The Future is Here: Aptera's Prototype Unveiled

I'd like to see photos of it hitting a pothole or driving through 6in. of snow, or after a crash test. There are no side mirrors, huge blind spots. I'll stick with the Prius.

Where is one supposed to put the number-plates?!? (especially the rear one) Looks a bit too much of a Colani dream to me :o)

This vehicle is just plain silly. I agree completely with the first poster. This is a totally unrealistic concept, and in my opinion, a waste of time. Sure, they got attention, people (whoever reads websites like this one) know the name of thier company.... for now, but what great innovations have they come up with that can be used in the real world?

Carlos

What's the inside look like?

Uses rear-view cameras. Do some research before you knock peoples hard work.

Give them a break- you can't expect to step right up to a car that's an exact replica of your current one yet does 230 mpg! They're heading in the right direction and maybe a lot of the things they're trying out here will be standard on cars everyone's driving in 10 years. Somebody's got to give these ideas a go in the real world. The first automobile probably wasn't very practical compared to a good horse and carriage either!

People ride motorcycles and modeds to save money and I think this car is a whole lot safer than that. If you like in a snowy place I wouldn't buy that.

I live in Hawaii and I would buy that, depending on the reliability of the powertrain. Hopefully they use off the self parts that are cheap and readily available, and reliable.

Willbyne you are correct the first automobiles weren't very good, broke down all the time etc. Now onto this concept. Much of what I see in it goes to fight air resistance and some things camera's instead of mirrors will probably end up on production cars. On the practical side much of what I see here doesn't make for a good real world auto. It cannot pass NHTSA crash standards without adding a few hundred pounds worth of bumpers alone. Now if they change the rules and the front is can be a crushable structure and make it cheap enough to replace it maybe. Hows the fuel usage when it's not going down the road at 55. I wonder if your looking at a low drag one trick pony.

Oops, ok I'll leave my other comments stand but 3 wheels so it'll be classed as a motorcycle and so crash standards need not apply. I hope there's a safety cage all the same or I wouldn't want to share the road with the truck and SUV's

I like it, I don't care about semi's or snow. As far as running into poles go, you only live once. This just plain cool, and I drive a hopped up 928 Porsche so I'm about as green as a wart right now. I'd trade my car in for one of these without a second thought and stop making priuses spin around and around when I blow by them at 140. I need a car like this to keep me from killing myself from pure speed. It looks like redemption for a sinner like me. Plus I'd have something to do with all the biodiesel I made when I got obsessed with it, not to mention a lifetime supply of glycerin soap courtesy of my cool car. I hope these guys and more like them keep coming up with cool solutions to three dollar gas.

Well if people want 230mpg, then sorry but this is what it will have to look like!

I've been an environmental activist since 1968 - this looks like an airplane with wheels instead of wings and as a single (used-to-be) commuter VERY UNREALISTIC. It holds one person???, no room for groceries or hauling stuff. Waste of time and good minds, and someone's hard earned dollars to put together - in my opinion!

Considering that this thing has 3 wheels rather than the 2 of a motorcycle and the cameras providing visibility, it seems safer than a bike. The 230 mpg makes it more fuel efficient than a bike. I can't wait to see one even though I live where it snows. Simply raising the thing a little higher and giving drive to all wheels would make it work in the snow. That might decrease the fuel efficiency a little, but with 230 to start, hey, you've got some wiggle room, right?

So Jan Jensen, what exactly about being an environmental activist makes you a better judge of automobile practicality? You call this a waste of time and effort, what exactly have you done for the environment that you think compares to this?
As for my thoughts on it, yes it looks somewhat impractical, but not much more so than supercars and such, which as far as I know also fail to live up to standard crash requirements. As for it being for one person (which I'm not convinced it is), how many cars do you see on the road with one person in them?
I'm not saying this thing is going to ever be economically viable, but some of the criticism being thrown around here is just stupid.

