PDA

View Full Version : 10/24/08 - A Gas Saver That Looks Great - nationalpost.com (Canada)


speculawyer
10-24-2008, 06:27 PM
Source article: http://www.nationalpost.com/cars/story.html?id=904656

A gas saver that looks great

David Grainger, National Post

Published: Friday, October 24, 2008

A new car has been built that is dramatically beautiful and, more importantly in these troubled times, unbelievably efficient.

I became aware of the Aptera for the first time a few months ago after seeing one being demonstrated on television. I immediately contacted the company because I was both curious about its claims and, well, I wanted one.

I was told that the car was still a few months from production and that I would not qualify to purchase one as at first it would be made available only to residents of California.

Not one to be easily dissuaded when I want something, I have not been able to leave it alone.

I had looked forward to going to the Gordon McCall reception at the Monterey Jet Port in August for several reasons, but chief among them was that I had been told an Aptera may put in an appearance and I would get to see one in the flesh.

Sometimes, when you see some of these newly developed wonder cars -- especially those making dramatic claims -- the reality is that they look like and often are amateur garage creations that cannot come close to realizing the claims made about them. The Aptera was not one of those cars. It had a finished, sophisticated look that trumpeted the competence of its designers and builders.

Before I go any further, let me outline the Aptera Company's main claim for its creation: At 193 kilometres -- a range realized in its hybrid form -- the car can achieve .78 litres per 100 kilometres (300 miles per gallon). Now, that is impressive if true, and as far as I have been able to determine, it is.

Once standing beside the real car, I was quite frankly smitten. Fancy the luck then that standing next to this jewel was Bob Kavner, chairman of Aptera and one of the engineers responsible. We had a good chat, one that was heavily laden with my trying to manipulate him into selling me a car despite my living in Canada, not California.

I did at one point advise him that the wheel pants around the front wheels and the rear would need to be removed or adapted for winter driving. Slush and water would freeze solid between the covers and the wheels, rendering the Aptera a wonderful parking lot sculpture until spring. (That said, I am sure most people would put their Apteras away for the winter like they do their sports cars and motorcycles.)

Bob Kavner was horrified at this suggestion. His reply was that their removal would cost the car 4.7 L/100 km (50 miles per gallon) in aerodynamic penalty.

"Wow," I replied, "you mean that it would only get .94 L/100 km (250 miles per gallon)? Well then, I don't want one; I'll get a Hummer instead."

The Aptera will come in two versions -- one fully electric and the other a gasoline-electric hybrid. They have solar panels in the roof that augment and assist with electrical management, which is a good thing as the Aptera -- unlike many of the cutting-edge prototypical energy savers that are stripped down to nothing -- comes with air conditioning, stereo and other features that we are used to in our ordinary cars. It fits two people wonderfully and the cabin is roomy and as appealing as the exterior design. It is evidently capable of carrying a surf board, skis or groceries in a spacious trunk.

The Aptera has also been through crash testing-- which fells many new designs. Evidently, it passed them with flying colours.

I am sure the dramatic design may frighten off some of the more conservative buyers, but at .78 L/100 km, maybe not. After all, the Smart, which doesn't get much better mileage than my Lotus Exige, is different looking--even a little ugly in a cute way -- and it flies off the shelves.

So, now that I have established I want one badly, I seem to have only two routes to take in order to get one. First, I can move to California. Mmm, not bad; I have long played with the idea of opening a satellite business in Beverly Hills. If I can't get a green card, then maybe I can find some way to get involved in its distribution. Perhaps I can beg for a dealership until they give me one just to get rid of me, or, better, I can open up a manufacturing plant to build them under licence.

Maybe I'll just have to wait for them to be sold in California, fly down, steal one, disguise it as a Chevy Vega and smuggle it back across the border.

David@guildclassiccars.com

curbowman
10-24-2008, 09:14 PM
I like how the author replies to the fact that without the wheel skirts the Aptera could still do 250 MPG. "Give me a Hummer instead"

TheAeronut
10-25-2008, 01:36 AM
Unfortunately, those numbers of cost of removing the wheel pants are distorted by the lie of claiming 300 MPG. How about 130 MPG (ICE only mileage) minus the 50 MPG penalty... That still makes a fairly healthy 80 MPG, but also similarly substantially shorter range for battery operation......... harder on the batteries but still usable.

J.P.

n_dawg
10-27-2008, 02:32 AM
Wait, Aptera's been through crash testing? Big news!

Also, 193 km range is realized both in its electric and hybrid form.

jstdadd
10-27-2008, 11:46 PM
Uh, think about it for a second...

You can change the battery pack and make the electric range anything you want. If Aptera changed the drivetrain, changed the wheel pants, changed from cameras to mirrors - just add more battery capacity and you get the range you want.

n_dawg
10-29-2008, 03:48 AM
Bob Kavner was horrified at this suggestion. His reply was that their removal would cost the car 4.7 L/100 km (50 miles per gallon) in aerodynamic penalty.

Wait a second…

The Aptera gets 130 miles/gallon. That's 1.8 L/100 km. So I *know* he didn't say it would cost the car 4.7 L/100 km in aerodynamic penalty. No-one seriously thinks that the Aptera would consume three and a half times as much fuel with no wheel pants.

The only reasonable explanation is that Mr. Grainger heard "50 mpg" and ignorantly translated it into L/100 km, not realizing that you can't add miles/gallon like you can L/100 km. He then misleadingly put the miles/gallon in parentheses as if that were the calculated value, when the reality was the other way around.

What he meant to write was that it would have a "50 mpg (1.1 L/100 km) penalty." That would take the fuel consumption to 2.9 L/100 km (80 mpg).

:confused:

NeilBlanchard
10-29-2008, 06:01 AM
Hiya,

To further obfuscate the numbers, the author is in Canada, so he would/might have used Imperial gallons?

n_dawg
10-30-2008, 03:37 AM
I think that's very possible. However those words were spoken by Bob Kavner, so it depends on whether or not he converted the units, depending of course on which audience he was primarily speaking to.

*head explodes*