[vampyregirl]

https://aptera.com/reserve.php

The all electric version has an MSRP of $27k. Currently available only in California. A hybrid version is planned for 2010.

[mos6507]

Yep. If they actually made a 4-wheel version with a fullsize rear seat and sold it outside of CA I'd want one.

[Delphis]

Another idea...

Miles Electric Car Company

The little black sedan goes 80+ and is reasonable dollar for dollar.

I particulary like the utility truck for all the needed duties post peak...1000lb. payload!

[mos6507]

I had high hopes for these guys, but a combination of last-minute tweaks and cheap gas may have just doomed these guys to irrelevance.

Aptera in trouble

[yesplease]

What? Not meeting deadlines means they're "on their knees"/"in trouble"? If that's the case, isn't just about every business in America "on it's knees"/"in trouble" at some point?

Semantics aside, why would they bother releasing their ultra-efficient two seater when gas prices are low? They're IMO probably going to stall in order to see what OPEC's production cuts can do to price as well as how much demand for their product has changed. I doubt they're gonna pull a GM and build as many Apteras as possible w/ gas prices low. No point paying extra to rush a bunch of vehicles to market when their market share has dropped significantly. Providing the option to commit in some way to a purchase should allow them to accurately judge how many vehicles they can build.

[mos6507]

What? Not meeting deadlines means they're "on their knees"/"in trouble"?

RTFA. They said they are looking for funding and want "nonrefundable" deposits. How much clearer can it be?

Semantics aside, why would they bother releasing their ultra-efficient two seater when gas prices are low?

Because if GM survives and delivers the Volt, they've pretty much lost their timing advantage. Why buy a 3-wheeler EV (the plugin isn't even ready yet) for $30K when the Volt will be available for about the same price?

It's going to take them years to ramp up production and start selling them in states other than California. The window of opportunity for Aptera is growing short.

From a business perspective, not delivering makes them look like incompetents on the same level as Tesla with their transmission SNAFU, Venture Vehicles, Phoenix, all the other startups that can't seem to get off the starting gates.

[yesplease]

What? Not meeting deadlines means they're "on their knees"/"in trouble"?

RTFA. They said they are looking for funding and want "nonrefundable" deposits. How much clearer can it be?

Oh, yeah, cuz any company looking for a non-refundable deposit must be "on their knees"/"in trouble". Apparently, Yamaha, Asus, and a FT of other companies must also be "on their knees"/"in trouble".

It's not like they're using the non-refundable deposits to stay afloat. They're just trying to gage interest in a market that's changed a whole bunch over the past six months.

Semantics aside, why would they bother releasing their ultra-efficient two seater when gas prices are low?

Because if GM survives and delivers the Volt, they've pretty much lost their timing advantage. Why buy a 3-wheeler EV (the plugin isn't even ready yet) for $30K when the Volt will be available for about the same price?

Because that's a pretty big if. So far GM's idea of an electric car has been a full-size (more expensive) new platform ( more expensive) PHEV that has an extra ~$5k worth of batteries w/ enough capacity to last ~half a million miles (more expensive). Unless GM changes the specs or works some serious supply chain magic the Volt will be ~$35-40k at cost.

Course, the differences don't stop there. The Volt is a larger vehicle that can carry more people but also consumes more energy. While the Aptera may be at ~100Wh/mile, the Volt would be a little more than twice that, maybe even closer to three times that at higher speeds, which means twice (or more) as much electricity, twice as many batteries to travel the same distance, etc... The ICE genset also adds a bit to maintenance, not a whole lot, but it's still ~1-2c/mile extra. When it comes down to it, even if the Volt can be delivered for $35k at cost, it's still more expensive to own and operate, which is why some people may still go w/ a Typ-1.

Having a non-refundable deposit on something allows for Aptera to assess who is serious about purchasing the car and who is still kinda wishy-washy IMO. They aren't requiring a non-refundable deposit, just presenting it as an option.

It's going to take them years to ramp up production and start selling them in states other than California. The window of opportunity for Aptera is growing short.

If they were selling four door sedans I'd be inclined to agree, but the Typ-1 is something of a niche vehicle. Until the large automakers bring a similar LEV, be it pure electric or PHEV, to the table, they're the only game in town for someone who wants a really efficient, new, two passenger commuter. Their business does not depend on being the only production EV. It may help, but given their design they're occupying a specific niche as opposed to being a jack of all trades EV manufacturer.