So Jan Jensen, what exactly about being an environmental activist makes you a better judge of automobile practicality? You call this a waste of time and effort, what exactly have you done for the environment that you think compares to this?
As for my thoughts on it, yes it looks somewhat impractical, but not much more so than supercars and such, which as far as I know also fail to live up to standard crash requirements. As for it being for one person (which I'm not convinced it is), how many cars do you see on the road with one person in them?
I'm not saying this thing is going to ever be economically viable, but some of the criticism being thrown around here is just stupid.

I can't believe so many people are bashing this concept! This car is right out of the Jetsons! Tell me you don't want to drive a futuristic and gorgeous vehicle like this!

Here is my review of it. I've been watching this one since it was announced last year. I am not surprised it didn't make the original 330 mpg.

I am not comparing it to a car! This is NOT a car. It is a motorbike. Covered yes but still a motorbike. So don't talk about safety when hitting a truck or SUV. You are in much more trouble on a motorbike.

On a scale of 1-10 with 10 being the best and 1 being the worst here is how I rate it.

Looks = 8. If you like smooth slicked back vehicle designs like I do it is one of the best I've seen.

Practicality = 7. Yes I say 7! As a 2 seater (one front one back) it is a great commuter car and much better than a motorbike because it is covered from the rain, wind, snow.

Cost = 5. I give it low marks here because I think any "entry level auto" has to compete with a low end motorbike. At around $15,000.00 I would move it up to a 7.

Performance = 6. Not a great motorbike but much better than other low end electrics and it can go on the highway. I am tired of seeing glorified golf carts being pushed as commuter vehicles.

Safety = 6. With in-seatbelt airbag and a decent crash cage it is much better than a motorbike. The lightweight composites are very strong. Not as strong as steel yet but better than nothing (ie. motorbike = 2 if you wear a helmet).

What would I love to see?
1) Crash test results. A shame to do it but it needs to be done. I am sure it would blow away any motorbike and maybe even beat some small cars.
2) Mileage with air conditioning or heat on. You can get creative with cooling to keep consumption down.
3) Built in solar panels. Wait until they get light, cheap and flexible (ie. nanosolar) then put them on.
4) Better batteries. There are such major advances being made in battery weight and life cycle that it should be up to a 250 mile range (all electric) in 3-4 years.

Final conclusion: For $15,000.00 US I'll take one.

Tim: Nice evaluation...you make some interesting assumption and points.

Jan Jensen: interesting evaluation,you make a whole bunch of assumptions...with no real points or even quality. you have no idea of powertrain, layout etc...

It looks like: plenty of room for 2. space for cargo (i.e. groceries).
It looks fairly larged size, which is good, instead of the micro crap enviros think we need. Safety has alot to do with preception. I preceive it to have good safety...certainly good visiblity to others. (ask a motorcyclist about "being seen").

just some thoughts.

I would like to see the whole shebang and then make a choice. At least if this comes out, people will have a choice.

billy

I saw this thing and their crew at an automotive proving ground in the southwest. Can't say which one as it might give me away. It's bigger than you think and has a long trunk, I think you could put a big ladder in there or something. They really had their sh*t together.

For vehicles to realize the best mileage possible, no matter what the fuel, they need to be completely rethought, like this vehicle. We need to look at airplane, boat and submarine design to cut down on wind resistance.

All the flaming and negative attitudes are going to do is get us stuck in the rut of stagnant design that already exists.

Form follows function, keeping up with the Jones's feeds the big three's scheme,It's not going to be cheap or safe to save the world from man,some in this world would have you walk to work if they had their way.Count your blessings and if you can support these new technologies.

How many previous posters actually went to Apteramotors.com to read up on this trike before posting all their negative comments? This vehicle (if they can sell it under $20K will definitely be worth it. It seats two (side by side not one in back) and has enough storage space for a surf board, a golf bag, groceries, etc. Winter months might be a problem but I would keep my old car for those days with lots of snow. Compare this to the Sparrow (now the NmG) which is all electric but still costs more per mile than the Aptera, seats only one, can only travel about 30 miles per charge and costs $25K!

