Aptera Reboot - Improved

[freebeard]

If your smartphone today looked and worked like a 1960's rotary phone, would you carry one around in your pocket?

Offtopic, but here you go: Rotary Cell Phone (Description and Build)

[Isaac Zachary]

Agreed that PHEV's would bridge the gap. When I sold my Leaf I almost got a Prius Prime. But with only 4 seats (maybe they have 5 now) it wasn't going to work out. Sadly, OEMs seem bent on going all EV.

One thing about PHEV's is that it seems they'd be destined to always cost more than a pure ICEV, whereas there's a chance some day battery prices will come down to the point that a pure BEV could be cheaper to manufacturer. Of course as Redpoint5 pointed out customers will spend as much as they can. And as long as electrical prices remain low the total cost of ownership of a PHEV could be lower than a pure ICEV.

I'm not saying EV's are the future savior of our planet, nor am I going to get into politics and fight for or against them. It's the threat that governments and OEMs are wanting to go all EV in the future that has me thinking. If 10 years from now all that's available to buy are ginormous electric SUV's then I'm screwed.

[redpoint5]

I despise politics (groups dictating what individuals must do with their resources) and religious dogma (groupthink), which is why I point out examples of the absurdity and dysfunction these institutions create. My comments are the opposite of politics and religion (odd coming from a theist).

EVs may play a significant role in resource conservation and limiting CO2 emissions as well as toxic pollutants, but the way to know if they are the optimal solution isn't to dictate them, but to challenge them to compete with all other alternatives.

When big government tries to micromanage tiny details of design, they end up creating unintended negative consequences and loopholes that undermine the intended result at best, or cause the exact opposite intended result.

[Isaac Zachary]

Originally Posted by redpoint5

I despise politics (groups dictating what individuals must do with their resources) and religious dogma (groupthink), which is why I point out examples of the absurdity and dysfunction these institutions create. My comments are the opposite of politics and religion (odd coming from a theist).

EVs may play a significant role in resource conservation and limiting CO2 emissions as well as toxic pollutants, but the way to know if they are the optimal solution isn't to dictate them, but to challenge them to compete with all other alternatives.

When big government tries to micromanage tiny details of design, they end up creating unintended negative consequences and loopholes that undermine the intended result at best, or cause the exact opposite intended result.

You may be right. On the other hand, if government isn't deciding then someone else is. The decision is always in the hand of someone who isn't perfect and is likely biased for some reason, be it for the adquisition of fame, power or riches, People do not always make desicions because of an altruistic sincere interest in human health, security and overall wellfare, and even if they do they can still make the wrong decision.

What exactly do you mean by challenge them to compete with all other alternatives? What makes a winner? I do believe that we should be open to all options and weed out the ones that are more harmful than good. But who decides that and on what basis?

[redpoint5]

Originally Posted by Isaac Zachary

You may be right. On the other hand, if government isn't deciding then someone else is. The decision is always in the hand of someone who isn't perfect and is likely biased for some reason, be it for the adquisition of fame, power or riches, People do not always make desicions because of an altruistic sincere interest in human health, security and overall wellfare, and even if they do they can still make the wrong decision.

What exactly do you mean by challenge them to compete with all other alternatives? What makes a winner? I do believe that we should be open to all options and weed out the ones that are more harmful than good. But who decides that and on what basis?

Decisions don't have to be made by a single entity or specific group. Who sets the price of most goods? The market sets the price by millions of participants, with sellers trying to get the highest price and buyers trying to get the lowest. Where they agree is the price. No single person decided what the price of milk is.

As I've been saying, IF CO2 reduction is important enough to act on at the federal level, the ONLY effective and least corrupt way to accomplish that goal is to slowly and progressively increase the price of fossil fuels. That is accomplished via taxation.