From a business perspective, not delivering makes them look like incompetents on the same level as Tesla with their transmission SNAFU, Venture Vehicles, Phoenix, all the other startups that can't seem to get off the starting gates.

If we had gasoline at a $5/gallon U.S. average and people were clamoring at their gates I would be inclined to agree, but slowing down production deadlines in order to accurately assess their market as well as give OPEC's cuts a chance to bring up oil and gasoline prices seems more like a savvy business move than a huge goof. Gas dropped nearly $3/gallon in a matter of months. It would be foolhardy to go balls out in production when their market has probably changed significantly. We've seen what happened to the big 3 when they stuck to their guns and pumped out SUVs when people didn't want them. There's no need for Aptera to repeat their mistakes.

Only time will tell as to whether or not they're successful, but to say they're in trouble when they could very well be stalling in a smart business move seems premature IMO. If they tank soon, they'll tank when they tank. Call it when it happens, not when they could simply be reassessing their market.

[mos6507]

Only time will tell as to whether or not they're successful, but to say they're in trouble when they could very well be stalling in a smart business move seems premature IMO.

It's not a smart business move. It's a PR nightmare. They are destroying all the hype and the goodwill they created by making last-minute tweaks to the design and delaying the thing by a year after originally promising to release it right around now, and playing a bait-and-switch with the terms of the preorders. It's the type of thing people associate with a company that is incapable to go from a prototype to a finished product, which is par for the course with EV startups.

So whatever their motive is, it creates a bad impression.

If they tank soon, they'll tank when they tank. Call it when it happens, not when they could simply be reassessing their market.

I'm calling it now. Bump the thread if they actually ship any cars next year because I think it's all downhill from here.

[yesplease]

It's not a smart business move. It's a PR nightmare. They are destroying all the hype and the goodwill they created by making last-minute tweaks to the design and delaying the thing by a year after originally promising to release it right around now, and playing a bait-and-switch with the terms of the preorders.

If and when they release, I'm pretty sure they'll as much PR as do now. W/ gas prices low, there isn't much PR to be had regardless of whether or not they released on time, that's just how our media works. In terms of a bait-and-switch, it's not a preorder, it's a reservation, meaning the people who reserved it get it according to the date of their reservation, no contractual obligations besides that, get your money back at any time (for the reservation, not the non-refundable deposit), etc.

It's the type of thing people associate with a company that is incapable to go from a prototype to a finished product, which is par for the course with EV startups.

Only if people don't understand how niche businesses are run, which could very well be the case. In any event, it's much safer for Aptera, or any company, to get a very good idea of their market and proceed from that than it is for them to go balls to the wall no matter what. That's just good business,even if it is bad PR. They can possibly survive bad PR. They can't survive screwing up production and going bankrupt.

So whatever their motive is, it creates a bad impression.

Who the hell cares what kinda impression they make? Honestly, I wouldn't care if they were a dingy hole in the wall so long as they put together a solid, efficient vehicle at a reasonable price. Why everyone cares so much about appearances is honestly beyond me. I guess I'm a function over form person in a form over function world.

I'm calling it now. Bump the thread if they actually ship any cars next year because I think it's all downhill from here.

Fair enough. Since they haven't tanked yet you're wrong. Unless of course we get some info later saying they went bankrupt on 01/07/2008 or by tanked you meant they changed their production plans.

[Mesuge]

The Aptera is by definition the most *efficient car like road contraption physics on this planet allows for. The company grew to several dozens employees as of lately, but still the capital needed to run it is pennies for people like the Google founders should there be some change of ownership.

So unless there is some hidden serious technical problem in the concept, which there is most likely not or earth is being struck by asteroid soon, the Aptera CAN'T fail in the long run, period.

The full EV version could be charged from small renewables even in the colder climates, this will be a global hit, give it some time..

PS the change for FWD is because of better traction, higher regen, longevity of components, .. , etc. Not a major problem in this updated version.

*it is based on almost century old aerodynamic studies, similar car could be here for decades if the GM/Ford/VW weren't TOTAL morons..

[mos6507]

Who the hell cares what kinda impression they make?

