Aptera electric car saved by Chinese-American partnership

Once Aptera leadership left, and ex-GM people came in, that's when I got my $500 deposit back. And like the EV1 - the 'leadership' let their cronies do their dirty work to the hand full of composite bodies:

That's what you call, "If I can't win, I'm taking my ball home" philosophy. Now ... if China purchased the rights to manufacture, they certainly don't have any of the old bodies left laying around, and what they make 'em out of is anyone's guess. If a vehicle isn't made for the U.S. it often gets shortcuts here and there - especially when it comes to crashworthiness in china. I do love watching me some Chinese car crash tests though ... regardless of whether it's 3 or 4 wheels:

.

 

That's the point I was trying to make about making it more cheaply - safety is not the place to be making compromises.

That doesn't look quite right. Isn't the crumple zone supposed to stop well forward of the rear seats?

 

WRT to safety. If the Aptera is classified as a motorcycle - it will likely be the safest motorcycle on the road. The composite shell used by the Aptera are very strong and should be able to survive high speed collisions. However, at only 1800 pounds and with LRR tires, any heavy vehicle (like a Tundra) that crashes into the Aptera at high speed will probably send the Aptera flying in the other direction. Even with airbags on all sides - the occupants/drivers are at still risk of internal injuries even if the outer composite shell can withstands the initial and secondary impacts. My guess is that those internal injuries would like look like those suffered in the Gulf War by tank crews that survives a direct hit - the reports say that the shockwave from these direct hits caused permanent internal nervous system/brain injuries, e.g. damaged optical/eye nerves.

The key for Aptera survivablity is bringing R&D and manufacturing cost under control. The Aptera 2e is a good design - with the high cost of gasoline/diesel, the Aptera 2e should sell well in electric vehicle friendly places like London which already have electric vehicle charging stations infrastructure in place.

 

The Aptera composite graphite fiber body is not likely to behave the same way a steel body would in a collision - it would not deform like steel so the idea of using crumble zones would not work. If you want to know how composite graphite fiber body would behaves in a crash you should look at car accidents in the Indy 500 races - because composite graphite fiber bodies are used extensively on these race cars. IIRC the composite graphite fiber body tends to flex and spread the entire impact across the entire body of the vehicle and then bounce off as one entire piece rather than permenantly deform to the impact.

IIRC Aptera designs that I saw were only two seater designs and didnot have a rear seats.

 

IIRC the UK did a series of crash test on chinese cars and they failed miserably. The original Aptera design calls for a composite graphite fiber body which behaves differently than steel in a collision. It will be interesting if the reborn Aptera will lose its composite graphite fiber body design to cost cutting since it is more expensive than a steel body design.

 

What is the basis for that statement? As I recall, the crashtest use the same objects/sleds for all vehichles.

35-mph frontal impact - At 35 mph (56 kph), the car runs straight into a solid concrete barrier.

35-mph side impact - A 3,015-pound (1,368-kg) sled with a deformable "bumper" runs into the side of the test vehicle. The test simulates a car that is crossing an intersection being sideswiped by a car running a red light.


Side-pole: Each vehicle shall be tested by impacting it into a fixed, rigid pole 254 mm (10 inches) in diameter, at any speed up to and including 32 km/h (20 mph).

The one that I do recall being dependent on the vehicle is the roof test, which makes sense.

 

Ok, do that. Post the results here please.

 

Aptera Founders Ousted in Boardroom Showdown | Autopia | Wired.com

It is the same old story, the professional managers come in, and the founders get ousted. They were detroit car people,where did GM stuff come from. I don't think anyone came from GM. It was ford and chrysler and conversion people.

If you note side impact is versus a car not a full sized truck like a tundra, things do worse against big trucks, how bad a 3 wheeler would do depends on where the truck hits it. It is more of a fair test though. The founders wanted to ship the sh$t, the new management wanted the windows to roll down first. But the windows were structural, which meant they needed to redesign for safety. They also wanted to wait for government loans or other money that was not there, because they didn't have cash to make the changes.

