New Aptera

[Curly1]

Aptera will never become mainstream only because it is overpriced and they can not seem to actually build and sell them. If they sold under $15,000 loaded they could sell a bunch of them. Right now at those prices and too many comprimises to sell as many as they should. Their sales has nothing to do with big oil companies or the big three auto manufacturors. Their problems are because of their own pricing and delivery schedules.

[NeilBlanchard]

Hi,

They need to start selling them to get the cash flowing, and as they go, they will get some economy of scale, and hopefully get the costs down to $20K. This car is THE MOST EFFICIENT ever designed for the street. And it should last and last and last, so I don't think they will (or should) be in the sub-$20K price range.

Hey, if they can sell it for that little, fine, but I think they will pull off a miracle to produce the Aptera 2e at all, and if the initial ones are $30K or less, it will be a success.

The average car on the road has just one person, and most people drive less than 80 miles a day. The Aptera 2e carries two people, and it can go up to 120 miles, and do that for ~$1. Everybody who see it on the road takes a picture -- and if they become common enough to see a couple a day, I think they will sell very well!

[thatguitarguy]

Originally Posted by basslover911

It doesn't matter what "rules" they follow, it matters in where the money is. And that is with the oil companies and governments... ANY vehicle or "thing" for that matter that will threaten those companies cash flow will not be allowed to go into the market...

Then again, you might ask, why is the tesla out? Well, thats not really a threat (a 90k sports car that half the american population can't get into leaves about 1% of the population being able to purchase it).... Now the Ev1, the Aptera...

But the rules do matter a lot. A manufactured car has to have airbags, bumpers, seatbelts, safety glass. etc. It's one reason the Tesla is so expensive. Besides the unique and expensive propulsion system, it has all that stuff as mandated by law.

The only safety feature my bike has is ABS braking, and most bikes out there don't have that. It's one reason that there are a lot of choices for bikes out there, and a lot of different companies building bikes, with a lot of different price points way below what you might pay for a car.

If Aptera can successfully negotiate that "loophole", and be sold as a motorcycle, without needing all the safety equipment, but installing a lot of it anyway, without needing to do expensive crash testing, and do everything that the gov't makes car manufacturers do, then it might be able to market a "motorcycle" to people who really want a "car".

It's still a niche market, but Harley Davidson has been successful as a niche market. You can buy a bike that functionally will do everything that a Harley will do for a lot less money, but Harleys still sell because of a certain "bling" factor.

So if Aptera can market a "motorcycle" to a "car" demographic, closer to the price range of a Harley than a Tesla, They stand a chance of being successful.

[basslover911]

So everyone agrees that If a new car comes out of a little factory, giving you 100mpg while being a practical 4 door hatchback for $18K- that most likely it would get shut down or magically "vanished" by big oil and car businesses? Even if their number of cars were, lets say, 1000 units per year?

Or do you think it would have to be more cars than that?

[thatguitarguy]

Originally Posted by basslover911

So everyone agrees that If a new car comes out of a little factory, giving you 100mpg while being a practical 4 door hatchback for $18K- that most likely it would get shut down or magically "vanished" by big oil and car businesses? Even if their number of cars were, lets say, 1000 units per year?

Or do you think it would have to be more cars than that?

If a car manufacturer only grossed $18 million a year they wouldn't have to be "vanished", the "magic" would come from having any of that being profit, let alone enough of a profit to survive.

[Rokeby]

It's still a niche market, but Harley Davidson has been successful as a niche
market. You can buy a bike that functionally will do everything that a Harley
will do for a lot less money, but Harleys still sell because of a certain
"bling" factor.

So if Aptera can market a "motorcycle" to a "car" demographic, closer to the
price range of a Harley than a Tesla, They stand a chance of being successful.

Not trying to pick a fight here. Harley Davidson my not be the best
comparison. Since late 2008 there have been warnings of HD teetering on
the verge of bankruptcy. It would appear that HD has become the GM of
motorcycling, notably with serious issues in its credit/finance arm:

More troubles for Harley-Davidson - MSN Money

Check out the comment section, over 1100 posts, most not complementary.

I wish Aptera the best, and would hope they don't follow HD's recent
business model.

[NeilBlanchard]

Hi,

The Aptera has seatbelts and airbags. And it has a very strong, crush-resistant chassis. It has bumpers, and I think they will be using safety glass. It has designed crumple zones. The only thing it lacks is the fourth wheel.

[thatguitarguy]

Originally Posted by NeilBlanchard

Hi,

The Aptera has seatbelts and airbags. And it has a very strong, crush-resistant chassis. It has bumpers, and I think they will be using safety glass. It has designed crumple zones. The only thing it lacks is the fourth wheel.

I tried to make my point very clearly, perhaps I failed.

I'm not talking about real world safety, I'm talking about American law. In the eyes of the gov't, is this a motorcycle or is it a car? The answer to this question makes a big difference as to what hoops it has to jump through on the way to market.

[NeilBlanchard]

Hi,

I think that in most states, the Aptera is a "motorcycle". The law was recently changed to allow vehicles like the Aptera to qualify for DOE loans.

I think that it was designed with 3 wheels for several reasons: less weight, simpler structure, and yes probably the ability to avoid being required to do crash tests. They have said that they will do crash tests, but they do not have to.

[cfg83]

thatguitarguy -

Originally Posted by thatguitarguy

I tried to make my point very clearly, perhaps I failed.

I'm not talking about real world safety, I'm talking about American law. In the eyes of the gov't, is this a motorcycle or is it a car? The answer to this question makes a big difference as to what hoops it has to jump through on the way to market.

Yes, that's true. On the other hand, acceptance in the marketplace implies to me that they will *want* to pass crash tests. They will be fighting the "3 wheels is not safe" argument (aka you'll shoot your eye out). This has already led to many months of redesign from the "classic reverse trike" RWD to FWD. I think their goal has been to reassure customers in a manner similar to the Smart. I mention the Smart because I think both vehicles are arguably a form of "enclosed motorcycle". Do you know what I mean?

I am willing to accept "better than motorcycle but less than car" crash safety, but I don't think they want that kind of perception.

CarloSW2