Would Aptera Eventually be Acquired by GM?

[admin]

Ok, so what do you think? If for instance Aptera becomes a huge hit In california, what are your opinions here:

Would they sell the company to possible General Motors?

Would this be a positive or negative if the management remains in place? It could help spur faster production, and a ton more cash for research and development for future models. Or would it be a negative with GM influencing too much?

[pk-sd]

If Detroit wanted us to have a 300mpg car, they would have done it long time ago. If GM buys out Aptera, they will make this project an R&D project for 10 years and then slowly phase it out when people forget about it.

I see this to be a highly likely scenario. I am hoping we are looking at a car of the future, but I think its a story of a small company that is going to get swallowed by large company like many before.

[KarenRei]

If GM acquired Aptera, it'd be to meet their CAFE standards and CARB requirements as well as to get free PR. The only way they'd kill it off would be A) if it wasn't profitable, *AND* B) both CARB and CAFE requirements were somehow nullified or lifted, and C) they felt they could take some more horrible PR ala EV1. All three situations are highly unlikely; Aptera seems destined to profit soundly, CARB and CAFE are going nowhere, and GM is now paranoid about getting the same sort of anti-green PR that the EV1 debacle heaped upon them.

All GM cares about is being in compliance with the law and making as big of a profit as possible. In the case of the EV1, they killed it because they were leaking money like a sieve, the EV1 was a loss-leader, they no longer had a requirement to build it, and they didn't think that, given how few were leased, that many people would care. And they quickly learned how wrong they were on that latter aspect ;)

[wpatters]

History is a good clue here.

Check out what happened to the opel eco speedster.

Bill

[KarenRei]

The Eco Speedster was a concept car. And? Since when do concept cars usually make it into production? They rarely do. As the company stated when they released it:

"Being a concept, it won’t go into actual production, but elements of it will be used in other vehicles we produce. In essence, it announces our commitment to developing a broader range of diesel vehicles in the coming year."

Are you going to fault the participants on the Shell Eco Marathon for not mass producing their >1000 mpg cars? There are always plenty of reasons for not releasing one-off concept cars commercially. Be glad that they're caring enough to make their concept cars eco-friendly. Concept cars show the direction a company is heading in.

[mmalc]

All GM cares about is being in compliance with the law and making as big of a profit as possible.

To be fair, that's not in and of itself necessarily a bad thing -- and it's what its share holders expect of the company.
(Modulo: "as big a profit as possible" tends to be subject to a rather short-term perspective...)

I get the impression, though, that the current management at Aptera isn't particularly interested in just making a quick buck, and when it came to evaluating how they could make "as big a profit as possible" they'd probably take a longer-term perspective...

[Apteratude]

No big automaker better buy Aptera...They will buy it just to kill it. Automakers have a loyalty to the dealer network which they helped build over the last 100 years. The dealers only profit about 10-20% from vehicle sales. Most of the money is made in the parts/service department. And we all know how much service a type-1e is going to need on the engine/transmission! It would go against their core belief. I showed the Aptera to a mechanic friend of mine and he got all bent out of shape that I wanted it saying I was affecting his livelihood.

Seriously, I think it's up to us to support these small companies privately through our purchasing of their products. Maybe they could go public to raise funds, but not offer so many shares as to cripple their company's decision making process and make themselves a slave to their shareholders...should a company like GM seek to buy all outstanding shares, and take over the company and run it into the ground.

Anyone else a conspiracy theorist like me?

[pk-sd]

No big automaker better buy Aptera...They will buy it just to kill it. Automakers have a loyalty to the dealer network which they helped build over the last 100 years. The dealers only profit about 10-20% from vehicle sales. Most of the money is made in the parts/service department. And we all know how much service a type-1e is going to need on the engine/transmission! It would go against their core belief. I showed the Aptera to a mechanic friend of mine and he got all bent out of shape that I wanted it saying I was affecting his livelihood.

Seriously, I think it's up to us to support these small companies privately through our purchasing of their products. Maybe they could go public to raise funds, but not offer so many shares as to cripple their company's decision making process and make themselves a slave to their shareholders...should a company like GM seek to buy all outstanding shares, and take over the company and run it into the ground.

Anyone else a conspiracy theorist like me?