Which is where we have the questions. I think a car or a motorcycle ought to be able to have roll down windows. We know what happens to an ordinary motorcycle when you hit it on the side, does a cool electric car need to be as safe as a prius. I don't think a three wheeled plug-in vehicle needs to be, but it needs to be affordable.

Jonway group, the company building the cars, said they will build composite bodies in china. If the company makes thousands of apteras its great. I have nothing against the chinese. This is an american design, for a car being built for the american market first, but to be sold elsewhere. If the body can be built in china at an affordable price, it still is a cool vehicle.

If it was built for $35K as originally designed would you prefer it to your leaf?

+1

Yep, I would add that aptera did put in a steel and aluminum safety cage for front and rear impact. That has got to be the primary thing to stop these injuries. I'm sorry I brought up cost cutting. It seems to have gotten all the pc people out to want to make this a very expensive car that won't make production, just like the new management did.

This is the test that relies on vehicle weight, what happens if its a bigger vehicle instead of a wall. Smaller cars get higher marks

This is the test that the aptera did not do well with after they made the windows able to roll down. It is also the one where I would not expect occupants of the car to do well if it was a tundra. Its a cool looking car, it is hyper efficient, why does it need to be as safe as a leaf or volt when hit on the side. The purchaser should just understand the risks.

I have no idea if they completed engineering to make it as safe as they wanted in a side impact. I think they need to cut the corners and warn the customers This is the area that the delays happened.

 

Striking an immovable object is the same as striking an identical vehicle, going the same speed, but opposite direction in terms of the forces involved.

The Smart fortwo does well in such standardized tests. Against a larger, heavier car, it doesn't score as well.

 

Nope, that is not equivalent to an identical vehicle going the opposite direction. In an inelastic collision, kinetic energy changes into heat and deformation, while the momentum before and after has to stay the same. Since velocity is a vector quantity, it has a direction as well as a magnitude. The distribution of forces will be quite different. This is not a billiard ball with an infinitesimal point of contact, the contact is spread over a wide area for the wall, and a small area for the pole test. Real vehicle-vehicle interactions the forces can include vertical as well as crumple effects. 2 cars hitting at 50mph have the same momentum as 1 hitting the wall at 100mph, but the 2 cars will have more angular dispersion and 2x steel to convert kinetic into deformation/heat.
If a car hits a parked truck, the car, would impact some of the momentum to the truck, so not as bad as a wall.  If the truck has its own momentum, well then its a momentum party and the car may get more that its share.


From How To Avoid A Single-Car Crash - Forbes.com

The point of the test is not how a car does in a lossing fight with a bigger car,  its how well they do when they hit an immovable object.   Too many different objects out there to test all interactions.  More importantly,  since the single-vehicle crash is one of the most common, and most deadly, its important to test for that.  And then its a "standard" test. 

 

I like the idea of two guys in a garage being able to switch from building an aircraft to building a 3 wheeled electric vehicle. I like the fact that by being a motorcycle they didn't have to conform to all the govenment red tape it takes to put out a car.

Let's face it, the thing looks fun to drive and probably is. I don't think though that a tiny start up can compete with the mountains of money that has been thrown at nissan and tesla and get a competitive bev car off the ground. If you make it regulated like a leaf, its going to cost as much, and people are going to choose the big auto company.

I like the tail dragger configuration, although I'm sure there is a better term. Conventional landing gear, which is what this enclosed motorcycle seems to have, has many advantages over a traditional 4 wheel configuration. First comes weight, 3 wheels don't need complicated suspensions and fewer parts. This also reduces costs. The taildragger with low cg near the front wheels has dynamic stability, making handling better than a car or motorcycle but good roll over resitance. The 3 wheels lower rolling resistance. The designer is free to create a more aero design. Huge advantages.

The car designers also have the freedom to add safety devices that make sense but not do the ones that don't. For the phev, they can do the inexpensive engine and not worry about all the regs.

