Does This Look Like a Motorcycle?

Take a ride in the 200-mpg car the feds want to keep in the slow lane.

Newsletter
Share
Close this Share Box

Thu Mar. 26, 2009 2:00 AM PDT

When Steve Fambro and Chris Anthony founded Aptera Motors in 2006, they wanted to create the world's most fuel-efficient car. To do that, they had to ditch all conventional notions of car design to make the most aerodynamic vehicle possible.

The result is the Aptera 2e, a two-seater powered by an electric motor that delivers 100 miles of driving on an 8-hour charge from a standard outlet. The company says 4,000 people have already put down a deposit for the car, which is slated to hit driveways later this year.

But the design that makes the Aptera so efficient also disqualifies the car from the Department of Energy's $25 billion loan program for ultra-efficient cars—the same fund from which GM has requested more than $8 billion. The company wants the low-cost loans to develop other models, such as a plug-in hybrid with a gas-powered generator. So Aptera Motors went to Washington to show the feds why the reg needs to change.

Advertisement

Steve Aquino is a senior editorial fellow at Mother Jones's Washington bureau. For more of his stories, click here.

Nick Baumann covers national politics for Mother Jones' DC Bureau. For more of his stories, click here. He can also be found on twitter.

Comments

I so want one of those ...

Submitted by TJ on Thu Mar. 26, 2009 4:48 PM PDT.

I *so* want one of those ...

Experimental Cars

Submitted by Lew Merrick (not verified) on Fri Mar. 27, 2009 12:32 PM PDT.

tagged as:

solution

As someone who spent several years developing econo-cars at a college vehicle research institute, the thing that leaps out and bites me is the separated fairings for the wheels. THAT is what defines this as a "motorcycle" rather than an "automobile." We spent several decades forcing the automakers to bring the wheels within the confines of the body for safety reasons. To immediately change this for the benefit of a single company without a reasoned and deliberate review returns automotive engineering to the "whatever the company says, goes" development world. Just looking at this design gives me the willies. I have fought hard over the years to help standardize vehicle safety. I see three things right off the bat that are going to create general public hazards. Let's get real.

Rules, and more regulations

Submitted by pithaughn (not verified) on Mon Mar. 30, 2009 1:38 PM PDT.

tagged as:

solution

You bring up a good point. Why does every "car" have to meet safety guidelines that require said car to be a ton of rolling steel? As a consumer I'm allowed to choose a motorcycle that has zero occupant protection, but I'm not allowed to choose and "unsafe" car? Why can't there be cars that do not meet federal safety standards, are labeld and marketed as such and let the conusmer choose?

Green Motorcycles

Submitted by Trollstein on Fri Mar. 27, 2009 5:14 AM PDT.

tagged as:

solution

The report and the video is one-sided. While the Troll government generally applauds such innovation, there is a very important reason why this vehicle only has three wheels and the reason is only slightly related (directly) to gas MPG. As a three wheeled vehicle, it is legally a motorcycle and therefore is immune from various federal regulations, mainly safety related. It would cost $millions to qualify a new car, even if it were capible of passing crash-tests, 5-mph bumps and so forth. This vehicle would not pass and is merely safe by motorcycle standards. Plus each car would cost about 1/3rd more to build. 1 extra wheel = 33% higher production costs and also add about 150% again (amortized) to pay for the extra R&D. The answer to our energy problems is elsewhere. The new generation of batteries being developed recharge in 5 minutes. Using a combination of computer control, plug-in charging (home and at 'gas' stations) plus a small on board generator, running off any type of fuel (gas, alcohol, hydrogen, etc.) would allow such cars/trucks/vans to be programed (with GPS) for normal daily commute and in many (most) cases, the generator would never need to come on. For long distance, the combination of battery power and on board fuel should provide 200 miles (highway) range and of course, both the fuel and electricty can be replaced at a normal gas station--in 5-minutes. Such vehicles would not get 200-mpg but there would be no reduction of size or comfort. They would be mainly today's (same) vehicles, with new technology for power. A plug-in Prios sized car would still get its customary 45-MPG (on fuel) but hardly ever need fuel and when being recharged from house or remote electricy, the cost would drop to the equivilant of pennies per gallon. Plus, it would be pollution free--and safe at any speed. Such vehicles were possible in concept at least a decade ago. Had President Clinton devoted significant money (when we had it) to this type of research and used his power to mandate the innovations with Detroit, that is exactly what everyone would be driving today and oil proces would probably have never crossed $35-bbl. Lastly, there would (by now) be a GIANT reduction in pollution and greenhouse gases--worldwide. Clinton did NOTHING. He did not even raise CAFE (milage) standards in 8 years. As president, he was a kinder--gentler piece of crap. He only deserves complements in relation to the horrid leaders we had before and after him. Respectfully submitted~ Absolute leader of the Troll Kingdom (for life)

Good Troll

Submitted by Gorel2 (not verified) on Fri Mar. 27, 2009 12:16 PM PDT.

tagged as:

result

Good Troll Trollstein...... If Clinton had - blah blah blah - Bush and the Republicans controlled both houses and the presidency since 2000, and were in bed with the oil companies. But lack of engineering ingenuity is Clinton's fault - get real!

