President signs bill expanding ATVM program to three wheelers
Aptera 2e final design rendering - Click above to enlarge
When congress established the Advanced Technology Vehicle Manufacturing (ATVM) program in the 2007 energy bill, it explicitly said that it applied to making cars that come under the federal motor vehicle safety standards. Those safety standards apply only to vehicles with four or more wheels, meaning that three wheelers like the Aptera 2e were not eligible for the money.
This week, Congress passed and President Obama signed into law a bill that revises the $25 billion loan program administered by the U.S. Department of Energy. The ATVM program now applies to high efficiency two- and three-wheelers that carry at least two people and get 75 mpg or more. Aptera is now revising and re-submitting its loan application based on the new rules. In spite of not being required to meet federal safety standards, Aptera has committed to passing all the crash requirements anyway. Now the company may be able to get some-low cost funding to help expand and get cars into customer hands.
Gallery: Aptera
[Source: Aptera]
NEW FEDERAL LEGISLATION MAKES APTERA
ELIGIBLE FOR MILLIONS FROM DOE LOAN PROGRAM
Dept. of Energy's fuel efficiency loan program expands to make companies like Aptera
– with its ultra-high mileage, three-wheel electric vehicle – eligible for funds
VISTA, Calif. (Oct. 29, 2009) -- Aptera Motors, maker of the three-wheeled, all-electric 2e that delivers the equivalent of up to 250 miles per gallon, is updating its loan application for resubmission to the Department of Energy after President Obama signed a bill that makes ultra-efficient, two- and three-wheel vehicles eligible for federal loans.
The new measure, approved as a part of an energy and water appropriations bill, was originally sponsored by Rep. Brian Bilbray (R-Calif.) and Rep. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) and received overwhelming bi-partisan approval in the House and Senate. It stipulates that any manufacturer of enclosed two- or three-wheeled vehicles that carry at least two people and get 75 miles per gallon are now eligible for DOE funding. Aptera's original submission to the DOE's Advanced Technology Vehicles Manufacturing Incentive Program was rejected Dec. 31, 2008 because the program was initially drafted to only include passenger vehicles, which, by federal definition, have four wheels.
"This bill shows Congress and the Obama Administration support real American green tech innovation and are behind companies that create manufacturing jobs in America," says Aptera CEO Paul Wilbur. "Aptera's goal is to be the world benchmark for efficiency, with a portfolio of vehicles designed and manufactured right here in the U.S. Our hope is that we can use the DOE loan to accelerate our march to that goal."
Vista, Calif.-based Aptera, which plans to enter full production in 2010 with its two-passenger Aptera 2e, expects to directly employ 1,500 people and create thousands of support roles for American workers from auto parts and components companies. The 2e, with a price range of $25,000 - $40,000, will require no unique charging infrastructure, delivering a range of 100 miles by simply plugging into a conventional 110 volt or 220 volt household outlet.
"Aptera's corporate strategy has always been to go to market on private funding, but the prospect of this new legislation gives us a means to accelerate our plans for national brand expansion," says Wilbur.
About Aptera
Aptera Motors (www.aptera.com) was founded in 2006 to develop and build the most energy efficient commuter vehicles on the road, without compromise to safety or comfort. Utilizing streamlined aerodynamic design, lightweight composite structures and unique drive systems, Aptera delivers vehicles that are affordable and efficient. The Southern California company operates a facility in north San Diego County, where it designs, engineers and manufactures the vehicles and their composite systems to create an exceptionally strong, safe, sleek body.
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 2)
Reality Hurts 8:19AM (10/30/2009)
I really hope something happens that prevents Aptera from bringing this design monstrosity to market.
We need to create EV's that shake this idea that EV's are just ugly over-sized golf carts and this hideous thing is not helping.
It has nothing to do with the aerodynamics that make this vehicle ugly, Audi's futuristic concept looks awesome and plays on some of the same principles of aerodynamics, the Aptera is just an ugly car... PERIOD. Wait, no, it is not a car, it is a "vehicle" ... my bad.
Reply
F 8:38AM (10/30/2009)
It may not be the most beautiful vehicle ever created, but the form follows the function. The outdated phrase "my bad" is just plain ugly.
Mark Kiernan 8:48AM (10/30/2009)
Wow, so if a car that serves the functions of 90% of the population, is extremely efficient, safe, and is highway capable just don't look right for a select amount of the population it deserves to fail???
Aperta is a let better than a lot of ICEs on the road. They are showing innovation and deserve all merit given to them, in my opinion.
Reality Hurts 9:10AM (10/30/2009)
@Mark
There is no innovation in this car, they did something that no one WANTED To do, they made an ugly car. GM, FORD and TOYOTA could have made this hideous thing, but selling only 5,000 of a model a year is considered a failure to them. It is easy to make an EV like this, but only green junkies will buy it. Tesla took the right direction by making cars all of america want to drive. Aptera is just another company to make another ugly EV that everyone will look at and laugh when driving down the street.
I also question using the word "safe" in association with this vehicle.
GoodCheer 9:57AM (10/30/2009)
Reality: Just for your information, I think the Aptera is the best looking vehicle I've ever seen. I'm a huge fan of form following function, and the Aptera is the purest form for the specific function of efficient enclosed transportation that has ever existed. While I admit that I'm in the minority in holding this opinion, you must admit that aesthetics are subjective, and lambasting a vehicle on its looks is saying no more than "I won't buy one". OK, so don't buy one.
