That is it for Aptera - Page 7 - Fuel Economy, Hypermiling, EcoModding News and Forum

drmiller100 · 01-02-2012, 12:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Arragonis

So why should someone selling one to someone else not have to do this ?

comrade, thank you for your comments. your encouragement for those of us trying to do something new is much appreciated.

Arragonis · 01-02-2012, 04:11 PM

This has gone quiet, probably because of people going back to work or maybe I'm being argumentative again. I'm not trying to

but its hard.

Two points and I'll leave it.

In the UK we have had a number of makers of 3 wheeler cars - Morgan (and others) pre-war, Bond and Reliant post war. We even had this mad seventies-tasitc machine :

They employed hundreds of people - millions of pounds in today's money. There was a huge factory pouring out Bond 3 wheelers in my home town - big time!

Why did these makers choose 3 wheels ?

Superior layout, better handling, better stability ? Nope.

Maybe to avoid safety testing ? Nope - it didn't exist at the time.

It came down to the fact that according to the law any vehicle with less than 4 wheels was classified as a motorcycle with sidecar which means two things for the owner. Firstly the annual tax was less than for a car, no matter what the engine size was. And secondly, and most important, anyone could legally drive on on a motorcycle licence - a car licence was more expensive and difficult to get. Quite a few "young lads" would get a bike licence at 16 and only want something with a roof when they had a wife and kid - so a 3 wheel car was superb.

The current idea of making 3 wheelers is for the same reason - to get round a restriction in the law - 3 wheels means I can make one and even sell it without it going through safety tests like crash testing. There is no benefit of the layout compared to 4 wheels.

That is the only reason.

It is not better. Agreed it may not be worse in terms of grip etc, but it has some practical limitations.

But, second point, lets look at the safety angle. Firstly I have no problem with people building their own cars or sell these as kits or build something yourself - I love looking at what folks have built and wish I had the skills, space and money. I am plan rich and skill poor

So second scenario - Let us imagine for a moment that there was a safety check for TVs - e.g. they have to be electrically tested prior to being sold to make sure they don't start fires or have a "live" case. But let us also imagine that there is a loophole - anything under 25 inches and not HD is excempt. I decide (with no skills in electrickery) to make a TV of 24.999 inches with no HD. It works and seeing many $s signs I get some backers, sell shares on the interweb and we found a factory to make millions of them.

Ask yourself, if you allow your teenage son or daughter to have a TV of their own, would you put one of my TVs in their bedroom ? I wouldn't. I wouldn't go near it.

The reason I raise this is that none of the websites of these companies highlight this issue - none of them state "Its your risk, it hasn't been crash tested", they just go on about some kind of advantage of 3 wheels over 4.

You ride a motorcycle you know its risky. You build your own car you know the risks. You build a kit car, like the Locust, you also accept it is not a Volvo or an SUV. You accept those risks or buy something with all of those crumple zones and impact absorbing sections that car makers like to put into cars due to crash testing.

Now I know someone will say that very qualified engineers have looked at these cars and declared them safe. Very qualified engineers work all of the major makers but all of them have facilities where they take their cars and crash them.

And as far as I know no government approval scheme accepts "it's safe because he says so" - they want to crash it themselves.

As I tapped at the top, please enjoy these cars and build them yourself. Please don't say 3 wheels are better than 4 and thats "why they chose this layout". It was chosen to get through a loophole.

PS - Worked example - the GWizz electric car was, until recently, the biggest selling EV in the UK, it also didn't have to go through crash testing because - well its an EV and therefore "good". This is what happened when one crashed the other year :

Unfortunately the young lady driving it didn't survive.

Ken Fry · 01-02-2012, 05:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Arragonis

So why should someone selling one to someone else not have to do this?

Because it is not required. If, at some point in the future, the public, working closely with our respected elected representatives, decides that motorcycles should be outlawed or that bicycles can not be sold, or that general aviation airplanes cannot be sold (because all pose greater risks than driving a car) or that the Yaris cannot be sold because it poses a greater risk than a Volvo, then so be it. If three wheelers pose threats that warrant crash testing, then such testing will be required.

Quote:

So we agree, stools are not cars?

Thankfully, yes, we agree on something.