When prices rise for a commodity like fossil fuels, it provides incentive in every sector of the market to reduce consumption. Rather than a single "solution" being dictated, like EV subsidies, every facet of living attempts to reduce fuel consumption. The market sort through solutions to determine what the best solutions are. It might be EVs, but we'll never know because the experiment wasn't allowed to occur. We might end up with the 4th best solution because some "genius" told us what it has to be.

That's what I mean by competing, a fair playing field where any solution has the potential to be dominant based on merits, not based on subsidies and coercion.

We have very incompetent and corrupt leaders because we're very incompetent and corrupt ourselves.

[freebeard]

We have very incompetent and corrupt leaders because we're very incompetent and corrupt ourselves.

Off in the dark recesses of Internet there is this theory that people are driven by parasites (like Toxoplasma Gondii) that feed on hormones, and drive people to excesses to stoke them. The parasites, it turns out front for an interdimensional hivemind.

The only good news is that the fungus hivemind is benevolent.

[RedDevil]

PHEVs only make sense with high battery prices or lack of charging infrastructure.
Once batteries become cheap and abundant an EV with a long range will be a lot cheaper than a PHEV, or even an ICE vehicle. The charging infrastructure will quickly follow demand.

Just the fact that most of the patents that lock modern LFP cells to use in China only expire next month and next April will already cause a shift; I expect LFP will become the dominant chemistry in the coming years.

[Isaac Zachary]

Originally Posted by redpoint5

Decisions don't have to be made by a single entity or specific group. Who sets the price of most goods? The market sets the price by millions of participants, with sellers trying to get the highest price and buyers trying to get the lowest. Where they agree is the price. No single person decided what the price of milk is.

As I've been saying, IF CO2 reduction is important enough to act on at the federal level, the ONLY effective and least corrupt way to accomplish that goal is to slowly and progressively increase the price of fossil fuels. That is accomplished via taxation.

When prices rise for a commodity like fossil fuels, it provides incentive in every sector of the market to reduce consumption. Rather than a single "solution" being dictated, like EV subsidies, every facet of living attempts to reduce fuel consumption. The market sort through solutions to determine what the best solutions are. It might be EVs, but we'll never know because the experiment wasn't allowed to occur. We might end up with the 4th best solution because some "genius" told us what it has to be.

That's what I mean by competing, a fair playing field where any solution has the potential to be dominant based on merits, not based on subsidies and coercion.

We have very incompetent and corrupt leaders because we're very incompetent and corrupt ourselves.

I'm not sure if taxation would or wouldn't work. It sounds good on the surface. But the objective of being the most profitable instead of the most responsible would still be the same.

Didn't Europe tax gasoline and had people switching over to diesel, which ended up with VW's diesel scandal? And with cobalt being tied to child labor, how do we know that whatever other alternative won't still be the result of such corruption?

But regardless of what politics would or wouldn't work, I like the Aptera design, not just for an EV, although it would be my preference if I ever did buy another EV if they ever come out with one with a rear seat.

I do like lots of different cars, whether they're powered by gasoline, electricity, diesel, natural gas or other. But although I often ponder if I'd bet better off in another vehicle, there just isn't anything out there that's enticing enough to make me want to trade what I have for it. I feel like there's no reason to just drive what I got until it can't be driven anymore.

The only vehicle that truly catches my attention is the Aptera, or at least it would be if it had a rear seat, even if it were 30 feet long. And sure, they probably won't ever make a 5 seat Aptera. They may not even make any Aptera. But that doesn't mean I can't dream.

I don't want an ID4 or a Model Y or a RAV4 Prime. I want a car that doesn't exist. My options are wait to see if they'll ever build one, build one myself or just do nothing.

[freebeard]

An Arcimoto FUV with the Ecoflow Delta Pro solar charging system would come close.

[redpoint5]

Originally Posted by RedDevil

PHEVs only make sense with high battery prices or lack of charging infrastructure.

Yeah, but that's an alternate reality. Unicorns would be the perfect transportation in that reality.