When I saw the Aptera car my first reaction was wow, I want one! It looks sweet. I like reading about all the cool new idea cars that will give us an alternative choice from the gas hogs the big companies want us to buy. But it seems like most of these super gas misers are one or two seaters. I would love to see a four seater aptera and sacrifice 100mpg. Then I could buy one to use as a second car. I have kids and there is no way I can buy a car that only seats two. There is only a small market for two seaters. Making a four seater would put it in competition with the Civic, Focus, Aveo etc.

I hope the manufacturer is going to make the rear tire a "run-flat" type. I didn't see any info on a spare tire. I've owned a trike (harley) in the past and I can tell from experience that the tire running down the middle of the road will be the tire that picks up debris (flat-tire city). There is a reason you see smart cyclists riding in the tire path of the motor vehicles. Its to avoid the road debris (nails, sharp scrap metals, oil patches, etc...). Other than that minor thought, I'll be curous to see more about this vehicle.

As far as costs are concerned...the manufacturer should first concentrate on getting this trike to market as cheaply as possible. Since it is classified as a "motorcycle", forgo the automotive safety features. This would greatly cut initial production costs. Once volume production cuts the costs more, then and only then, start to introduce the safety features.

An example to follow is look at how the imports got a toehold in the U.S. market....economical barebone vehicles that were cheap to produce and sell. And yes, they were death traps (I once owned a used '72 Honda 600Z).

This manufacturer has the luxury of NOT having the "import" stigma that Honda, Toyota, etc... had to overcome in the 60's and 70's. Walmart is another example. Yes, a lot to their product comes from China and is of questionable quality. Its the $ numbers that the average public pays attention to. (P.S. Walmart prices are NOT really cheap. They just do a magnifcent job of making you THINK they have the lowest prices...kudos to their marketing department).

A lightweight 3 wheeled vehicle will never be able to compete with a 4 wheeled heavily weighted vehicle when it comes to safety, unless there is some technology I'm not currently aware of. The Big Boy manufacturers know that weight is the biggest deterent to high mileage. If they could come up with a safe super lightweight vehicle (less than 1400#) cheaply, they would. Safety features add weight. Weight reduces mileage.

The success of getting the public to buy this vehicle is to concentrate it as a "nearly" all-weather motorcycle for economical daily commutes to and from work that can be used in rainy and cold (not snowy) weather and is easy to park in urban spaces. That should cover about 85% of the weather in the snowy northern states.

Again, ECONOMICS, will be the selling point. Economical to build, buy, and operate (K.I.S.S.).

Don't get stuck in the minutia on this one...

It's not this particular car or company that's important. It's the underlying technology that's exciting.

Utilizing hydraulics to collect energy from braking to be reused to accelerate is awesome.

Just think of the energy savings that would result from collecting the energy of every auto in the US starting and stopping for one day.

Truly a paradigm shift is imminent.

Have you seen video of the early Aptera prototype?

http://www.myspace.com/theaptera

Dude, this car is going to turn hed. Imagine showing up in Miami Beach with this dream car. The Ferrari owners will be green with envy. You will be a big hit,

I love this car. I want to use it in a futuristic music video that will air on MTV. Somebody call me.

917-916-6844

If we all allowed to travel free via a bird or fish wouldn't you agree?

Birds or fish has a perfect aerodynamic and so as the Aptera Motors. Please try not to classify these as futuristic. Birds and fish are looks futuristic too but its actually an ancient design. I designed a road recumbents' shell to look like a fish with aileron similar to aircraft.

Diesel powered is like driving a brown sugar versus a refine white sugar. Brown sugar has better taste than the refine one. Diesel could convert to bio-diesel using used Frenchfries oil. Just pour in a petroleum additives plus used oil and go.

