Is this the best electric car on the planet?

[Chief Wiggums]

The Aptera electric car.   Has trickle charging through Solar Power.  Seats 2 people.  Does 110 mph.  0-60 in 3.5 seconds.  Tons of cargo space.  Believe in Right to Repair.  And costs 25000  USD.  I don't know any other electric or gas powered cars for that matter that seemingly hold a candle to this car.  Everything else is basically a turd.  There is no way not to agree.  Even if you are an Elon Mush Nut hugger.  This car is so much better. 

[RollinLower]

it looks like crap tho.

[Levent]

Nah.

[Radium_Angel]

I see your ugly Aptera and raise you an electric e-type

https://www.topgear.com/car-news/electric/jaguars-e-type-zero-only-classic-ev-you-will-ever-need

 

Check and Mate.

 

[Dedayog]

2 minutes ago, Radium_Angel said:

I see your ugly Aptera and raise you an electric e-type

https://www.topgear.com/car-news/electric/jaguars-e-type-zero-only-classic-ev-you-will-ever-need

 

Check and Mate.

 

That's liquid sex right there.

[Chief Wiggums]

3 minutes ago, RollinLower said:

it looks like crap tho.

I can't disagree with you.  But when you aren't paying for gas and getting free pixies from the sun.  It really begins to look beautiful.  That's about the time we say Beauty is in the eye of the beholder.  I don't find many cars look that good.   Not unless you are buying a crazy super car.  Those ones look cool.  But most other cars just look boring.  Most of the have the shape of an old pair of crocs or a pair of those half height rain boots.  So this may not be pretty but imagine the shoes you will be able to afford from gas savings every month.  I would be able to buy a pair of Jordans every other week. I didn't mention it also gets 1000 miles of range from one charge on the highway.  That thing is insane.

[SansVarnic]

11 minutes ago, Chief Wiggums said:

There is no way not to agree.

Found one. It looks like shit, probably handles just as bad.

 

If your gonna make blanket statements and create arguments asking for holes to be punched, people are going to do so regardless. 

 

I welcome you to the forum but please note this is a forum for discussion and debate not a place to post closed opinions. While you're at it please review our Community standards so you are familiar with our rules as well.

[SorryBella]

8 minutes ago, SansVarnic said:

Found one. It looks like shit, probably handles just as bad.

if you design it like a backward ass reliant robin, do you guys think itll roll from the back to front? Asking for a friend who is asking for their friend.

[da na]

24 minutes ago, SorryClaire said:

if you design it like a backward ass reliant robin, do you guys think itll roll from the back to front? Asking for a friend who is asking for their friend.

don't turn too sharply in reverse I guess

[Lurking]

IMHO, It is not a car if it doesn't meet car crash test requirements.

 

This is a common trick of those companies. They lobby politicians to classify those vehicles as motorbikes to circumvent all the safety requirements. That enables them to build vehicles very cheaply and light. but for purpose of driver's license they also lobby politicians to allow people with a car driver's license (and not not motor bike license) to drive it. So they get it both ways. Unfortunately their lobbying often is successful.  

 

Good luck surviving a crash in that over-priced motorbike with a sidecar and roof. 

[LAwLz]

1 hour ago, Chief Wiggums said:

There is no way not to agree.  Even if you are an Elon Mush Nut hugger.  This car is so much better.

Better than what exactly? The model 3?

 

From what I can tell, the Model 3 is better in these regards (please note that I am making sume assumptions) 

1) Can seat more than 2 people. 

2) Can actually be bought, unlike this thing that hasn't launched yet despite Tha plan originally being to launch in early 2020. Their current plan is early 2024.

3) Safety. I don't know this to be true, but I am fairly sure this "car" is way less safe when in an accident than a model 3.

4) Comfort looks to be a lot higher in the Model 3. Both in terms of how much room is in it, but also things like noise and vibrations when driving. 

5) Doesn't seem like you can add a trailer to this vehicle. 

6) Chances are it won't cost what they claim it will cost, because they are still repeating the same pricing they put out in 2019. Expect higher prices when the vehicle finally launches. 

7) They have never demonstrated the range or speed of the vehicle, and when they were questioners about how they would even be able to for example fit the battery of the claimed size into that body they said they might need to change the body to accommodate for it. So don't take the numbers they throw out a facts. 

 

 

They also seem to put a lot of focus on the solar power part of the vehicle to boost their range claims. As someone who lives in Sweden where we barely get any sun for a large portion of the year, this doesn't sound too comforting. 

 

I won't take this company seriously until they actually have a vehicle on the market that the average Joe can buy and review. 

[Lurking]

Maybe it is like the Nikola Truck. There they towed the truck up a hill and let it roll downhill to shoot a video to show investors the "working"  Truck. It didn't even have a drivetrain installed. 

 

Never trust any of those hype vehicles before you see it in nature and can actually buy it and see independent reviews. 

 

I don't even know how people compare that to Tesla, Ford or Hyundai EV. Those you actually can buy, verify they drive, and are safe.

[airborne spoon]

I remember when that video came out last year, Yeah it looks goofy but you cant argue with the range and speed, but once you get it fully loaded the price jumps up to $50,000. And then while you're still getting more range than anything else you cant have the cargo or towing ability you get with a real car like a tesla. 

