12.22.07

One cool electric car

Posted in Technology at 1:48 pm by LeisureGuy

Aptera

The Aptera. Popular Mechanics has a video with a lot of technical detail.

UPDATE: More here.

Possibly related posts: (automatically generated)

17 Comments »

  1. Raymond McInnis said,

    22 December 2007 at 3:39 pm

    Mike, I live in bellingham washington, a city of almost 100,000 between seattle and vancouver. a friend operates an electric motor repair shop. he himself is building two electric cars, one for himself, one for somebody else. he told me that a shop catering to electric car aficonados is now open, and that many other bellinghamites are busily trying to crack into the electric car circle.

  2. Electric car Wiki said,

    30 December 2007 at 12:32 am

    It is only shame that Aptera’s car will not be seen on roads before 2009… I would so want to drive one today… Looks like all electric automobile manufacturers got delayed… (Tesla for example)… I Wonder why…

  3. kent beuchert said,

    30 December 2007 at 10:08 am

    Aptera’s vehicle is pure malarkey - a more impractical vehicle can’t be imagined. Strictly for the young (and impoverished) Walter Mittys of the world. If you had been paying attention, you would know that all-electrics are passe and impractical, just like those big EV flops of teh 1990’s (EV-1, Toyota Rav4 electric, and Honda EV). After all is said and done, in addition to the fact that all-electrics make no logical nor economical sense and are far from being even remotely capable of replacing gasoline powered vehicles, the plug-ins will succeed because they are cost effective and far more effective overall in reducing emissions than all-electrics. All-electrics must use only grid electricity, most ow which is fossil generated, whereas a plug-in can use ethanol in addition to its grid sourced electricity, making it far closer to being carbon neutral. Thus all-electrics are, in fact, inferior to plug-ins as emission reducers. Economically, they are horrific and additionally require a gasoline powered alternative vehicle to get to those thousand and one destinations that are out of the range of the electric car.

    All-electrics, at this point, make little sense, except to those manufacturers looking to fleece the public, since they are a lot easier to throw together.

    Tesla is the only manufacturer I’m aware of that has been reporting a delay, and if you had been paying attention, you’d know that the reason is the transmission - the current one cannot handle continuous torgue (as what is generated by an electric motor) without premature failure. The tranny manufacturer is engineering a solution. What else would you expect from an amateur car company that has never built a single vehicle - they even had to hire retired detroit auto men to show them how to qualify a car to meet Fed Govt regulations for safety, etc. Once the tranny problem is solved, the cars will begin shipping, but the Fisker Lightning, with far more advanced batteries that can be rapidly charged, will be right at their elbows to show the public a far more practical (if you can call a $200,000 car practical) way to build an EV. I predict doom for the Tesla company - their technology is only slightly more advanced than the crappy EV-1 designed over 20 years ago. They are counting on public hysteria over carbon to make their customers forget all of their car’s inconveniences and limitations (like a puny 250 mile range from a 4 hour recharge). Won’t happen.

  4. LeisureGuy said,

    30 December 2007 at 10:51 am

    You certainly seem to be down on all-electric vehicles. But what about those which derive power from fuel cells instead of batteries? The fuel-cell breakthrough hasn’t quite happened yet, but when it does, it seems to me that all-electric becomes much more attractive.

    So far as practicality as a selling point: the American public has long since demonstrated its willingness to buy impractical vehicles that appeal to them—for example, the monster 4-wheel drive SUV that travels solely to mall and supermarket.

  5. drivin98 said,

    30 December 2007 at 5:43 pm

    Don’t mind Kent Beuchert. He’s the electric car troll of the internets. He posts nasty, inaccurate comments far and wide (under a variety of different aliases) after any post which dares to discuss electric cars. Basically, he a GM Volt fanboy ready to piss on anything other than the concept he has deigned to be the correct one. Sometimes I come along behind him and clean up a little.

    So, unmentioned by aforementioned troll is the fact that the Aptera will come in two models. One which is purely electric (my personal favorite) and a longer range serial hybrid which is basically the same idea as the GM Volt. Except with 3 wheels and a quality build. And made by a manufacturer who actually gives a crap about the environment.

