Aptera to go to Washington to fight for DOE loans
click above for a high res gallery of the Aptera
Aptera wants a piece of the $25 billion Department of Energy Advanced Technology Vehicle Manufacturing Program loan pie. Unfortunately for the California startup they can't have any because the program is companies making high efficiency "cars." That means vehicles that pass all federal motor vehicle safety standards. The tear drop shaped Aptera may have very low drag and be very light weight, but, as we mentioned yesterday, it only has three wheels and does not meet all the safety requirements put on a car and is thus classified as a motorcycle (albeit a full bodied one) just like the Zap Xebra and other startups.
Aptera protests that they followed this three-wheeled route to optimize the efficiency of its vehicle. That may well be true, but a big piece of that has to do with keeping weight and cost down by not meeting all the FMVSS requirements. There is, of course, no technological reason that a three-wheeled vehicle could not meet the safety rules, but that would add a lot of weight, thus negating much of the benefit of the current vehicle. Should an exception be made for vehicles like the Aptera to be eligible for the loans? If so then perhaps we should just abandon all the safety rules, since they are a major part of why modern cars are so heavy.
Consumers have come to expect a certain level of protection in modern cars. They need to understand that just because a vehicle may have a full body, it may not be made to the same standards. If people are good with that, then grant Aptera's request and amend the rules for the loan program. If people are not prepared to accept a lower standard of safety, you know the answer.
Update: Since posting this story I've interviewed Aptera's Marques McCammon who tells us that even though the 2e is not required to meet motor vehicle safety standards, it is designed too and will be crash tested.
Gallery: Aptera 2e at TED
[Source: Aptera]
APTERA MOTORS GOES TO WASHINGTON
With its all-electric vehicle set for Q4 launch, SoCal manufacturer to update legislators about its American-made 'aerodynamic marvel' that gets the equivalent of more than 200 mpg
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
VISTA, Calif. (Mar. 12, 2009) – The Obama Administration has established a goal for the U.S. transportation industry: put 1 million plug-in hybrid cars on the road by 2015; cars built in America that get up to 150 miles per gallon. In the fourth quarter of this year, Aptera Motors in Vista, Calif., just north of San Diego, will begin manufacturing its 2e plug-in, an all-electric three-wheeled two-seater that gets the equivalent of over 200 mpg, goes 100 miles on a single charge and has a top speed of 90 mph.
However, because the aerodynamically designed vehicle has a three-wheeled architecture -- which, according to Aptera engineers, improves highway efficiency by more than 25 percent due to lower resistance and weight -- the Department of Energy is not permitted to grant a loan. As a matter of law, the DoE is adhering to the Advance Technology Vehicles Manufacturing Incentive Program, which makes funds available to support the development of fuel efficient vehicles – currently limited to four-wheeled vehicles.
"We've received financial backing from funders like Google and IdeaLab, and now we'd like to tell our story of breakthrough aerodynamic design and efficiency on Capitol Hill," says Aptera President/CEO Paul Wilbur, a former top executive at Chrysler for 25 years.
"Aptera can change everyday commuter driving forever, and even though we're a relative newcomer, we're confident our vision, purpose and results will compel federal lawmakers to rally around our cause and embrace efficiency in federal policy."
In fact, Congressmen such as Rep. Brian P. Bilbray (R-CA) and Rep. Adam B. Schiff (D-CA) have introduced a new bill that would include companies that build ultra-high efficiency vehicles for consideration in the DoE's loan program. H.R.1382, The Advanced Technology Vehicles Manufacturing Incentive Act, opens the DoE's loan program to closed cabin two- and three-wheeled vehicles that are capable of more than 75 mpg.
"By unlocking the door of federal funding to ultra-high efficiency vehicles," says Aptera Chief Financial Officer Laura Marion, "companies like Aptera can compete on a level playing field with more traditionally designed vehicles, leaving the ultimate buying decision in consumers' hands."
The ultra-light 2e weighs 1,700 pounds, carries safety features such as a race car-like passenger safety cell, airbags and a front crumple zone, and has already graced the cover of Popular Mechanics as a recipient of the "Breakthrough Technology Award" for 2008, it's a competitor for the coveted Progressive Automotive X-Prize and was named by Time magazine among its "Best Inventions of 2008." Aptera management projects the 2e will cost between $25,000 and $40,000, depending on options, and with additional models and powertrains like the 2h (two-passenger hybrid) already under development, the company expects to create some 1,500 jobs and more than 100,000 vehicles in the next five years.
