Save The Aptera

[Grendal]

Jaybazz, the simple answer was that toward the end they were scrambling for anything that would get them more money. They figured they could convince the government and investors to invest in a traditional four wheeler much easier than an untraditional three wheeler.

[palmer_md]

jaybazz, its not a bother, those are good questions. Unfortunately the only ones with real answers are the folks who were managing Aptera at the time. It was a contentious decision and one that the founders of the company were ousted over.

[Ken Fry]

Originally Posted by Jaybazz

WHY did they migrate from the sub 1000 lb 3 wheel design? Why bother making a 4 wheel...there are plenty of those...

To many people, the idea of going for a four-wheeler seemed crazy -- their four wheeler may have been about as efficient as the GM EV1 -- hardly turning new ground, and certainly not doing anything that any car company could not do. It may have been less efficient than the EV1 -- they pretty clearly did not understand light-weighting. The aero was probably OK, but so was that on the EV1. Apparently, they were obsessed with getting DOE money, and the DOE did not (at first) give money out for three wheel designs.

You can poke around here and the web for theories on why they made the Aptera three-wheelers bigger and bigger. I think it had to do with the influence of unimaginative personnel sourced from Detroit, perhaps under the influence of investors who didn't fully get the original concept.

[palmer_md]

+1 Ken.....

[oldavman]

No to the Aptera builders, designers, and especially to the company's front men. They did not want to take a chance on their own "nickel", but wanted the taxpayer to fund their project. Where would the car industry be, if Henry Ford and other automobile pioneers, if they had waited for government assistance before moving forward with their ideas. It makes me sick.

[Ken Fry]

Originally Posted by oldavman

They did not want to take a chance on their own "nickel", but wanted the taxpayer to fund their project.

I have to agree, and feel the same about Fisker and Telsa (and to a limited extent, GM and Chrysler). At least in the case of GM and Chrysler, we have history on our side: Chrysler showed that bailouts can work, and that such a bailout (in the 80's?) helped to keep thousands of people from loosing jobs. Chrysler was a known entity that had a history of being able to make cars that people would buy. The government was not betting money on an upstart with no record of being able to produce.

These new companies, however, have no history of being able to make cars that people will buy. If they can convince venture capitalists to invest, good for them. Government should not be in the venture capital business. (Granted these are loan guarantees, rather than grants, but few venture-capital-backed companies pan out, so there is a real possibility of default.)

Perhaps if these companies were clearly and convincingly acting in the common good, there would be a reason for small government involvement (i.e., a million, not hundreds of millions). But why not fund every drug company, every medical institution, etc. Perhaps if these guys were innovating in some stunning way that could not occur without government help, then there'd be a reason to back them. But this is nothing remotely like the space race. GM showed, more than a decade ago, that an electric car can be fast (and drag racers have demonstrated that fact for even longer). Tesla is not showing anything new. (There have been electric Porsche conversions around for ages.) Fiskar, so far, has shown only that a plug in car can be incredibly heavy, get rotten mileage on gas, and produce staggeringly poor mileage on electricity. That seems counter to "the common good," not supportive of it.

I may, of course, have to eat my words. At some point, I could have a competitor who goes for government money. That could enable them to out-advertise me and out scale me, and drive better bargains with suppliers. It would give them a stunningly unfair advantage, so I would feel the need to play the dirty game too.

[Sheepdog 44]

Hmm, i have a feeling based on hearsay that Epic EV lost out on the bid of Aptera. Though i'm sure some large unknown entities plans are already in the works, and this is not the last we will see of the Aptera.

[SEGsby]

Sounds as plausible as anything we've heard... Which has been nothing.

[Ken Fry]

Originally Posted by Sheepdog 44

Though i'm sure some large unknown entities plans are already in the works, and this is not the last we will see of the Aptera.

I doubt that any large entity would get involved, other than perhaps a large privately-held company with a chairman who really likes exactly the shape of one version for which a full and complete set of molds exists.

Publicly-held companies at least try to make rational decisions with due diligence. No aspect of the mechanism (for which a utility patent could be obtained) was owned (intellectually) by Aptera. (It is not as if they developed a motor that was 3% more efficient, or a controller that was 2% more efficient, or battery cells that were 20% lighter or 20% cheaper: all the stuff under the shape is available to any garage shop mechanic.)

If they had been further along, with several thousand on the road, with a full set of production drawings, vendors proven to deliver in volume and JIT, and with an established market-proven brand, then they would have something of interest to a larger entity. But anyone starting up now, would have only a shape to work with, and because the shape is a semi-monocoque, all the engineering would have to be done. Cheaper to start with a clean sheet of paper, and undergo the iterative process in which the mechanics and shape are optimized for one another.

Any given mold set would have more value if this were a body-on-chassis design. Then, a kit car company could use the body as is, and make a chassis for it.

Any buyer would be more likely to be a very small entity lead by someone for which a particular shape (one of the eightish prototypes) really resonated emotionally. The resonance would need to be very strong, because any good CAD person could duplicate any of the shapes in a few days -- and could come up with tiny tweeks which might resonate even more strongly with the potential buyer.

[Sheepdog 44]

Specifically i mean china. More specifically i have no evidence to support this except hearsay and that it is a plausible outcome.

If all those things you said are true which i'm paraphrasing as how little the Aptera assets should be valued, then how much a steal it would be for a large no name Chinese company to buy. Could a small town start up Kit car company compete in a bidding war against a Chinese company which presumably specializes in cheap american car knockoffs and has a large cheap workforce and factories. (It could be any international company.) For that matter would an American Aptera even be seen as viable again to investors, the government, the public.

Secondly if all the stuff under the shape is available to any Garage Mechanic, then i'm sure any Chinese autocompany has them in spades. I think efficiency and future investment would be the main reason to buy a cheap bankrupt company's assets over sentimental value. I have sentimental value for the Aptera, but i don't have a couple million handy that i dont happen to be using.

I'm just a random user posting on a forum with no evidence. I expect my opinion to be treated as such. It's just my assessment of things and if you think i'm wrong, i agree with you, i probably am wrong.

Also consider the Zap Alias of the automotive xprize which is now Zap-Jonway, a US Chinese venture building the "Zap" a two seater reverse trike electric car. Jonway is also an unknown to the American public which manufactures cars in china.