    As to the rest on the shite shoveled out upon your comments section, I’ll spare you the boredom of point by point refutation. Suffice to say electric cars can be powered by solar cells on my house whilst ethanol as a fuel is continuing to fall into further disfavor by environmentalists.

  6. David Massey said,

    31 December 2007 at 7:06 am

    Yes, it’s naysayer people like K. Beuchert that will state all sorts of “reasons” why a new technology should not or can not be a viable alternative to our currently available technologies - so rather than being part of the solution he/she becomes part of the problem. It was people like him who were in charge of Western Union when Alexander Graham Bell approached Western Union about buying the patent to the telephone invention and W.U. told Mr. Bell that his invention was just a mere toy with no practical use or future market place. We all know what became of the telegraph and telegram!

    Heck, if Thomas Edison had the same attitude and opinions that Mr. Beurchert has we may still be using candles to read by! After all, electricity is dangerous and if we start selling light bulbs we’ll put the candle makers out of work.

    I’ve got my eyes on Phoenix Motor Cars (http://www.phoenixmotorcars.com/) SUT vehicle. It’s already passed the crash tests and is all electric with the new NanoSafe Lithium Ion Batteries which, by the way, don’t catch on fire if the car gets in a bad accident like the old Lithium Ion battery technology that was used in laptop computers in recent years.

    The USA needs more companies like Phoenix Motor Cars who have the foresight, initiative, innovation, and ability to turn a deaf ear to those that say “it will never work” or “it will never amount to anything significant”. Innovators, designers, engineers, scientists and the like MUST have the fortitude to do what they feel is possible in spite of what those around them say - including their own peers - or we will be a 3rd world country under the control of the middle east oil sheiks. It makes me sick that we are financing the terrorists of the middle east every time we buy gas for our dinosaur technology internal combustion engine vehicles! Wake up America before it’s too late!

  7. LeisureGuy said,

    31 December 2007 at 7:34 am

    You may remember the story of the older man watching the Wright brothers attempt to launch their airplane. He kept muttering, “They’ll never get it up. Won’t fly. It’s heavier than air. Never will take off.” Then the plane took off and got up into the air. He started muttering, “They’ll never get it down. It won’t land. It’ll keep flying.” :)

  8. kent beuchert said,

    31 December 2007 at 7:34 am

    I have to laugh at the folks who have swallowed whole the BS in
    “Who Killed the Electric Car?” you’d think these folks were from another planet and never even heard of an automobile. They refuse to face the
    fact that currently batteries aer 1) too expensive, 2) too impotent, with
    too little capacity 3) take to long too recharge, or a combination of any of these things, to be used exclusively as the power source for an automobile.
    Anyone who claims that all-battery EVs are a viable alternative to the gas powered car is simply braindead; or fraudulent. Either that or they are shills for these little rolling coffins that are being produced by these “mushroom” companies that never built a car in their existence. The crowning glory is that battery-only electrics are only marginally better than plug-ins, and that if the plug-in uses E85, they are actually worse, since 85% of their liquid fueled mileage is carbon neutral, which cannot be claimed for the electricity exclusively used by the all-electrics. The fact that battery-only electrics are not viable alternative vehicles cannot be disputed until one of their cheerleaders can demonstrate a battery that is practical for the energy required to compete with a gasoline powered vehicle. It’s no more complicated than that, and doesn’t involve name calling (troll) in the place of logical argument. Ad hominem arguments were tagged as invalid 2000 years ago, but this generation is clueless in that regard.

  9. LeisureGuy said,

    31 December 2007 at 7:39 am

    Kent, you do realize that someone using an all-electric vehicle for their daily life can rent a traditional car when a long trip is required. So I’m not sure that the electric vehicle is quite so impractical as you state. And, as I mentioned, fuel-cell technology seems to be advancing as well.

    At any rate, it would be good if you could avoid personal comments about people who advance arguments and positions with which you don’t agree. Calling them “from another planet” and “never heard of an automobile” and “braindead” or “frauds” is very much ad hominem, and since you yourself have asked that ad hominem arguments not be used, it would be great if you would model that behavior and confine your remarks to the technology and not to the proponents.

