futuristic looks of the Aptera. When Aptera Motors went out of business in 2011, not having commercially produced a single vehicle, those same people were understandably disappointed. Now, word comes that a new company may be manufacturing and selling Apteras as soon as next year."
Says the article: "Aptera USA has most of the original company’s prototypes, equipment, patents and designs, so it wouldn’t be starting from scratch. Given that fact, Deringer hopes that Aptera USA could be making cars as early as the first quarter of 2014. He’s currently in the process of hiring engineers, and the company has already put in an order for 1,000 bodies from its Detroit-based supplier." Until there really is a super-charger network from central Texas to California, I wish I could get one of the gas-powered (or gas-electric hybrid) Apteras. Why should Tesla have all the fun?
Re: (Score:2)
So you have to be rich to buy a $30,000 car?
Since when?
Re: (Score:1)
"The 2g could end up in the US$50,000 to $55,000 price range"
If you are paying 55,000 for a 3 wheeled Honda Fit, you are a rich asshole.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
So you have to be rich to buy a $30,000 car?
Since when?
Well, I am technically upper middle class, and there is no way I could afford a $30,000 car, so I would assume I would have to be rich to afford one. However, a lot of the entry level people in my company who make 1/4 of what I make have $30,000 cars, so maybe you have to be rich or below poverty level to have a $30,000 car.
Re: (Score:1)
That 30,000 car costs half what I paid for my last house! I have a $30,000 car, but I bought it used and only paid $10k. Buying any new car is foolish unless you're rich. Cars today last a long time, and as soon as you drive it off the lot it's lost 1/3 of its value. New cars break down too, the last new car I foolishly bought (I was married, she insisted that we buy a new one for dependability) was a 1984 VW Rabbit, which stranded us eighty miles from home a month after we bought it; the alternator went ou
Re: (Score:2)
While I agree it is financially prudent not to spend more then $25,000 on a car if you are upper middle class many people can and do without serious financial harm. I am also upper middle class and felt that i could get everything I wanted for $23,000 on the road. $30,000 is not too bad especially of the cost of ownership is lower due to lower fuel and maintenance costs. You do not need to be rich to spend $30,000 or even $50,000 on a car, it is just a matter of priorities.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't consider myself wealthy by any means, but I buy new. As long as you intend to own it for a while, it is a good thing. My truck comes with a pretty long warranty, though I have not had anything break on a car in like 10 years. The worst repair is the tires, and those just wear out over time. The battery also tends to go in about 3 years. Maybe I am wasteful, but I bought the truck for Boy Scouts, and it has been invaluable for storage space and for towing the troop trailer, a used truck just wou
Re: (Score:2)
It depends where you live. Upper middle class in Maryland is around $90k
Re: (Score:2)
fyi, upper-middle class in the US is more in the range of $200,000 - $400,000 per year...
Oh, well then I am not upper middle class at all, then. Since I make less than half of that I guess I am lower middle class. No wonder I can't afford a $30,000 car.
Re: (Score:2)
Its called credit.
Oh, sure I could buy one on credit. No doubt that even though I have essentially zero disposable income, they would still be more than happy to finance a $30,000 car for me. But that would be just plain foolish of me to do.
If you can't afford to buy the car outright, then you should not buy it. If you can afford to buy it outright, then by all means buy it, on credit, and put the cash you would have spent into a mutual fund or something.
Re: (Score:2)
Why would that be a problem?
I see trikes ridden all the time and they seem to do fine. I bet the aptera engineers know a little more than you.
Re: (Score:3)
What do you mean run the other direction?
A tadpole trike is a pretty common layout. The most common one I see is on the following website http://www.spyder.brp.com./ [spyder.brp.com]
The tadpole layout is way more stable than the other direction. This is an engineering decision, not one done for appearance.
Re: (Score:1)
These [shiawasseehistory.com] are the ones I remember.
If you're gonna go with a trike, at least keep it classy [motorcyclecruiser.com]
Re: (Score:2)
By classy you mean oil leaking POS. If you want a bike that starts with an H, you want a honda.
Re: (Score:1)
Blasphemy! Jane Fonda is more patriotic than you are.
Re: (Score:2)
You mean nationalism, not patriotism.
I love my country and know we can do better than a leaky POS. If I continue to act this way it is my hope they will reform their ways.
Re: (Score:3)
You do realize the traditional trike design is an extremely unstable platform?
Re: (Score:2)
The Aptera runs in the same direction as the Spyder.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, the Canam spyder is about the only new trike I ever see.