You can laugh at me as I drive past in my Aptera, I'll laugh at the other guy as he drives by in his Hummer. I like Apteras, other folks like Hummers. That's fine, right? (Except that the existence of Hummers makes the roads a more dangerous place for all road users... but aside from that...)
Also, I think you'll be surprised at the number of "green junkies" there are in the world.
FitFan 10:45AM (10/30/2009)
@ Reality : If you don't like it then don't buy it.
Boyprodigy1 11:26AM (10/30/2009)
This vehicle makes the nerd in me very happy
meme 12:37PM (10/30/2009)
Add another voice to the "most beautiful car I've ever seen" chorus.
eigenfunction 2:29PM (10/30/2009)
Criticizing the aesthetics of the Aptera is like criticizing the looks of an airplane. Physics dictates its shape, including the omission of one rear wheel. In my opinion, most other vehicles designed without Aptera's commitment to aerodynamics and energy efficiency are "ugly" -- at least from an engineering perspective.
fnc 4:32PM (10/30/2009)
If GM could sell so many of those boxes on wheels called the H2, it's obvious having a controversial style doesn't dictate failure (but it did prove inefficiency isn't a good cornerstone for your automotive product plans)
I like the muscular lines of a Mustang as much as the next gearhead, but the engineer in me still thinks the Aptera is one of the more beautiful examples of function dictating form ever conceived.
Laurens 9:08AM (10/30/2009)
What's the drag coefficient of this vehicle. It may be a nice replacement for the speed addicted Europeans that drive a 911, with a small ICE engine, of course, following the law of diminishing returns. Light, nimble, frugal..
Reply
NeilBlanchard 9:32AM (10/30/2009)
Hi,
The drag coefficient of the Aptera is very low: 0.15 is the number we current have, and the production model shown in the article has 9% less drag than that.
It takes just 23HP for it to go 100mph. It will be the most efficient motor vehicle. Ever.
It is not "styled" so much as it is engineered. The flow of air is what "styled" it. If you find the flow of air ugly, then I can't help you.
Sincerely, Neil
lne937s 9:51AM (10/30/2009)
If they make the loans applicable to these 3 wheel vehicles that are not subject to car crash or safety regulations, then they should make crash testing optional for four wheeled electric electric cars.
Reply
polo 10:29AM (10/30/2009)
Are motorcycles subject to crash testing regulations? No. Why would 3-wheelers which are basically enclosed motorcycles be?
lne937s 11:03AM (10/30/2009)
If you want to call them "motorcycles", then it the grant should apply to all motorcycles, rather than these "enclosed" vehicles.
I and others see Aptera as deleting a wheel to get around safety standards (which go beyond just crash testing) of the four wheeled vehicles that these vehicles are being positioned to compete with in the marketplace. For example- if you go to the Aptera website, they say the vehicle is "lightweight," which it is compared to a car, but not to a motorcycle.
Woodenbee 11:16AM (10/30/2009)
well you and others havent got a clue, why are you so afraid of intelligence and innovation is the real question here? hmmm naysayers are pointless, what are you hoping to achieve? more nothing? I dont much like the look of the Aptera but I think their approach is very valid, safety and efficiency despite your cryptic statements are built into this vehicle, T-rex proved reverse trikes out perform 4 wheel sportscars with twice the power and fuel consumption now Aptera will proceed to show they are even more efficient, you fail to have any valid arguments, and your opening statement is false logic to put it nicely, but I know where your coming from, its the cornerstone of every phoney attack
meme 12:37PM (10/30/2009)
Aptera is not "working around safety standards". They're voluntarily doing FMVSS testing. They've stated repeatedly that they're going to meet all of the safety standards for cars.
Removing a rear wheel not only changes the class, but it does a lot of other things, too. It reduces the cost of the vehicle, and the vehicle's mass, and the vehicle's maintenance, by eliminating a wheel, a tire, a brake assembly, an axle, allows for a simpler suspension, and so forth. It allows the vehicle to come closer to the aerodynamically optimum teardrop shape, thus reducing aero drag. Reduced aero drag and reduced mass means fewer watt hours per mile. That means faster charging on a given circuit and a smaller battery pack. A smaller battery pack in turn means a cheaper, lower maintenance vehicle, as well as a lighter vehicle (which has ripple effects). And all of it means a lower environmental footprint.
lne937s 1:03PM (10/30/2009)
Meme- if "They've stated repeatedly that they're going to meet all of the safety standards for cars" then show me where, once, when they say they will comply with ALL of them (and all of the necessary testing required to comply with many of them).
I can almost guarantee just by looking at it (even if they comply with some safety standards) that they do not comply with all of the hundreds of NHSTA standards applied to mass production cars. For example, I would be amazingly surprized if that vehicle complied with bumper standards (it would be virtually impossible unless it went through major changes from the concept).
meme 1:36PM (10/30/2009)
Here's a random example for you:
http://greenfuelsforecast.com/ArticleDetails.php?articleID=697
lne937s 2:57PM (10/31/2009)
meme-
you need to take a step back and read that like someone who works in marketing rather than using wishful thinking. There is an art in giving the public the impression of something without saying you are actually going to do anything. Saying designing to "automotive standards" does not mean compliance with government mandated automotive testing and standards. Saying you will do some crash tests does not mean you will do all federally certified mandatory testing for automobiles.
In no way does that say that they will comply with all federal regulations and standards for automobiles. If you just look at it, you can tell that it would not meet bumper standards without a redesign. And the sledgehammer gimic means nothing- Saturn used to have an almost identical gimic and that did not get them 5 star safety ratings.