    Thanks.

  10. hmmmm said,

    31 December 2007 at 11:07 am

    KENT
    First, do you work for GM?
    You are missing the point. Full battery EV’s are not supposed to replace EVERYONE’s car, so when you point out that it can’t replace everyone’s car you are not making a valid arguement. There are niches that are filled by battery EV’s which are expanding as battery technology improves. I agree that plug-in hybrids will make the first big impact in primary consumer vehicles, but that doesn’t mean there isn’t significant room for EV’s for city commuters, people’s 2nd cars, commercial and government fleets/delivery vehicles etc…

    Leisure Guy:
    You should ready yourself for the possibility that hydrogen fuel cells won’t ever be a mainstream motive technology. After a decade in which fuel cells were THE golden child and received by far most of the investment and research, it is interesting to see new BATTERY technologies appearing which look like fuel cell killers. Fuel cells still have entire ranges of mountains to climb including:
    -Fuel Cell Performance (service life, temperature range, etc)
    -Fuel Cell Cost
    -Hydrogen Refueling Infrastructure
    -Hydrogen Production Efficiency
    These are all huge gorillas in the room right now.

  11. kent beuchert said,

    31 December 2007 at 3:27 pm

    Well, I guess it’s true that no one here understands ad hominem. Sorry, but my arguments are based on logic and facts, not imaginary villains. Whether I go on to characterize the holder of patently absurd beliefs as a Nimrod is neither here nor there. Apparently it’s a lot easier for this blog to see (and imagine) errors in those with whom it disagrees. So what else is new?

    The problem with blogs such as this is that they tend to be near-religious in their narrow orientation and belief in their cause, and unable to deal with alternative viewpoints. Anyone who fails to follow their party line is considered a troll, or shill, etc.

    I’m strongly in favor of plug-ins. They, not EVs, are what the public will (and can) buy and use, and therefore will accomplish much more than current EVs ever can, in all respects (emissions AND crude avoidance), both now and for the foreseeable future.

    There simply aren’t any valid arguments to dispute this claim, and there won’t be until a practical battery makes its appearance (Agassi’s “solution” notwithstanding). This is not rocket science, people. The utter failure of the EV-1, Toyota Rav4 Electric, and Honda EV were not mistakes, and those who fail to learn the lessons that they taught (as GM clearly has, but no one around here seems to) are bound to repeat the same mistakes. And they are doing just that : adding $60,000 to the cost of an EV and making it faster (as Tesla has done) doesn’t solve the patently obvious and critical problems with those impractical vehicles, irregardless of the Gee-whiz factor.

    Those who deny that reality and manufacture imaginary evildoers (e.g. Chris Paine) to explain away the obvious failure of the technology are living a child’s fantasy.

    We would all love to see a viable battery-only EV, and someday we will. But that day is not even remotely in view yet and those who claim it is should be ashamed. That, I believe, is the definition fraud, or at least fraudulent advice. Now if we all lived on a twenty mile square Pacific island, that would be different. But we don’t. So it isn’t.

    Perhaps the reason so many humans think all-battery EVs are superior is
    because they think, in a rather simple logic, that if a little something (plug-in) is good, then more (all-electric) must be better. Sorry, but it doesn’t work that way. In fact, here precisely the opposite is reality. But there are a lot of folks out there that simply don’t get it.

  12. hmmmm said,

    31 December 2007 at 3:39 pm

    Kent,
    You are telling people what they need and want on average and not listening to what specific people say they need and want. There are significant niches for EV’s now. There is new enabling battery technology now. There aren’t yet available vehicles from big auto to fill these niches. I agree with you in that plugin hybrids are going to be the dominant near term revolution in home vehicles. I disagree with you on how you use that to ignore the significant EV niches. Yes, plugin hybrids are great and will have more demand and will be used in more autos in the forseeable future. No, that doesn’t mean there is no place for battery ev’s in the meantime. it’s not one or the other. The market is huge and people’s demands are greatly varied.

  13. LeisureGuy said,

    31 December 2007 at 4:12 pm

    Kent, could you please discontinue the insults? They are unproductive of genuine discussion.