"The 2e is as safe as any car on the road, and its groundbreaking aerodynamics helps it to fly past fueling stations," says Wilbur. "We're taking a pair of our vehicles to Washington to show first-hand how great mileage and innovative technology have combined to create a vehicle that's priced to fit within most family budgets. We'll show how the 2e helps define energy efficiency and can be a valuable component of President Obama's green economy."
About Aptera
Aptera Motors (www.aptera.com), founded in 2004 to develop and build the safest, most energy efficient commuter vehicles on the road, begins volume production of its first vehicle, the all-electric 2e, in 2009. Utilizing streamlined aerodynamic design, lightweight composite structures and unique drive systems, Aptera (which means wingless flight) delivers vehicles that are attainable and efficient. The company operates two Southern California facilities in north San Diego County, where it designs, engineers and manufactures the vehicles and their composite systems to create an exceptionally strong, sleek body.
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 2)
Yikes 10:06AM (3/13/2009)
Why should tax payers fund a start up company?
Reply
T-Ed 11:33AM (3/13/2009)
Why? Because that's what countries do to stay ahead technologically. Why is Korea the world leader in Li-ion battery and LCD tech? Because the S. Korean government poured billions into development of these two technologies in the late 90's.
Forsight- It's not just a buzzword.
Yikes 12:35PM (3/13/2009)
Yes, Korea invested in a future technology and funded research. Just like the United States does.
What new technology will come out of tax dollars being pumped into Aptera?
Rus 1:29PM (3/13/2009)
Without government start up capital there would be no Apple Computer, Intel, or IBM
T-Ed 1:52PM (3/13/2009)
Practical light electric car. You know you seem to have a problem with this Yikes, but many other businesses had their start in government funds or research projects run on government funds. There are so many examples (especially in technology) that it's not worth the time to list them here.
Besides compared to the good-money-after-bad we are giving to Chrysler and GM, Aptera's getting scraps. I for one don't have a problem with loans to people who are willing to try something different.
Kyle 7:50PM (7/09/2009)
Bah, does it really effing matter where the taxpayer dollar goes? It's out of your pocket, you'll never see it again, so whether it goes to Joe's Garbage Co. or Aptera, it doesn't matter. And why should we fund it? Well if you get one, let's just say you'll get paid back with it's 300 mpg mileage. Does that answer your question?
sollord 10:07AM (3/13/2009)
That thing maybe be useful in the south but will be all but useless in the north with an amount of deep snow. Also those wheels just scream to be hit and ripped off during the night if the car is parked on a street just like what happens from time to time with side mirrors
Reply
Tim 10:27AM (3/13/2009)
I’d LOVE to own an Aptera. If it passes standard automotive crash tests, then it's a car and should get equal treatment.
Unfortunately, Aptera can’t afford the lobbyists with deep enough pockets to buy the politicians who are getting more expensive along with everything else.
If the Statists must redistribute, it would only be "fair" to use that money to level the playing field and enhance competition instead of pandering to campaign contributors and vying for media sound bites.
Then again, politicians forcing the productive into debt so they can give charity to (and buy votes from) the non-productive isn't fair either so only a complete fool would even expect a level playing field or a sense of fair play from these people.
After all, Aptera is competing against “good” companies like Chrysler, Ford & GM who spent lots of money lobbing for all that bailout pork so others couldn’t really compete with them. If a level playing field were important, then Congress and the President would have honored their oath of office, obeyed the Constitution and let bankruptcy reorganization fix the automaker’s problems.
Aptera could have bought a GM assembly plant for a song at auction and investors would be jumping to buy part of Aptera because they wouldn’t have to compete with GM/taxpayer. If Politicians has honor, the bailouts would not even be available.
Bailouts = Unleveled Playing Field
(Let the liberal whining begin, this should be fun.)
Reply
Brian 1:00PM (3/13/2009)
If you want a level playing field, let's start by imposing tarriffs on all vehicles that are imported from countries like Japan, who imposes tariffs on our exported vehicles.
Yikes 1:07PM (3/13/2009)
Brian, do you also favor import tarrifs on Ford Fusions, Dodge Rams, Chevrolet Aveos?