The naysayers on this thread have simply been brain washed by Detroit. They have you believing it's quite logical to move a 150 pound person around using 8,000 pounds of steel with the aerodynamics of a brick. 9-passenger SUVs spend most of their time on the road with just one person inside and their 4x4 capability is never engaged. Detroit has gotten us to purchase vehicles because of features we will only use 10% of the time, if that.

In 100 years, which will be more laughable, this vehicle or the big iron box you have now?

There are millions of motorcycles on the road that only seat one or two people. There are millions more cars that seat two people. My motorcycle doesn't have seat belts or a roll cage or any of the stuff that belongs in your living room, not your vehicle. My Harley cost $20,000, weighs 800 pounds and I'm lucky to get 40mpg. If you don't think what Aptera is doing is great and long overdue, you're just not paying attention.

It's just plain physics. If a vehicle is not lightweight or aerodynamic, it's going to take a lot more energy to move it. No new fangled powertrain is going to overcome this fact. It will soon be quite evident that hydrogen and fuel cells are completely impractical. An Altera-type vehicle, running on biodiesel will be about as clean and efficient as we will get for the next 50-100 years.

Wow! I cant believe you used a harley as an example for motorcycles. $20K for a m/c that does less than 40MPG.

A better example would have been a 250cc Ninja (new ones cost 3,500) with REAL MPG around 65-70. A lot faster than any economy car.

Couple of things this Fish wins over a motorcycle are:

A shell that protects its passengers(from weather, and bugs), as well as offering room for groceries.

Greater visibility; now drivers cant claim they "didnt see the motorist".

and.. I cant really think of anything else.

On the downside:

This thing is slow compared to that 250cc Motorcycle. hey, people still drive Geo's.

With its larger body, you maneuver similar to a car (probably same as a harley.. haha JK) cant split lanes (for CA drivers). This means you are stuck in traffic wasting fuel.

In a way, this is a motorcycle trapped in a car's body. Perhaps CA freeways are not what its meant for, but, it will fill a certain niche in this transportation biz.

The idea of a 3 wheeled car is not that radical. In the uk they have built a car for years called the reliant robin which has one wheel in the front which both runs the drive train and steers. In the 50's and 60's here there were a number of trials of 3 wheeled cars in the united states. Bucky Fuller built a number of them, they just never caught on. The impacts in terms of effecency are obvious though. Rubber on concrete is not that effecient. The less rubber you have touching pavement the better.

Personall I just deposited my $500 for a place in line. I love it. 2 + 1 Passenger space, AC, Airpags and Space to shop what more do you need.

I also just put down my deposit for an Aptera. I've been watching this for over a year and I'm ecstatic that it's going into production. I will be keeping my old car (which wouldn't sell for more than $4k at this point anyway) for Chicago winters and larger cargo needs. I realize most people can't afford to keep a second "utility" car, but that's what I'll be doing quite happily.

This vehicle is headed exactly in the direction needed to make America energy independent again. None of the established US automakers have proposed anything near this efficient. When they first saw the Aptera they may well have wet their pants.

Three cheers for the team at Aptera... from an American.

As a designer, I applaud their efforts. The world is changing and Detroit is dead. Snow could be a problem because of traction with only one driven wheel and its low weight but, once the streets are plowed, It's still a more efficient solution than a motorcycle. I especially like their careful attention to details such as the positive gas pedal and the negative brake pedal, that's something else. They've even have a modern green logo, doors that open at a 45 degree angle, cameras instead of unaerodynamic mirrors, and the body seems to be formed of a composite formulated from small airplane aerodynamics. We all should try to accept their 21st century solution to our transportation needs no matter what we've gotten used to or been marketed to by the oil-rich countries and propagandists. The Aptera is a quality piece of engineering. They will not go unnoticed. I want one.

Why are fuel efficient cars always ugly? Just stop trying to be futuristic and more people will buy them.

Uh, you are looking at the OLD prototype and not the latest version. Check around to see how it has progressed and improved...a ton.

