Aptera Reboot - Improved

[samwichse]

Originally Posted by freebeard

Mark Frohnmayer and Elon Musk agree: The factory is ten times as hard as the prototype.

Exactly.

[samwichse]

Originally Posted by Isaac Zachary

At least they have working prototypes, unlike Nikola's gravity powered truck.

https://thedriven.io/2021/12/20/niko...sport-company/

https://www.reuters.com/business/aut...ks-2022-03-24/

[Rcnesneg]

Originally Posted by MetroMPG

The right to repair angle almost suggests more of a kit car approach than a full-fledged auto manufacturer approach. Not that there's anything wrong with that.


Mike: Very cool that you're on the list.

I would happily put together a kit Aptera right now... I've actually been mulling over the idea of buying a Vanderhall and doing a long range EV conversion and enclosed body kit -Aptera-esque on it. But it's so much easier to just wait and hope they deliver me a finished car.

[redpoint5]

I recently asked and answered "how much extra does it cost the consumer to include solar in the design of the car?"

Aptera prices solar at $700 to add 400 watts. Extrapolating that out, the customer is paying $1,575 for 700 watts ($2.25 per watt). At 10 cents per kWh, that could pay for 15,750 kWh. That is 157,500 miles in the Aptera! Aptera claims the car can gain about 10,000 solar miles per year in San Francisco. At that rate, you'd only need 16 years to break even on that investment.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/bradtem...h=7920bbcff9fb

[freebeard]

Originally Posted by Rcnesneg

I would happily put together a kit Aptera right now... I've actually been mulling over the idea of buying a Vanderhall and doing a long range EV conversion and enclosed body kit -Aptera-esque on it. But it's so much easier to just wait and hope they deliver me a finished car.

My plan is to obtain an Arcimoto FUV and add full pant fenders and a [two foot] boat tail. It wouldn't have the compound curve underbody, but the tandem seating would compensate. Maybe instantiate the Eagle door concept they discarded.

[Isaac Zachary]

Originally Posted by redpoint5

I recently asked and answered "how much extra does it cost the consumer to include solar in the design of the car?"

Aptera prices solar at $700 to add 400 watts. Extrapolating that out, the customer is paying $1,575 for 700 watts ($2.25 per watt). At 10 cents per kWh, that could pay for 15,750 kWh. That is 157,500 miles in the Aptera! Aptera claims the car can gain about 10,000 solar miles per year in San Francisco. At that rate, you'd only need 16 years to break even on that investment.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/bradtem...h=7920bbcff9fb

If I had $1,575 on hand, do I just save it for fuel or put something on the car that seems cool, especially if it helps compensate for the fuel cost? Maybe solar panels aren't cool. But what else can you do to an Aptera? Aeromod it? Pull the passenger seat out and the interior to lighten it up?

Of course the Aptera is supposed to start out at nearly $30,000, as do a lot of cars. At $4 per gallon, that means buying a new car at that price would equal about 300,000 miles of fuel in my current car. So even if a new car had free fuel, at 10,000 miles per year it would take 30 years to break even. Add in fuel costs and the car would need to get the equivalent of over 80 miles per gallon to break even in 60 years.

[redpoint5]

You started with the false limitation of choice in what to do with $1,575 (doesn't have to be spent on the vehicle) and later acknowledged the value equation.

Better to invest that $1,575 over the 16 years it would take to break even with solar recharging (based on bay area estimates).

Might make more sense in Hawaii where electricity is 4x the national average.

The real problem I have is that the first 300 watts of solar is not optional, so every consumer has to pay for it, including the ones that will park in the garage and plug in for every charge. Adding the next 400 watts is a $900 option. Should be an all or nothing option, not a some, or a little more option.

[freebeard]

How can you assign a monetary value to independence?

[redpoint5]

Originally Posted by freebeard

How can you assign a monetary value to independence?

How can you put a price on safety? you know precisely how to pull at my heartstrings, you devil

We do it all the time, for absolutely everything. Financial independence is also a form of independence.

I'm not saying to take the choice away, but make it an actual choice between having, or not having the added expense.

There's marketing genius in the gimmick of non-optionally including the nearly pointless 300 watt panel, and I acknowledge this. Those in the Green Religion can then plausibly say "my car runs on CO2 free sunshine" to other devout believers who will be green with envy. That will generate interest for them to pay indulgences for their sins by purchasing their salvation while conspicuously advertising their piety. Brilliant!

There are some (those with no access to standard 120v outlets or obscenely high electricity costs) who could greatly benefit from the solar option. Make it an option, then.

[Isaac Zachary]

Originally Posted by redpoint5

You started with the false limitation of choice in what to do with $1,575 (doesn't have to be spent on the vehicle) and later acknowledged the value equation.

Better to invest that $1,575 over the 16 years it would take to break even with solar recharging (based on bay area estimates).

Might make more sense in Hawaii where electricity is 4x the national average.

The real problem I have is that the first 300 watts of solar is not optional, so every consumer has to pay for it, including the ones that will park in the garage and plug in for every charge. Adding the next 400 watts is a $900 option. Should be an all or nothing option, not a some, or a little more option.

I don't understand why A/C is no longer optional. It hardly gets above 80°F here and I don't use it. Don't get me started on the touch screen trend!

The article does say that the solar panels would benefit those who don't have a place to plug in at home as they would have to make fewer trips to a charging station that could potentially charge way more than 10 cents per kWh.

It also says that it would be greenest to put solar panels on a house roof, but again, not everyone can do that. Landlords, HOA's and city ordenances can get in the way of that idea. So if you want to dabble a little into solar, why not?

Plus a $900 option isn't a lot for a $30,000 car. And for someone getting 30mpg in their current car with fuel prices at $4 per gallon, that $1,575 is only 12,000 miles worth of fuel. So compared with a gasoline car, the solar panels pay for themselves in a little over a year.

Originally Posted by freebeard

How can you assign a monetary value to independence?

Exactly!

Why are there EV owners that buy generators and stick them in the trunk and charge from them from time to time. Sure, a 700W solar panel is half the wattage as a generator, but the idea is kind of the same. You do it to be independant. Solar, wind and bodily power are the only powers that don't require a connection to a grid or network, unless you make moonshine for fuel.