Re: (Score:2)
Campana T-Rex is another, and a powerful vehicle too. Last I looked, it sports a 1200cc engine.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Dude, I've driven the 'tad-pole' design for a while. It is WAY more stable than the single wheel forward three wheelers. Stop being a dick.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Just wait until you hit a pothole with the dame thing.. Sheesh! Picasso, Calder, or Dali could have made a better design.
That won't be nearly the issues as, say, having a blowout on a control wheel and running off into the steeply graded ditch...
Re: (Score:1)
Just wait until you hit a pothole with the dame thing.. Sheesh! Picasso, Calder, or Dali could have made a better design.
Meh, Picasso already got his name on a rubbish car -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citro%C3%ABn_Picasso [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:3)
What a lame ass piece of junk
She'll make point five beyond the speed of light. She may not look like much, but she's got it where it counts, kid. I've added some special modifications myself.
Delightful! (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
The latter. Government shouldn't try to pick winners - could political hacks and their appointees be any less qualified for any such endeavor? - they should pick losers, and tax the living shit out of them, instead of trying to outguess the market. Pollution taxes, sin taxes, whatever you want to call them, but use taxation to redress corporate cost externalizations and pay for government at the same time, everybody wins but the
Re: (Score:2)
Now, carbon taxation I would argue isn't about picking winners or losers. It's taxing a pollution source for the damage it causes.
That is false. (Score:3, Informative)
You can claim these are the same things, and Libertarian and Republican fat cats will totally agree with you, but they simply aren't. Let me explain.
A government can use empirical data of existing damage and cost externalization to guide taxation - thus picking losers or it can make uninformed decisions based on hypothetical projections - thus attempting to pick winners.
Notice that one of these two processes is easily manipulable by nearly anyone - when you aren't usi
Re: (Score:2)
I'm wildly in favor of taxing things we want to reduce or eliminate. I just don't think there's a significant difference between them.
Hell, taxing CO2 is more 'free market' than subsidizing chosen 'winners'
Re: (Score:1)
Well, focusing on the sterile numbers of net value transfer rather than the method of implementation - when implementation is what actually impacts reality - is at least a little bit like a forest/trees thing. My spouse says "How you do it matters at least as much as what you actually do." You've also got an unexamined axiom that government economic interference is a zero-sum game, which I suspect is not really true.
But in any case I totally agree with you, in regards to your other statements! It amaze
Re: (Score:2)
I'll violate my own personal rule of not replying to ACs just this once, as I can see that I'm raising some libertarian ire, here.
Assistance in the form of government-backed loans is a pretty even-handed way to help get funding going, but loans don't have to be the mechanism, nor do they have to be for everything Aptera might need to launch -- perhaps not even loans, per se -- how about 3-year municipal tax credits for building a production facility or opening a parts and distribution center, somewhere?
Ther
Dreams can be revisited (Score:2)
I was so disheartened when they closed their doors in 2011. Jay Leno bought one of their prototypes it seems looking at his car collection.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Why not import a Twike? (Score:1)
http://www.twike.com/ [twike.com]
Or buy one from Neiman Marcus?
http://green.autoblog.com/2006/10/06/neiman-marcus-tries-on-some-green-for-the-holidays-christmas-bo/ [autoblog.com]
It's at least better looking than the Aptera.
Re: (Score:2)
Because that thing will fall over the minute you turn a corner. See Reliant Robin for evidence.
Also it makes the aptera look like a work of art.
Moving more than just myself in good weather (Score:2)
Why carry 1.5 tons of steel and plastic with you, if all you really want to move is yourself?
Because much of the time I don't move just myself and spending an extra $30,000 for the occasions when I do is a rather poor economic choice. I could accomplish much of the same result just by buying a (much cheaper) motorcycle or scooter. Furthermore where I live this thing would be pretty much useless between the months of December and April due to the weather. My pickup truck however is useful year round for any reasonable use I have even if it isn't ideal from a fuel economy standpoint.
Re: (Score:1)
Interesting.
Nissan had a 1+1 commuter concept a long while ago --- glad to see people re-visiting this.
Because you sound like Elmer Fudd (Score:2)
Why not import a Twike? Or buy one from Neiman Marcus?
Because it has the same failings - limited utility and poor performance in pursuit of fuel economy. And anything you buy from Needless Markup is going to be outrageously expensive. Plus saying the name "Twike" makes you sound like Elmer Fudd.
It's at least better looking than the Aptera.
Even if I agreed with you (and I don't - the Twike is hideous) that is like saying your boat leaks less than it used to. They're both really quite unattractive.