Ugly is only an opinion. The mini is relatively fuel efficient, not pretty in my eyes, but not ugly either.

Post the new shots and info and get with the program

Ha, some interesting comments. I daresay the naysayers (many of whom call themselves card-carrying environmentalists...ahem) have the typically emotional response of a liberal blog. Conversely, the measured defensible responses that sound like engineers are the ones you typically see supporting conservative postions.

Isn't it ironic, don't you think? ;-)

(PS...cardcarrying conservative aerospace engineer here, who drives an Insight and gets 60+ mpg)

Greg

About SUVs: They need to be out of the roads, and the sooner, the better. They cause much trouble presently (such as parking in a compact space and often blocking TWO compact spaces, blocking your view while on the road etc), or will cause much more trouble for our future (they're killing our environment, needless to say).

So, I would be extremely sad, if SUVs also prevent people from buying cars like this one, being scared to be ran over by an SUV or a humongous truck.

If everyone were driving cars like this one, then the overall damages in crashes would also go down!

IMO, if you expect that SUV and truck drivers will come to their senses on their own, and switch to something that actually makes sense to drive, you're delusional. There should be severe annual taxes for the owners of such monsters, for all the hassle and damage that they cause. I'd say targeting their precious money is the only way to make such a driver do something logical. Moreover, all that money can be used for green-research! (in an ideal world, that is)

Obviously, if you NEED to drive an SUV or a truck for a real reason, such as actually needing to drive off-road for your job, or carrying bulky and heavy load on a regular basis, and can document this, then you'd be tax exempt or would get a tax-relief of some sort. Otherwise, pay through the nose, if you WANT to, but not NEED to drive such a monster.

rear view mirrors .... please remember micro digital cameras with macro lenses can give the potential of no blind spots.... paired with organo transistorised flexible substrate displays with power consumption in the range of miliwatts....
need I say more.... :)

I get 70-80+ on the highway in my 2001 Honda insight depending on speed and driving condition. I average 58 miles per gallon. I commute 150+ miles per day....I am a software quality engineer.

I REALLY LIKE this first generation vechile. I'd be interested in putting this to the test. I belive it is very practical and can even make money FOR you if you add a body wrap. Yes, I also drive and own motorcycles as well. If these folks get their production up and running, I'd like to have one immediately over here in Texas.

I agree with some of the posters that the car looks much too strange to achieve wide acceptance. The American car buying public, in general, aren't ready for something as radical as this. For a start, they perceive no threat or problem with how they're doing things at the present time. SUV's are OK and there is plenty of fuel to run them. The auto industry has a long history of manipulating the public mind to sell them features they don't need and additionally, convincing them that a vehicle is "NEW" when its actually exactly the same as last years model but different bodywork. The American car industry is languishing in a mud hole, bogged up to the axles, and he situation is entirely of their own making. The EV-1 was the only car to be manufactured in the US that had any chance of pulling them out of the ditch and they axed that to mollify the oil industry. So it'll be up to the little guy to break through with the designs and vehicles we'll need over the next twenty years and the lumbering behemoths of GM and Ford will play catch-up while trying to re-package their ghastly automotive flotsam to try and compete. Either that or buy up the successful startups and kill them. Streetcar anyone?

As for the question: "Who would buy one?"

*raises hand*

Please read all the specs before commenting. The car is bigger and safer than you think.

I love this car and I want one. Regarding saftey, check out the web site; it's really not that hard to navigate provided you have an attention span longer than that of a five year old. Also, I am sure it is safer than my husband's motorcycle and his parents' roadster. Regarding capacity, it can fit 15 bags of groceries in the trunk, or two surf boards. It seats two adults in front and one small person (e.g. child) in the back, which makes it more practical than a motorcycle or a roadster.

It looks different. Different is good. Different is necessary to acheive certain goals. Anyway, why do you want a car that looks like every other car. One of the big problems with current car designs is their poor aerodynamics. A car shaped like a brick is never going to get the kind of specs that this one has.