A Restart For the Aptera Electric Car? (ieee.org) 37
necro81 writes: The Aptera 2e was a head-turning 3-wheeled electric vehicle when it debuted a decade ago. With a body more like an aircraft than a car, it was designed for maximum efficiency. Unfortunately, the company went bankrupt and liquidated before it hit production. Now IEEE Spectrum reports the founders are having another crack at it, taking advantage of a decade of improvement in batteries, computation, and EV component supply chains. By utilizing sandwich composite body panels, lightweight 3D-printed metal components, and speedier fluid dynamics simulations, their aim is a maximum efficiency, low-volume production vehicle that, with its largest battery configuration, could achieve a range of 1000 miles (1600 km).
Sounds good but only for Californians (Score:2)
I assume this car may not fare so well with snow, ice, and slush....
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
And yet the article [ieee.org] says
the company claims its composite passenger cell will be “stronger than that of any other vehicle on the road today.” Aptera plans to have prototypes of its vehicle fully crash-tested as soon as they’re built, just like any four-wheeled light-duty passenger vehicle.
Re: (Score:2)
the company claims its composite passenger cell will be “stronger than that of any other vehicle on the road today.”
. . . and "Faster than a speeding bullet!"
Re: (Score:2)
Do not worry. In a low-volume car you can't fit many standard size americans. So they naturally went for the market of tiny asian girls that do live in california. You can fit much more of them in a given volume.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Actually being front-wheel drive it should not do all that bad in the snow. Most three-wheel vehicles up to the point when this was developed always put the two wheels in the back and that caused extreme stability issues when decelerating off of a highway right into a turn. With the two wheels in front, it solves both problems. Many other manufacturers have started doing this in the form of motorbikes in recent years.
As far as crashworthiness it was designed as a structural composite layered in an egg shape
Re: (Score:3)
at least one manufacturer is afraid enough to pay for troll posts
IEEE Spectrum (Score:2)
They still publish that shit? I don't know how, but I finally got them to stop sending me the IEEE Spectrum trash about a decade ago. That thing got thrown out faster than the phone book.
Even Betteridge doesn't believe it (Score:2)
And I second him.
I'd buy one - with some seriously dark tint (Score:2)
Otherwise, I wouldn't enjoy all of the people gawking at me everywhere I drove/park.
Even then (despite all of its positives), I could never own one of these today because I'm an aggressive driver at times in heavy traffic. People would DEFINITELY going to remember that jerk that cut him off on the freeway - when they drive a unique Jetson-mobile. Maybe when I'm driving Serial No. 100001 and they are as common as Tesla Model 3s?
Finally, an EV with way too much range (Score:3)
Insightful comment (Score:3)
It will be interesting to see where things are in five years - Nice Normal Cars that get 500+ mile range or something like this that could theoretically go from sea to shining sea.
Accessories? (Score:2)
Looking at the picture, this vehicle looks like it really wouldn't be complete without a 20mm autocannon installed in its nose.
Would that have a significant affect on range or efficiency?
Believe it when I see it. (Score:2)
It was a pretty car then, and it's a pretty car now. But I notice all they have are renderings.
Heck, the car shown doesn't even have rear view mirrors, it only has cameras. Mirrors are absolutely required by law. Hub motors suck. And "additive metal manufacturing" is pie in the sky expensive and slow. The car in 2009 was composite-molded body and had a FWD electric motor setup through CV axles. Sadly, a far more realistic car.
All in all, this car is 5 years further from production than the 2009 model was. A
Re: (Score:2)
It was a pretty car, and it's a pretty car now? (Score:2)
Beauty is really in the eye of the beholder.
Personally, I think it looks like what a movie designer in 1974 thought cars would look like in 2019.
Here is a pretty EV (Score:2)
Porshe Taycan: https://www.cnn.com/2019/09/04... [cnn.com]
Note that the controls are all touch screen, but laid out logically, not in a 17" touchpad like a Tesla.
XR3 (Score:1)
Efficiency (Score:2)
The i3 was never particularly efficient. The Model 3, is a larger car that is significantly more efficient. The GM Spark EV was more efficient. There may have been a small window of time that the i3 was the most efficient EV you could buy, but it was a small window.
Beware the 3 wheel curse (Score:2)
The other 3 wheeled car company, Elio, is currently on a death watch. As an investor I'd be extremely cautious of this.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I saw the orange mock up on the today show and fell in love with it. Two people, inline seating, AC, radio, airbags, sexy unique design, etc.
I wish they'd made it, and I would be willing to buy that mock up if they were willing to part with it.
Re: (Score:2)
3 wheels means motorcycle safety laws apply rather than normal car safety laws, which lets you skip annoying stuff like airbags and collision safety issues.so 3-wheel = death trap unless otherwise proven.
Re: (Score:1)
3 wheels means motorcycle safety laws apply rather than normal car safety laws, which lets you skip annoying stuff like airbags and collision safety issues.so 3-wheel = death trap unless otherwise proven.
Aptera always planned to crash test their vehicle to the normal four-wheel safety standards, and they say they're still intending to do that. Of course, they have to actually make enough cars to be able to test them, first.
Re: (Score:2)
talk is cheap.
they'll fail that test, of course.
Re: (Score:2)
That's what got me excited about the Elio. It was a tadpole (two wheels in the front) which is (relatively) safe compared to the tippy-flippy designs like the Reliant Robin. It also was supposed to have airbags and a roll cage enclosed cabin. ... and then kaput.
Re: (Score:2)
Good luck getting people to wear a helmet in one of these.
Re: (Score:2)
Composite skin structure (Score:2)
Composite skin sandwich structure is extremely expensive and time consuming for a production vehicle, and they're not going to save much weight. Homebuilt airplanes still use it a lot, but it is receding even there. The problem it will have as a car is that strength of this type of structure is like an egg. Extremely strong, until there is a crack. The roads are full of things waiting to crack it.
from the popcorn-theater dept (Score:2)
if it had 3 seats I could use one (Score:2)
gosh - having 2 "child sized" seats behind the driver would be nice. I'd buy one as a commuter car. Mostly it's just me daily to work, but I do need to pickup the kids from school a few days a week and this would be lovely.
I'll just need electric long underwear in the winter. But with 1000 miles range I'm sure there's plenty of battery to plug my suit into.
Market? (Score:2)
The 1800s called (Score:2)
Now IEEE Spectrum reports the founders are having another crack at it, taking advantage of a decade of improvement in batteries, computation, and EV component supply chains.
Unless they take advantage of four wheels, they're going to fail. It's not that they're making a tiny little car, it's that three wheeled vehicles suck a whole bunch. They are not capable of being dynamically as good as a four wheeler. The best experience on the road comes from having four wheels the same size, laid out with the same track front and rear. That's best for dodging potholes, recovering from skids (which I've had to do even when driving totally innocuously, let alone during spirited driving) an