Practical?

Submitted by Don P (not verified) on Fri Mar. 27, 2009 12:05 PM PDT.

tagged as:

result

I am impressed with the response that questioned the safety. Seeing the interesting shape, I thought "designed for looks" which seems to fit the narcissitic public. My primary thought was yes develop but make this practical with security around so simple bumping accidents will not destroy so much of the vehicle and safety of the passenger is a priority... not their, or other's, desire for looks. Another misnomer is the consumption of more material and resources is not a conscientious solution, if "everyone will have to have one" and consumption based economics must end.

Oh please! This 'car-cycle' was designed for single-rider HOV!

Submitted by Robert B. (not verified) on Sat Mar. 28, 2009 11:34 AM PDT.

Anyone who has perused their website (aptera.com) as I have for several years would know that the 3-wheel design was in part to permit single-occupant use of HOV lanes in California. A big selling point here -- worth more than $5000 on a used vehicle -- was that from 2003 to 2006 hybrid vehicles were given single-occupant exemptions to ride in HOV lanes. These stickers can still be seen here. Classified as a motorcycle, the Aptera would be allowed the same single-occupant use of HOV lanes. The other reason was to reduce rolling resistance to save energy. The shape was not supposed to appeal to the narcissism of buyers but to look like a wingless (and propeller-less) airplane. Which it does. These cars are much safer for pedestrians than the perfectly legal kangaroo bars found on SUVs designed to kill animals -- and pedestrians -- while protecting the vehicle.

you foregot

Submitted by georgep128 (not verified) on Fri Mar. 27, 2009 2:10 PM PDT.

About the fender idea......you foregot the Chrysler/Plymouth Prowler sporty car......anyway we still have the government ......

Motorcycle?

Submitted by ZDuff on Fri Mar. 27, 2009 2:25 PM PDT.

tagged as:

solution

What bothers me as much as the obvious safety issues is the "stinger" for an ass-end. How the devil are you going to park the thing without poking eyes, hoods, bellies, etc.? If it's going to be a "car," it needs bumpers; even the similarly (well) designed hot rods have nerf bars... I'll wait for the Tesla sedan.

The one i want is called the

Submitted by spytheweb (not verified) on Fri Mar. 27, 2009 7:28 PM PDT.

The one i want is called the Carver, a 3 wheeled car. It only gets 75 mpg but looks good and drives great. http://www.zoomilife.com/2009/01/08/venture-vehicles-persu-mobility-the-...

Safety

Submitted by Teigh (not verified) on Fri Mar. 27, 2009 7:49 PM PDT.

According to the manufacturer (Aptera) the vehicle meets all safety standards required for automobiles. Check out the website -- Aptera.com. I'm on the waiting list.

So what if it's a motorcycle?

Submitted by Scott Baker (not verified) on Sat Mar. 28, 2009 1:26 AM PDT.

Is there any reason we should not be funding hyperefficient motorcycles too? Lots of people ride them, and enclosed ones like this would be even more popular. I may be a cross between a motorcycle and a car, but whatever it is, it's a vehicle for personal transportation, so let's find the appropriate safety regulations and fund its development. I'm tired of the Chevy Volt getting all the attention and money, when that will cost north of $40,000, run just 40 miles on electric, and not even be out until 2010. We are too committed to propping up the Dinosaur companies.

Clinton and CAFE standards

Submitted by Trollstein on Sat Mar. 28, 2009 6:44 AM PDT.

Gorel2: Firstly, you did not sufficiently read my comments before flaming (not unusual, sadly). I was very clear that Clinton was the "kinder-gentler piece of crap". That rendered Reagan, Bush-1 and Bush-2 the meaner, more brutal pieces of crap. But here's the difference. No one expected very much by way of ecology or clean energy from the Republicans. Clinton, on the other hand sold us a bill-of-goods on those (and other) points. When the Republicans dissapointed their far-right by not delivering a (promised) total ban on abortions (or even partial-birth abortions) this was a grievance to those on that side of the issue. It was NOT a greviance to 'planned parenthood' people. Clinton promised America a BUNCH of stuff he never lifted a pinkey-finger to deliver. As soon as the election of 1992 was over, (before the inaugration) the left-leaning purists in the campaign were purged. I know because I was one of them. So I don't need your lip at this point. I was the guy (on the inside) who got in trouble for (among other things) pushing clean renewable energy (when petrol was selling under $1.00/gal.). Clinton demanded sycophants and only sycophants. While he was smarter then the three other presidents mentioned (all together) his ego was also bigger then all three combined. As far as he was concerned, it was all about him and not about the country or the world. Everyone else was merely bit actors in his personal Broadway play. And this was not his only shortfall. His OFFICIAL policy on the FDA and Dept. of Agra. Was “salaries, not salamanders”. [Translation: ‘cancer, not conservation’.]. He had his crew do everything the giant chemical companies and agra corporations wanted. He pushed through approval on rBgh (bovine growth hormone) and had the Federal rules for safety approval disregarded—in the guise of disregarding ‘salamanders’. He also allowed the Wall Street parasites to run their own orgies of skimming from the till. Had Clinton budgeted a mere 5% of our national defense spending towards R&D for advanced clean renewable energy, our economy (today) might not suck. He was smart enough to know better. Plus, that’s what the public voted in favor of when we elected him. Respectfully submitted~ Absolute leader of the Troll Kingdom (for life)

Aptera

Submitted by anthony (not verified) on Tue Mar. 31, 2009 3:25 AM PDT.