You know all that talk Detroit gave about people not wanting to buy cars from a bankrupt car company? People are obviously going to be wary about buying a car from a startup company if they think it won't be around tomorrow. Pushing back release dates, changing the car's drivetrain last minute, dropping the camera and going back to mirrors--these things don't inspire confidence. They also have no functioning plugin hybrid prototype that I'm aware of. This all smacks of a trial and error approach to design.

Since they haven't tanked yet you're wrong. Unless of course we get some info later saying they went bankrupt on 01/07/2008 or by tanked you meant they changed their production plans.

I'm saying this is their "jump the shark" moment, not that they are going to go under tomorrow. Obviously it will take a while before they're done.

[mos6507]

PS the change for FWD is because of better traction, higher regen, longevity of components, etc. Not a major problem in this updated version.

I'm not saying the change was unjustified. I'm saying if they knew what they were doing they would have designed it FWD from the start, and not had to waste time going down dead-ends. Tesla made the same mistake by waffling back and forth between deciding on the 2-speed vs. 1-speed transmission. It's was a screwup, period.

Now bear in mind that at the low cost they intend to sell these for, and how few they are going to be making, it will be forever before the company turns a profit. The longer they stay in R&D, the more the burn rate before they actually start to take in real money. Tesla has the same problem and they are already shipping cars. Startup companies do not have forever to deliver the goods and provide a return on their investment (Unless you are Moller trying to sell his fictitious skycar).

[yesplease]

Who the hell cares what kinda impression they make?

You know all that talk Detroit gave about people not wanting to buy cars from a bankrupt car company? People are obviously going to be wary about buying a car from a startup company if they think it won't be around tomorrow.

And the fastest way for them to go bankrupt is for them to put out way more (lower quality, more expensive) vehicles than people are willing to buy. I don't think risking bankruptcy so people have a slightly higher opinion of them is worth it. I think they care more about running a successful business than having as much public appeal as possible. People can luv 'em to death and still not buy their product.

Pushing back release dates, changing the car's drivetrain last minute, dropping the camera and going back to mirrors--these things don't inspire confidence. They also have no functioning plugin hybrid prototype that I'm aware of. This all smacks of a trial and error approach to design.

The car's drivetrain is for the most part the same. All they changed was location of drivetrain and connection to the wheels, going w/ CVs up front instead of a chain in the back, probably for ease of maintenance and weight distribution. The camera is still there AFAIK, they just added the mirrors. In auto design, everything is trial and error. The models that are unveiled at auto shows almost never make it to production unchanged, and I don't see how this is any different.

I'm saying this is their "jump the shark" moment, not that they are going to go under tomorrow. Obviously it will take a while before they're done.

I don't think the delay was their "jump the shark" moment. Their quality is likely better than it would be if they rushed the vehicle to market, and as for popularity, I'd guess that it's decline had way more to do w/ gas in CA dropping from $4.70/gallon to $1.50/gallon, so I guess the shark jumped them? They would be crazy to continue plowing forward after that kind of a change.

[mos6507]

And the fastest way for them to go bankrupt is for them to put out way more (lower quality, more expensive) vehicles than people are willing to buy.

I don't think they have the capability of building enough vehicles fast enough for that to be a problem.

In auto design, everything is trial and error.

I don't know of many cars that switched from RWD to FWD during their development cycle. Aptera test drove their car for a long time with rear wheel drive. They went on a press junket showing off the prototype going stem to stern on it as if it was "production intent", hyping the rearview cameras, et. al. It oozes incompetence to make changes this late in the game.

There is a term in engineering circles called "shoot the engineer, ship the product". In art it's called "art is never finished, only abandoned". At some point you have to ship version 1 and leave further changes for the next model year.

They would be crazy to continue plowing forward after that kind of a change.

The EV market already had their mass extinction event last time for similar reasons. Of course, we know peak oil will bat last. Big business doesn't.

[mos6507]

A few goodies from Aptera forums:

When is this car coming out? I mean Jesus now you're changing the drive train to the front wheels which I'm sure is going to mean building more spec units, crash testing and who knows what else before you start actually selling the damn thing. When all of that is finished you're "new" engineers will have decided that the exterior needs to be "improved".

I believe one of the reasons that Aptera had a fighting chance is that they would be selling cars starting in late 2008. It has come and gone, poof, nothing happened. Are they on their way to becoming another Tesla?

