Washington debates if the Aptera 2e should be considered a car
Aptera 2e - Click above for high-res image gallery
For some time now we have been discussing the status of vehicles like the Aptera 2e. While Aptera's tear drop-shaped creation promises to be highly efficient, there are concerns about the safety of vehicles like this and others, like the Zap Alias. The problem lies in federal rules that define anything with less than four wheels as a motorcycle and thus exempt for crash safety rules. Aptera at least has been adamant that its vehicle, while not required to meet impact standards is being designed to meet them anyway.
Aptera has applied for some of the funding available under the Advanced Technology Vehicle Manufacturing program, but was denied because the 2e is not a "car" by federal rules. Some California members of Congress are now trying to change that with a bill that changes the qualification to any enclosed vehicle that seats at least two adults and gets at least 75 mpg. The legislation passed the House and is now awaiting Senate approval. Perhaps what they should do instead is change the rules about the definition of a car to require any full bodied vehicle to meet safety standards regardless of how many wheels it has. Thanks to Vince for the tip!
- For more on this topic, check out the Greenlings that asks: "Why do so many green cars have only three wheels?"
Gallery: Aptera
[Source: Wall Street Journal]
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
Bill 2:58PM (9/14/2009)
I'll point out that Aptera said it would do actual crash tests last summer (not just computer simulations) but that doesn't appear to have happened.
Until this vehicle undergoes actual crash tests (to see how well those "deformable" beams work in practice) it should be treated as an enclosed cockpit motorcycle with helmets required for the occupants.
Reply
meme 3:40PM (9/14/2009)
Aptera never set a date on doing actual crash tests, apart from "before we release".
Sean 4:14PM (9/14/2009)
Why should helmets be required for an enclosed vehicle? They are not required in CA, and I would assume they are not required elsewhere.
polo 6:47PM (9/14/2009)
Why would an enclosed vehicle require helmets? Is that really necessary when you have a seat belt and airbags?
Satn 3:34PM (9/14/2009)
Problem with changing the rules is that many of the 3-wheel startups would go under if required to meet safety specs.
Or we'd end up with more 2-wheel green "cars", which doesn't sound fun
Reply
Chris M 3:42PM (9/14/2009)
I think there should be a new category for "3 wheel cars", that is, 3 wheel vehicles that can achieve at least 75 mph speeds and meet the same safety standards as 4 wheel cars.
Those 3 wheelers that can't reach 75 mph would be considered "Neighborhood vehicles" (max. 35 mph) or "City vehicles" (max. 50 mph).
Those that can't meet the safety standards could still call themselves "motorcycles" and be sold under motorcycle standards.
jpm 3:45PM (9/14/2009)
2-wheel green "cars"....... I'll take a ev motorcycle! they look extremely fun.
Chris M 3:57PM (9/14/2009)
" Perhaps what they should do instead is change the rules about the definition of a car to require any full bodied vehicle to meet safety standards regardless of how many wheels it has."
Good idea! I was reminded of a vehicle that took the opposite tactic, the 8 wheeled Eliica prototypes built by Keio University.
Reply
Mike Z 4:05PM (9/14/2009)
I have an idea, why not just get rid of governmental safety requirements and just require that auto insurance on a no-fault basis cover the full cost of physical injuries that result from a car crash. That way the cost of driving a dangerous car is fully realized.
Reply
polo 6:45PM (9/14/2009)
Great. So consumers would be forced into buying inherently dangerous vehicles that would almost guarantee death in even a mild accident, along with sky-high insurance.. Do you just hate people in general?
polo 6:41PM (9/14/2009)
"Perhaps what they should do instead is change the rules about the definition of a car to require any full bodied vehicle to meet safety standards regardless of how many wheels it has."
Why? So Aptera and all 3-wheeler city cars can be wiped out? If these replaced motorcycles there's no denying these are inherently safer.
Reply
alexacoon 6:59PM (9/14/2009)
Why does it have to be limited to 3 wheels? Why cant someone build a super lightweight motorcycle based 4 wheel car? If I'm going to be driving said vehicle during the same period of year i ordinarily ride a motorcycle why do I have to haul around a ton and a half of vehicle for one person. With a decent roll cage as many such vehicles have it would be far safer than a motorcycle and should be insured as such.
I don't need something that will survive a high speed collision when i'm putting through town!
My_SS_RX8 12:10AM (9/15/2009)
With hybrids, diesel, electric, gas, hydrogen and others... the auto industry and auto design are in flux like few other times in history. Why not reset the rules to open up ideas and thinking, maybe even entirely new concepts. Lets see what imagination, ingenuity, and new materials can bring to engineering. Bureaucratic intransigency and stultified thinking shouldn't bind the guide lines of the future.
Reply
jim 9:39AM (9/15/2009)
If it looks like a car and performs the functions of a car,regardless of the number of wheels, the buyer will assume that he/she has the safety features of a car. Besides it is not as if a manufacturer can't build a vehicle that is small and still meet safety standards, the Smart FourTwo proves that.
But it would also makes sense that speed limited vehicles have a separate standard.
alexacoon: To your question, enclosed two wheel vehicles exist and the skills needed to drive/ride them are the same as a motorcycle. Additionally, due to packaging they tend to be very long and awkward to maneuver in tight places. Though it seems to me that a Segway-like gyro-balancing technology could address a number of two wheeler deficiencies.
Reply
oobflyer 10:23AM (9/15/2009)
People should wear helmets while driving any 3-wheeled vehicle.
In fact, people should be required to wear helmets while driving 4-wheeled vehicles too.
Actually, people should be required to wear helmets 24 hours/day, days/week.
Think of the lives that would be saved.
:-)
Reply
jaartsgroup 10:45AM (9/15/2009)
if i hadn't already been pulled over for it, i might consider wearing a helmet all of the time. it's a lot of fun in traffic, especially.
but i degrees. I think if it's fully enclosed, gets you to work, and is crash test graded then it's a car regardless for the number of wheels.
a three legged dog is still a dog.
JPR 2:06PM (9/15/2009)
Crash tests speeds are: 40 mph frontal crash test and 31 mph side crash test. I worked for a fire department for 30 years. The accidents I went to at freeway speeds, people involved in the accident did not survive if the hit anything solid or a vehicle of larger size and the contact was on their side of the vehicle. You sould give up driving, if you think that any safety device can protect you at freeway speeds. The best protection for all drivers is obeying the traffic laws. Transportation efficency can only be achieved by light weight and aerodynamic vehicles like the Aptera. Crash testing laws should remain as they are now.
Reply
DasBoese 10:06PM (9/15/2009)
Well, they do have a challenge running where they display a naked bodyshell and promise $100 to anyone who can put a dent in it, using a large hammer. I believe no one has been able to claim it yet.
Reply
Bill 12:30PM (9/16/2009)
But that doesn't reflect energy transferred to the occupants.
You can make very rigid vehicles (3 or 4 wheel) that sustain little damage in a crash, but require you to hose out the inside afterwards.
Only actual crash tests will let us know how well the occupants are protected.
Since they are not required of 3 wheel vehicles, however, don't hold your breath waiting for the tests that Aptera did indeed say would happen last summer.
Nick From Montreal 7:04AM (9/16/2009)
Have they tested these things outside southern California? In my neck of the wood, in January we have these things called snow and ice which usually require 4 wheels to stay on the road.
Sometime I wonder why Aptera made it so hard on itself like this. It's hard enough to be a new EV car manufacturer. Why did they have to go with three wheels? Now they require the government to change the law to accommodate them...
I hope they succeed, but wished they had designed things differently.
Reply