Not actually a car (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I have never understood this.
Helmet laws seem very inconsistant. Why are you not required to wear one in a convertible? To be consistant it should be based on what sort of protection the vehicle provides for your head.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
I would imagine it is pretty easy to be tossed out of a convertible in an accident. Lots of people fail to wear seat belts, or to do so properly.
Re: (Score:3)
US standards say that a convertible has to have pylons, roll bars, or something so when the car flips it does not crush the people inside. In theory, if you have your seatbelts on, you should just hang there. Older cars are grandfathered in.
Re: (Score:2)
I have never understood this.
Helmet laws seem very inconsistant.
Because some state lawmakers aren't completely retarded.
Mostly, but not completely.
The convertible isn't going to dump you... (Score:2)
Nearly any accident in a motorcycle involves you being thrown from it. A convertible is a car; the only accident where this would be an issue is a rollover, and due to their lower center of gravity, this is less likely than in a regular car. Convertibles also have roll bars and stiffer A-pillars to provide some protection.
Re: (Score:1)
Or possibly a humpback bridge, if someone isn't wearing their seatbelt.
Re: (Score:2)
I have never understood this.
Helmet laws seem very inconsistant. Why are you not required to wear one in a convertible? To be consistant it should be based on what sort of protection the vehicle provides for your head.
I'm probably missing a few counterexamples, but it seems to me that any vehicle where seatbelts are not required ought to have helmets required. Obviously this doesn't include back seats, older cars that had no seatbelts, etc. Basically if you are expected to be disconnected from the vehicle in an accident, then you need your own protection.
Re: (Score:2)
Why are you not required to wear one in a convertible?
Because if a 3000 lb car lands on you, you might as well be wearing goggles.
Re: (Score:2)
You don't have to wear a helmet in an Aptera because it has an enclosed cabin.
NEWS FLASH: The Chinese have no hands! None! (Score:2)
The Chinese-built mass-produced 2e should be less expensive than its American sibling, but Deringer believes that US buyers will want what his version has to offer. “From the initial research that I’ve done, I get a lot of people in Silicon Valley and California and Texas and other places who would like the car hand-made, not Chinese-made, and they want it to match to what their requirements are,” he tells us. “We can do that in the US, it can’t be done in China.”
.
Re: (Score:2)
Imagine how cheap they could work if they had hands! 8-(
BRING BACK THE ORIGINAL PROTOTYPE!!! (Score:1)
I hope they reconsider and decide to pursue the early prototype using batteries with a ultra-high efficiency motor/generator configuration. Without a model such as that in their lineup Aptera will be relegated to urban-toy status and will NEVER be taken seriously as a viable commuter vehicle.
Meh (Score:2)
Now, word comes that a new company may be manufacturing and selling Apteras as soon as next year."
And be out of business the following week. Seriously, I can't really see these things selling in any meaningful quantity. Certainly not enough to keep this company as a going concern. They're weird looking and impractical. Some might like the aesthetics but most won't. (Personally I think it's pretty ugly) Few people could use one as a primary vehicle which puts it into the expensive toy category. It apparently is fuel efficient which is great but it seems to have made a LOT of compromises in other a
Leave a sleeping Aptera lie (Score:2)
Companies fail.
For reason.
Respect that...
Sorry for my skepticism, but I'll believe it when. (Score:1)
Where is Ralph Nader ... (Score:2)
These things are going to be worse than Corvairs/Volkswagens when they hit the road. Three wheeled vehicles are very unstable, having the poorest handling characteristics of cars and motorcycles.
Texas to California, seriously? (Score:2)
Until there really is a super-charger network from central Texas to California, I wish I could get one of the gas-powered (or gas-electric hybrid) Apteras.
If you're really making the Texas -> California road trip often enough that it's not an outlier, then an electric vehicle is not the right vehicle for you even if Tesla's Supercharger network (which is proprietary to Tesla, BTW) comes to fruition. The good news is that the (in)ability to make outlier trips like that doesn't have much bearing on the utility of EVs for the 3-4 standard deviations of driving that we do.
Re: (Score:2)
The Honda 600n was sold in the USA starting in 1970.
Re: (Score:2)
The big car companies figured this out (Score:2)
You have to gradually change styles. Coming out with a design that's aesthetically too radical will turn off a lot of consumers. "Radical" implies untested and unproven to some.
Why should Tesla have all the fun? (Score:1)
Um, how about it's because Tesla makes real cars and not bad sci-fi movie props.
Sadly, no (Score:2)