Regardless, the projected sales to start in late 2010 would coincide with a lot of other EV's for sale out there. It would be very interesting choices. Aptera would only one of them, and Aptera have missed the boat of being truly the first commercially produced. The Tesla has beaten the Aptera when it comes to selling EV's.

With the coming plethora of EV's in 2010, Aptera would lose many potential buyers who opted to have the other choices. At least GM's Volt is still on schedule and you can qualify for a $7,500 tax credit readily, and is not limited to California, and its extended range would allow you to drive the entire length of I-5.

Anyway, I was rooting for the Aptera to make it in late 2008 for their delivery. It seemed that even the late 2010 would be questionable at this point. Yes, be angry at the new pessismist. I'm hoping that I'm wrong on this.

I am a retired engineer with decades of experience with start-ups. I can tell you that Aptera must have astronomical start-up problems right now. It is unfortunate that they must also add to those problems by creating a public expectation of a deliveries in 2009.
Assuming their infrastructure for production, sales and support is in place,as deliveries begin, the real problems begin. Production, quality control, etc...Personally, I do not see how Aptera can adhere to the claim of delivery in late 2009, even without significant design changes. Still, I remain on the list. I will bail quickly if the price goes up as suggested... Part of the excitement for me was the suggestion that Aptera's agility as a "start-up"would overcome the "forces" of the automotive industry and actually deliver an affordable model in the spirit of Henry Ford.

I had planned to convert a vehicle before being introduced to the Aptera proto. If the price goes up a little, I can be patient with production delays. If the price goes up alot, I will not buy the vehicle and will revert to my earlier plan to create a converted vehicle.

I am just about there too. If its going to be 2010, a lot of the other companies are looking to have electric cars around then too. That was what originally attracted me to the Aptera, having an electric car before I could get it anywhere else.

Building a few pre production units is not even close. Those of us who bought into the hybrid program are probably looking at 2012. As soon as something close from someone else comes along I think I'm bailing.

the aptera is my first choice, but if the MiEV comes out before the aptera i will likely cancel my reservation and buy the MiEV...

Believe me, they are in trouble.

[Mesuge]

As mentioned numerous times before, the project complexity of finishing classic 4wheel car (EV) is on completely different order in comparison to a 3wheeler. As many others I'm not interested in PHEV Aptera, only in the full EV one, i.e. the first version..

Also, the major factor will be how soon they plan to seek licensing deals or setup their own factories in other regions, the shipment from Calif. to Europe for such a package is quite costly, plus tax and customs, grrr..

In the same vein, some analysis how the current US model is not compatible with the EU transportation rules would be welcomed, if time allows I might look into (I'm also interested in the e-drivetrain components used for the final production version as this will largely determine whether is it even worth the risk of loosing the warranty).

Most likely there will be issues with lights and their position, I'm more worried about the overall dimensions though. But in any case "grey imports" in the form of 3wheeler should require much less red tape than for importing 4wheel car..

Right, you can have a decent e-conversion even based on a new car for similar budget, but for me is the uber efficiency paramount, and that comes only in projects like Aptera, Loremo, VW 1liter etc.

[yesplease]

And the fastest way for them to go bankrupt is for them to put out way more (lower quality, more expensive) vehicles than people are willing to buy.

I don't think they have the capability of building enough vehicles fast enough for that to be a problem.

They don't have to build many. Only 500 unsold vehicles would represent a depreciating $12.5 million, half the their last round of fund raising.

In auto design, everything is trial and error.

I don't know of many cars that switched from RWD to FWD during their development cycle. Aptera test drove their car for a long time with rear wheel drive. They went on a press junket showing off the prototype going stem to stern on it as if it was "production intent", hyping the rearview cameras, et. al. It oozes incompetence to make changes this late in the game.

How much automotive history are you familiar with? Go research how many models switched from RWD to FWD after the gas crisis of the 70s/80s. The only difference is that the large manufacturers don't have as much transparency during the design process, so they won't make one PR saying the model is RWD and another saying they changed it to FWD, they'll get it as close to production as they can before unveiling it, and then make some last minute tweaks suitable for mass market. If you think that Aptera documenting design changes unlike the approach major manufacturers is bad PR, that's your call, but it isn't as if this is the first time we've seen these kinds of changes in model design.