[Lurking]

17 minutes ago, airborne spoon said:

I remember when that video came out last year, Yeah it looks goofy but you cant argue with the range and speed, but once you get it fully loaded the price jumps up to $50,000. And then while you're still getting more range than anything else you cant have the cargo or towing ability you get with a real car like a tesla. 

Sure you can argue with the range and speed. It hasn't been independently tested on a standard test. And the video in the OP clearly states that they got paid to make this video. All we know is what the manufacturer claims and this paid video states. This is as much as we knew about Nikola back then. Now we know more about Nikola and we sure will know more about this motor-bike car. 

 

I start believing a video once the car equivalent of Gamers Nexus or similar makes a review video and once there are official EPA range numbers, NHTS crash results and there is an actual car to drive and buy. 

[Needfuldoer]

I like the idea, and it's probably the most energy-efficient "production" car, but this is what happens when you put energy efficiency above all else. It's like the EV mindset equivalent of the Polaris Slingshot.

 

What we really need are more plug-in hybrids with LiFePo batteries. Give them enough range for everyday driving and a small range-extending generator/engine for the "but sometimes" needs. 

[Lurking]

3 minutes ago, Needfuldoer said:

I like the idea, and it's probably the most energy-efficient "production" car, but this is what happens when you put energy efficiency above all else. It's like the EV mindset equivalent of the Polaris Slingshot.

 

What we really need are more plug-in hybrids with LiFePo batteries. Give them enough range for everyday driving and a small range-extending generator/engine for the "but sometimes" needs. 

Based on what? Are there official EPA numbers? if not, this is jsut speculation.

 

and the efficiency of that vehicle should be compared to electric motorbikes, not cars. 

 

This thing basically is a modern 4-wheeled version of the Schwalbe Duo

[Needfuldoer]

4 minutes ago, Lurking said:

Based on what? Are there official EPA numbers? if not, this is jsut speculation.

It is speculation. My car gets about 110 MPGe (roughly average for EVs, apparently) and it's a lot less aerodynamic than this vehicular sperm thing.

 

9 minutes ago, Needfuldoer said:

probably

[Lurking]

9 minutes ago, Needfuldoer said:

It is speculation. My car gets about 110 MPGe (roughly average for EVs, apparently) and it's a lot less aerodynamic than this vehicular sperm thing.

 

I'm sorry, I assumed we discuss facts. Or at least educated assumptions.

 

Those stupid fendered wheels easily could be much less aerodynamic than a car. We also don't know drivetrain or battery efficiency. 

 

Regardless, it still is not a car. It should not be compared to cars that meet car safety requirements. 

 

EVs should use kwh/mile or miles/kWh. Since, you know, you buy and put kWh in and get miles out. No one ever should use that stupid MPGe number. 

[Needfuldoer]

16 minutes ago, Lurking said:

 I'm sorry, I assumed we discuss facts. Or at least educated assumptions.

 

Those stupid fendered wheels easily could be much less aerodynamic than a car.

Two wheels are a lot less surface area than the front of an entire car.

 

16 minutes ago, Lurking said:

Regardless, it still is not a car. It should not be compared to cars that meet car safety requirements. 

Which is why I called it the EV mindset version of the Polaris Slingshot, that three-wheeled buggy thing for people too insecure to be seen in a Mazda Miata. It's laser-focused on energy efficiency, all other factors be damned. The Slingshot is supposed to be a loud, fun, street-legal go-kart, practicality be damned.

 

I was drawing parallels to a regular car to back up that theory.

  

16 minutes ago, Lurking said:

EVs should use kwh/mile or miles/kWh. Since, you know, you buy and put kWh in and get miles out. No one ever should use that stupid MPGe number. 

Fine then, I can usually get about 4 miles per kilowatt-hour. (Dividing what the charger says it puts into the car against the "distance since last full charge" trip odometer.)

Edited April 7, 2023 by Needfuldoer

[Lurking]

2 hours ago, Needfuldoer said:

Two wheels are a lot less surface area than the front of an entire car.

 

Which is why I called it the EV mindset version of the Polaris Slingshot, that three-wheeled buggy thing for people too insecure to be seen in a Mazda Miata. It's laser-focused on energy efficiency, all other factors be damned. The Slingshot is supposed to be a loud, fun, street-legal go-kart, practicality be damned.

 

I was drawing parallels to a regular car to back up that theory.

  

Fine then, I can usually get about 4 miles per kilowatt-hour. (Dividing what the charger says it puts into the car against the "distance since last full charge" trip odometer.)

A "car" meets crash standards for cars. So before we see the NHTS and IIHS crash results (and ideally something good), this is a golf car or other vehicle that shouldn't be on highways. So let's not call it a car before the NHTS declares it to meet car standards. 

 

Looks like that split side window and the tiny side mirror will give huge blind spots. 

 

I'm not against such vehicles, but they should be classified as motorbike or similar vehicle that doesn't meet car safety standards.

 

If efficiency is your goal, you could just build an e-bike with a bigger motor and battery. Or a recument e-bike. 

 

I agree to call it a car once it is as safe as a Toyota Corolla or similar (shown by an official testing lab, not just a YT channel). Before that, calling it a car is misleading. 

 

If anything, the efficiency of this should be compared to any of the other golf carts, off-road vehicles and other vehicles that only are allowed on 35 mph streets.