Tim 1:22PM (3/13/2009)
Tariffs (a Constitutional responsibility) should be tit for tat equal and every country should know what goes around, comes around. Of course this is much harder when the US is trying to use bribes or bombs to influence the internal politics of foreign nations to maintain our international empire with over 550 military bases occupying foreign countries which cost the US taxpayer over $1 Trillion each year.
Things would be MUCH easier (and cheaper) if our politicians honored their oath to the Constitution and we just minded our own business instead of meddling in the foreign affairs of almost every nation on earth.
Power corrupts and its addiction can only be satiated with more power.
steve 12:35PM (3/13/2009)
I agree that minimum saftey standards should be dropped, but the testing should remain. If an individual would like to own a vehicle that gets 0 stars in crash tests they should be allowed to do so. A condition that should be placed on this is that anyone choosing to sacrifice their saftey for efficiency should be required to carry a higher level of insurance to offset the added risk of injuries (just like motor cycles).
Additionally the super high mileage civic should cost the same as the safe low mileage one. This will prevent the market from be flooded by "unsafe" vehicles because they are all that people can afford.
Reply
Brian 5:29PM (3/13/2009)
should I be exempt from manslaughter charges when someone in an Aptera cuts me off on the freeway and I lose control and kill them because their "car" is a death trap?
steve 7:30PM (3/13/2009)
And what happens when some one on a motorcycle does the same thing? Are you absolved from manslaughter because they were on a motor cycle. There should be no minimum crash standard, but the ratings must appear in all ads. Additionally it should be priced and insured to discourage people from purchasing them. If some one wants to try and save the world by driving a tin can, let them is all i'm saying. If you want to run the risk of death by getting in an accident go for it. But i have no business telling you that you can't do that because it is unsafe. Bungee jumping is unsafe, sky diving is unsafe, rock climbing is unsafe, skiing is unsafe; all legal. Just because something is unsafe does not mean it should be prohibited.
Eric 2:05PM (3/13/2009)
So will the DOE loan program accept applications from NEV/LSV manufacturers like Miles or ZENN? or does it have to be full-speed highway cars?
Reply
Kaveman 2:12PM (3/13/2009)
"Aptera wants a piece of the $25 Department of Energy Advanced Technology Vehicle Manufacturing Program loan pie."
Here, anyone from Aptera wants $25 I'll *give* it to them (no loan) for a ride in their bug-eyed beastie - Iove the look of this thing, just not so sure about that wide tail - looks like a lot of expensive repairwork if you back it up wrong....
Missing a 'B' in there, Mr Editor?
Reply
mark 3:33PM (3/13/2009)
How in the h**l can anyone in their right mind justify giving tax dollars away to buid a 3 wheel 2 seat motorcycle - guys - that is all it is - get over it. No amount of research money will change that. This company needs to go bust before it sucks any more money from its investors and what now looks like will be the taxpaying public. By the way - where are those "FINAL" specs, that will tell us what kind of gas mileage and performance we can expect from the whit whale; I will bet you that it won't be any better than that for a motorcycle ..... bahahahahahaha
Reply
Luke 6:26PM (3/13/2009)
Mark,
Motorcycles are pretty good, actually. I had a 2005 Kawasaki Vulcan 500 that had a 40hp motor and got 50+ mpg -- and it had the power to weight ratio of a sports car.
The problem with commuting on a motorcycle is that it's wet when it rains, hot when it's hot, cold when it's was cold, and my girlfriend wouldn't ride on one.... The Aptera solves all of that.
Chris M 9:51PM (3/13/2009)
Actually it gets better fuel economy than a motorcycle, because it is more streamlined and has less drag than a motorcycle and rider. It is also more efficient than a gasoline or diesel motorcycle because it is electric.
Mehul Kamdar 6:27PM (3/13/2009)
When the Federal Government has given tens of billions of dollars to companies like Chrysler (which ended up becoming a part of Fiat for all practical purposes) and GM which still hovers at the brink of bankruptcy, there is nothing wrong in offering developmental funds to a company that ahs a new vehicle that is capable of reducing fuel consumption because of its design and performance. Every regular commuter that the Aptera displaces would consume significantly more fuel over its life cycle. There is sometimes an intelligent blend of existing technologies to get a good result - designs like the Aptera are an example of that kid of thinking.
And no, I don't work for Aptera, own stock in the company or have anything to do with them other than subscribe to their bulletins. They may never sell their cars in Chicago, where I live. That does not mean that a good idea that could do well with some support needs to be damned.
Reply