There is a term in engineering circles called "shoot the engineer, ship the product". In art it's called "art is never finished, only abandoned". At some point you have to ship version 1 and leave further changes for the next model year.

The difference here is that most modern vehicles are competing w/ other versions from other manufacturers, while Aptera isn't competing w/ anyone else due to their niche in the market. Demand for the vehicle is based on people who would buy one no matter what and people who would buy one only w/ high gas prices. Shipping a product before another manufacturer could mean a significant difference in sales. Otoh, shipping a product when there is no competition and the basis for a significant portion of demand, gas prices, is relatively weak, would be financial suicide at worst, and financially crippling at best.

They would be crazy to continue plowing forward after that kind of a change.

The EV market already had their mass extinction event last time for similar reasons.

Exactly, and the fact that you think it's a good idea for them to repeat the mistakes of the last "mass EV extinction" indicates you care more about Aptera failing than anything else.

[mos6507]

Exactly, and the fact that you think it's a good idea for them to repeat the mistakes of the last "mass EV extinction" indicates you care more about Aptera failing than anything else.

If you look at the Aptera boards, people are already jumping ship en masse. So I think their strategy has already been shown to be a failure.

Aptera was put in the limelight not for the aerodynamics. People don't give a crap about that. (Many Aptera fans merely 'tolerate' the thing's spermatozoa looks.) It was because it was going to be the first production EV that was actually affordable. But once it has to compete with the iMiev and Volt at similar pricepoints I think people will find it lacking.

Bear in mind that nobody knows how long it would even take for them to start selling outside of California. The design is not ready for rough weather.

I personally was waiting to see what the 4-wheel Aptera was going to look like, but I doubt we'll ever see it.

[yesplease]

So mos, you're using whiney posts on a message board as an indication of who canned their reservations? According to that logic the world should be in flames and the zombie hordes roving the streets because people on this forum consistently posted about TEOTWAWKI.

Do you have any actual figures for the number of dropped reservations? According to the forum there seem to be ~4,000 reservations so far, eight who have locked in and posted about it, and two who have canceled and posted about it. According to the poll nearly 20% are going to "lock in" their Aptera. I'm not sure how well acquainted you are w/ business forecasting, but "confidence intervals" are worth their weight in gold, especially when we're talking about a completely new product. A tire kicker will probably take their $500 and walk if gas prices aren't high enough when they release, leaving Aptera holding a nearly $30k EV. Odds are someone who puts a non-refundable $500 deposit on the vehicle will purchase it when the time comes, and believe you me, sales are where Aptera is going to make it or break it, not deposits.

It's all about confidence intervals. If there was no deposit, you'd get perhaps a 5% purchase rate. If there was a $1 refundable deposit, perhaps 10%. $500 refundable, perhaps 50%. But $500 nonrefundable, you'll probably get a ~85-90% purchase rate.

One has to keep in mind: in the scheme of things, our deposit money is pretty much irrelevant to Aptera's operating costs. All of the deposits combined would sustain them for probably 1-2 months or so. So talking about what they could and couldn't do with our money is kind of silly. What matters to them is not $500 per person, but $30,000 per person. *That* is relevant money to them.

In terms of "affordable" production EVs, the RAV-4 EV was only ~$30,000 w/ rebates, so maybe a few thousand more than this, and that was more or less at cost for Toyota. It may be considered to be the only "affordable" EV in the last five years, but it certainly wasn't the first.

I think the offerings from major manufacturers will be at least $10k more than an Aptera considering they're both much larger, somewhat conventional vehicles. Ultimately it comes down to who wants to pay more for a larger car they'll have to pay more to operate and who wants to pay less for a car that costs less to operate but only seats two. Another consideration is that being a motorcycle in terms of registration, they can travel in car pool lanes w/ one occupant at any time, which is worth at least a few grand judging by the premium a hybrid w/ the carpool stickers commands over one w/o.

The design is just as suitable for rough weather as any other FWD car. In fact, since it probably has more weight over the front wheels than a typical vehicle it would perform better in the snow. Not to mention it has less stuff sticking out from the bottom, so when moving through a bank of a few feet it wouldn't have nearly as much drag as a typical vehicle w/ it's poor imitation of a snow plow. Since it's body is made from composites I don't see how rust would be a problem. Have you thoroughly looked at your claims?