Thats why we will never really fly in a chopper type car, It has to bring up lots of money to buy and for safety tests wich goes first!!

It doesn't matter that it's

Submitted by Anonymous123 (not verified) on Tue Mar. 31, 2009 11:31 AM PDT.

It doesn't matter that it's a "motorcycle" in the eyes of the law. People are going to use it as a car. People aren't going to be comparison shopping between this and a Harley, they're going to be comparison shopping between this and a Prius or even a SMART car. Since the point of the loan is to incentivize fuel-efficient alternatives, and that's exactly what the Aptera is, it should have access to the loan.

There's no way that will meet car legislative standards

Submitted by Robert Merkel (not verified) on Tue Mar. 31, 2009 9:57 PM PDT.

There are a huge collection of rules and regulations vehicles have to meet to be registered as "cars". For instance, they have to be able to survive 5mph "fender-benders" without damage - that's why modern cars have such huge plastic front and rear fenders. This was the reason, incidentally, why the "Smart" couldn't be sold in the USA - its fenders didn't meet the standard. I'll bet London to a brick (hey - it's going cheap these days) that the Aptera doesn't meet the fender-bender standard, let alone get even a 3-star rating on NCAP.

MotoCage?

Submitted by Avery Ray Colter (not verified) on Mon Apr. 6, 2009 10:31 PM PDT.

An uncovered motorcycle has some advantages to a well-trained rider: no blind spots, tall people don't hit their heads on doors, an object obstructing half the lane can be ridden around (I did this with a couch once long ago - YES a COUCH in a FREEWAY lane! Try avoiding that with a three-or-more wheeler without a lane change). I think the worries about collision safety with this motocage are legitimate, because if a cage doesn't stand up to muster, it will just end up crushed around you and doom any chance of walking or slithering away you might have after the collision.

Aptera

Submitted by Darrin (not verified) on Thu Apr. 9, 2009 3:55 PM PDT.

Physics dictates that it takes energy to create a change in motion. The Aptera is a design experiment in exactly how much energy is required to achieve the practical motion our society is accustomed to having. It is not a be-all-end-all solution, but a promising step. If we are to FIND solutions to our energy problems, those of us who can think creatively NEED to be allowed to do so, and it wouldn't hurt to allow some of the money set aside for just that to make its into their hands and ideas. Safety standards are useful, but are not laws of the universe. Where they prevent the innovations that can solve our problems (such as requiring body strength that means 1000+ lbs of metal) a rethink is positively demanded. I commute on a 55+ mpg motorcycle, resorting to the car only when its capacity is needed. I would welcome a commercial successful vehicle that allowed the same job to be done, and was a REAL step forward rather than a fine tuning of the same old song. Hybrids, and overweight electrics without the range to get me to work do not qualify.

While the aptera is kewl

Submitted by Geoff Swenson (not verified) on Fri May. 1, 2009 2:51 PM PDT.

While the aptera is kewl looking, it really is closer to a motorcycle than a car. I don't think you'd do very well in a crash with a larger vehicle for one thing. It is easy to trade away the cost, weight, and bulk necessary for car safety regulation, but I think we would rather encourage electric cars that meet reasonable safety regulations and also have some more interior room to actually replace existing cars. Three wheels are very unstable and unsafe. I wasn't exactly impressed with the Aptera when I read about it months ago despite how space-age kewl it looks.

it's a real car and it

Submitted by clyde24 (not verified) on Tue Jun. 9, 2009 7:57 PM PDT.

it's a real car and it drives attention. I think driving this car is as comfortable as driving a very luxurious car with stunning navigation system, air conditioning, qmi exhaust tip and a video camera. i want to own one.

Now confused :)))

Submitted by Locksmith Services (not verified) on Tue Aug. 4, 2009 10:37 AM PDT.

Now confused :)))

interesting info at this

Submitted by Generic Xenical (not verified) on Thu Oct. 1, 2009 9:05 PM PDT.

interesting info at this post thanks!! i really like it

That car is crazy looking! I

Submitted by permanent facial hair removal (not verified) on Sat Dec. 19, 2009 6:47 PM PST.

That car is crazy looking! I think I would feel really funny driving it and not very safe. My truck could run that car over and it would be like a speed bump!

I love the culture of this

Submitted by mark382 (not verified) on Tue Jan. 12, 2010 11:25 AM PST.

I love the culture of this car. It stands for the right things, but let's face it. This car will never be mainstream in today's marketplace. People are just not ready for this type of radical design. You have others like Tesla that have a much higher chance of approval or the Volt as well.

Car Tune Up Cost