Quote:

That's not handling, thats cornering G.

You are welcome to make a spreadsheet with all of the criteria you'd like to include under handling. Enthusiasts realize that a car that corners at 1.4G is also very likely to post good slalom times and good lap times, and offer the driver (subjectively) good feeback. I suspect that you are thinking of handling in the same way that my grandmother did, when she said that her Cadillac "handled" like a dream. That was not my intended meaning.

Quote:

So these are a plaything then ? What about people in cities who don't have space for > 1 car.

Stunning though this may be to you, yes, cars are fundamentally playthings for many people on earth. No, not every city dweller has space for more than one car. We should all ride bicycles.

Quote:

The pickup is a US thing TBH, they sell some crew-cab Japanese Diesel ones (with silly names) here, but nobody buys one for home use. We manage just fine with Superminis.

You are pillars of virtue!

user removed · 01-02-2012, 06:24 PM

For me (and ME alone) 3 wheels allows me to use a single module in the rear wheel. Since the cost to built a module from scratch will probably exceed the cost of many used cars driven daily in the US, 3 wheels is the pathway to a practical vehicle.

It will provide a platform where I can try various engine or motor configurations for power generation. Electric, gas, or diesel, any one of which could provide power for the primary pump to charge the accumulator. It could even use different power modules for different length trips.

The chassis will be structurally as strong as most Race cars of tubular design, and will be built by a shop the builds race cars, with collision protection far exceeding pressed sheet metal uni body structures.

The interior will be using Extensive padding, racing quality seats, and a 5 point harness for driver and passenger. I would certainly rather get hit in that vehicle than in the bike I ride almost daily, and probably in the car I drive as well.

Once the design has been proven to offer real efficiency gains, then I will start to work on 4 wheeled configurations. The choice is solely based on total cost for a functional vehicle.

regards
Mech

Frank Lee · 01-02-2012, 06:30 PM

There are sound engineering reasons to have trikes other than to skirt regulations. And they are not automatically death traps.

drmiller100 · 01-02-2012, 06:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Arragonis

This has gone quiet, probably because of people going back to work or maybe I'm being argumentative again. I'm not trying to

but its hard.

Two points and I'll leave it.

In the UK we have had a number of makers of 3 wheeler cars - Morgan (and others) pre-war, Bond and Reliant post war. We even had this mad seventies-tasitc machine :

Comrade,

You have convinced me to give up on building my own 3 wheeler car, and just buy a mini.

I used to think I could get better aerodynamics with a single rear wheel, but you have convinced me.

I used to think 3 tires was lighter then 4, and 3 suspension points lighter then 4.

Further, I used to think I could put a rollcage in my 3 wheeler. Silly me.

Further, I believe all aircraft should be outlawed for the safety of the public - I have not seen an airplane with 4 tires on the ground - they obviously all use 3 in order to be unsafe.

Your assistance is much appreciated, and we all need to remember to be good little sheeple and follow the lead of our socialist friends.

NeilBlanchard · 01-02-2012, 07:02 PM

There is a huge difference between a trike and a reverse trike. Two wheels in front is the only way to make a 3-wheeled car. The stability of one wheel in front at highway speeds or on an off-camber turn and/or a downhill turn would not be something I would want to drive.

And the G-Wiz accident is a straw man -- that is a death trap by almost everybody's opinion. It is a NEV, right? Isn't that how it avoided a crash test?

No design is inherently crash-worthy or not crash-worthy. The G-Wiz has 4 wheels, and it is not very good in a crash. The Aptera was designed to be crash-worthy, and it was crash tested, both in a computer, and for real. They did a 35mph front end crash; Steve Fambro will hopefully release the video of this.

The dynamics of a 3 wheel reverse trike is apparently quite tight and crisp: Three-Wheel Vehicle Handling Characteristics

There are several videos of the Aptera tearing around turns. Again, I think the reasons that they failed to produce these are many, and none of them relate to the 3 wheeled design. Most are poor management decisions, and misguided decisions that lead to the redesign that was the SO-1. They put all their eggs in that one basket, and they blew it, as we saw at the X-Prize. They did no actual testing of the SO-1 before taking it to the X-Prize.