Here are a couple of cool top of the line 3 wheeled motorcycles, they qualify for hov in my state and some others.
Campagna Motors T-REX and V13R the

Well yes, but you ram a 5000lb vehicle into a 2000 lb composite, and that big truck or SUV is going to win At 50mph that metal cage in the motorcycle is what is going to be important. Its going to be worse than just striking the thing against the wall. Most accidents are non-fatal. I would expect that a composite body would need to be replaced like my carbon fiber fork on my bike, a repair won't make it the same. Its just the price you pay to be in a cool looking economical car.

As I said, the problem sighted with the redesign was side impact. Loads of variables here on what happens. The owner needs to understand and take the risks. Fatalities happen here. I'm sure its safer than me riding a motorcycle with two passengers in a foreign country.

The test is can you avoid being in that accident. I had a boss, hit by a car on his motorcycle- rear ended - and he slid on his head getting down to metal in his helmet. Walked away with just a broke arm and bruises.

I still think the key on a vehicle like this is safe enough, but inexpensive and fun to drive. I think if it costs the same as a leaf, it will be a complete failure.

 

Wow, only $53,000+. What a bargain. (sarcasm)

 

And I thought my Mitsubishi-i looked funny

 

Hey you know it has some serious bling if it made rap videos.
http://www.motortrend.com/features/performance/1005_campagna_t_rex_14r_drive/viewall.html
Review of the New 2009 Campagna T-Rex 1400R - Full New Car Details at RoadandTrack.com

I've seen them rolling in Southern California. The key to get the aptera out is to retain some of the cool but drop the price to $25K as they say they might, and actually get production started. It doesn't need to be nearly as fast as a t-rex;-)

 

So . . . now the Chinese not only got Fiskar - they got Aptera too. Wow. Back in the day, myself and a couple other So Cal PC members were on the Aptera deposit short list. As soon as I heard that X-GM exec's we're going to come in to help things along I knew the project would be killed in the womb. IIRC, it was a $500 deposit that we had to put down and I felt lucky just to get it back. I hope they can raise it from its own ashes... maybe rename it the Phoenix ;-)
.

 

Different categories. Getting 9 stars in a Tundra is more difficult than 9 stars in a midsize sedan.

So the American Stimulus & Reinvestment money is now being used to jumpstart the birth of Chinese-run automakers in our country. Maybe they'll rename Fisker/Aptera to Foxconn or something similar. The would be equivalent to the British Parliament spending money to build new "homegrown" car factories & the Yankee americans sweep-in to take them over.

 

Neither Fisker or Aptera had much intellectual property that was valuable to americans. The chinese because they are further behind and have deep government funded pockets may make a go at each. Really as environmentalists, most should hope that chinese figure out clean transportation.

A123 however had some excellent intelectual property, and was the only US company that had a good chance of making batteries that could compete with the japanese and koreans. It really was screwed up of the bankrupcy court to sell this to the Chinese. It had a great deal of tax payer money invested. I know the chinese offered more than US companies, it still should have stayed in US hands.

yep. Those gm execs were too much on big auto slowness and expenses. I hope the chinese can make a go of it. motorcycles are inherrantly less safe than cars. This has the potential to have safety in between, but much less to buy than cars that are as advanced.

 

How many 5000 pound vehicles are really out there? It's not as many as people think. I have a friend with a Jeep Cherokee, and his explanation of why he needed that as a single person living in the city was for safety. He said if a 2,000 pound car like a Prius collided with his 6,000 pound Jeep, the physics were obvious. I did a little research and pointed out his car was actually 4,000 pounds, and my Prius was 3,000 pounds, so now the physics is a bit murkier - it depends on angle of impact, airbags, crumple zones, any offset (rare to be direct head-on), etc. The point is, people have an impression of taller vehicles being more massive than shorter vehicles, but the numbers don't back that up. Add to that, most fatalities come from roll-overs, and a shorter vehicle is less prone to a roll-over.

Numbers have shown no significant difference in death rates based on car type.

Motorcycles are an obvious risk, but people still buy those. This is obviously much safer than a motorcycle.