    I’m not sure you realize it, but the Aptera will be available as a diesel-electric hybrid.

  14. drivin98 said,

    31 December 2007 at 10:29 pm

    Wow, he came back. Usually he’s more hit and run than stay and chat.
    Well, to start, I didn’t mean troll as an insult or attack, ad hominem, or otherwise. It just internet speak. From Wikipedia:” The rise of the expression “concern troll” reflects an expanded definition of troll as someone whose posts have the primary goal of disrupting or de-railing an internet community.” I consider someone who gets google alerts for “electric cars” or some such and then comments negatively (using several different names) on practically every article, story, expression of opinion published on the world wide internets to the extent that many people think you are actually paid to do this falls well within the definition of, in the modern vernacular, troll. As to your arguments and protestations being based on “logic and facts”, I think you may have noticed in your travels that your comments usually generate more comments which correct your “logic and facts”. And speaking of logic and facts and refutation…Subaru is not a “mushroom” company and their EV is slated for release in 2009 with the price level of $17,500 targeted for 2012. So, to recap, established company, excellent price point, and sufficient (100+miles) range. “Ah, but that power is not derived from renewable sources!”, you might squeal. “Ah, but I can buy solar panels, charge it with those and not contribute to global warming.” What does Kent think about solar panels (and global warming)? Let’s google “Kent Beuchert” and find out.

    “written by kent beuchert, December 31, 2007
    Solar photovoltaic is an inferior technology regardles of the price, which is still exorbitant and impractical. Solar thermal is the only solar energy source worth bothering with. As for saving the Earth, that would require more than redcuing carbon, which has recently been proven as not the main impetus behind global warming. Sorry, it looks like would-be Earth saviors are actually global warming dupes. New technologies will be required to prevent global warming, if necessary. ”

    So, whatever. It’s obvious to me and many others that you are not interested in logic and facts so much as ridiculing and attacking people who happen to care about this planet and who hope to lessen their environmental impact.
    (p.s. Personally, I hope you are paid for what you do because if leaving thousands of nasty comments is a hobby, that would be very sad.)
    Happy New Year

  15. Sn said,

    1 January 2008 at 8:23 am

    Happy new year,

    The aptera will not be a diesel-electric hybrid.

    Kent is right about the battery technology and EV’s, even if you don’t like the messenger.

    S

  16. LeisureGuy said,

    1 January 2008 at 8:56 am

    I actually don’t know Kent. What I don’t like are insults. YMMV, of course.

    You’re right about Aptera: it will be available as a gasoline/electric hybrid, not diesel electric:

    Due to the way diesel emissions are calculated (emissions per gallon instead of emissions per mile); it’s proven impossible for us to find a suitable small Diesel engine that passes California emissions. That’s why we’re using a very clean, efficient, and small gasoline engine that will make the Aptera emissions friendly.

    And also:

    The approximate price for the all electric version is $26,900 and the plug-in hybrid $29,900. These prices are subject to change any time before we begin production.

    So far as acceptance and utility of all-electric vehicles, it surely depends on the situation and requirements of the individual owner. For quite a few people, all-electric has worked fine. Obviously, that option does not work for Kent, so he shouldn’t buy one.

  17. Fritz said,

    2 June 2008 at 2:06 pm

    The RAV4-EV coupled with a solar array to produce the power that would be needed to charge the RAV at night would be perfect for our needs for our entire driving lives. We have never had a commute that would require more range than that CUV could have delivered right from the start.

    In fact it will even get us over the mountains to Grandma’s house. For the RARE occasion we need to go further we could rent a vehicle, borrow a vehicle or keep one of our fossil fuel powered vehicles on standby just like we do my motorcycle or my friend does her 4WD truck.

    EVs do work today. They worked years ago when the RAV4-EV was introduced. They don’t work for everyone or every need but then few vehicles do (compacts when a person needs to move 8 people, a minitruck when a person needs to haul a farm tractor). We adjust for those occasions, why can’t the average person adjust when they need to park the EV and drive a fossil fuel powered vehicle?

Leave a Comment