I am with you. Wasn't there a movie called "Who killed the electric car" that kind touched on the same subject. I think I need to check it out.

[wpatters]

It is my understanding that the Pontiac Solstice was to be the production eco speedster. Not even close to the same car.

[garygid]

Let's work to make Aptera so successful that they could buy GM.

But, why would they want to buy any company that is closing plants,
laying off workers, having trouble selling product, and / or losing money?

[KarenRei]

Because it'd be a cheap buy ;)

But really, this prospect would be way, way out in the future, even if Aptera is a stunning success that can sell everything they can push out the door as fast as they can make it.

[appyfan]

Hey guys... I hate to sound like the negative one but here goes:

I've been telling my father about how excited I am about the Aptera but he's been telling me that their either going to be bought out by a larger automaker or someone who just doesn't want to see an EV on the road.

This is my biggest fear of the Aptera and I feel that every "business" really has its price. I mean really now, how many of you would turn down an immediate offer of several millions?

It's wonderful to see how many of us are so optimistic about the whole concept, but just as soon as life seems like its getting better... BAM some complication arises and we're all back to square one. It's really sad to see how with car companies these days it's all about keeping the shareholders happy and only doing what you need to do (ie. redesign a car because sales are slow. Must discontinue the EV1 because it's not profitable). I mean whatever happened to building and designing a car that made a fair share of money for the company as well as delivering exactly what the public wants.

I really hope for once that this is the real deal and not just some dream where you need to be asleep in order to believe it.

[KarenRei]

GM isn't in the business of Evil(TM); they're in the business of making money. They don't really have a product that's competing against the Aptera. Even if they did, it usually (not always, but usually) makes more financial sense, when you buy up, to keep producing the competing product than to kill it off and liquefy the company. But liquefication essentially never makes sense when the product is profitable and not competing with your products (and if it's not competing but not profitable, why did you buy it?).

The closest GM could consider the Aptera competition to would be the Volt. However, the Volt is a less efficient car than the Typ-1h but seats twice as many, and is a cross between traditional and sports car styling rather than retro sci-fi styling. That's a pretty different target market. If GM was working on a space-age two seater, then you might have cause to worry about Aptera. They're not. If GM buys Aptera, it would be to sell Apteras.

Not that GM is in the sort of financial situation to be doing acquisitions right now.

[LQUAN]

GM is working very aggresively on their Volt. Volt is their priority #1 over all other models. In addition, Toyota is doing extremely well with their Prius during this time (recession). High ends ICE car sales are slumpped right now. All ICE manufacturers are trying to jump on board with hybrids or some other sort alternative fuel vehicles. Therefore, I strongly doubt that any big car manufacturers will buy up Aptera and then kill it. They will want to continue on with Aptera success. Why kill a cash cow? Come to think of it, if a big car manufacturer buy up Aptera, they would have the resource to distribute them worldwide easier and faster. Service would be lesser of a hassle. Therefore, I am not too worry that big car manufacturers will buy up Aptera. I am more concern if some oil rich sultans would buy up Aptera so they can sell more oil.;)

[G-Jet]

Karen is right. GM has no use for entering the market with something like the Aptera. You still need petroleum based products to make an Aptera so I wouldn't think ANY oil company wants to kill it.

G

[KarenRei]

If cars like the Aptera become popular enough to overtake the market (which, just due to sheer inertia, would take decades), the renewables divisions of the more progressive oil companies will expand at the same rate their gasoline business contracts. Oil companies are a natural fit for offshore wind (they've been building huge offshore rigs there for ages), deep geothermal (the process is almost identical to drilling for oil), solar (oil companies have huge numbers of chemical engineers), and so on. Some may fight it (Exxon-Mobil, I'm looking in your general direction...), but I don't think most will. Business is business, and so long as there's a profit, they'll go down that road.

As for GM, again, all they care about is money. They really have no interest whatsoever in what happens to oil, whether we conserve it or burn it all up; they're just set up for making petroleum-powered vehicles and it's been a reliable source of income for them, so they don't like to change. They don't know that EVs will make them that sort of huge profit margin they make on an SUV. If a company like Aptera can demonstrate that selling EVs can make good cash, they'll either imitate or buy out so that they can get a share of it. Sort of like how Toyota and Honda forced GM's hand with hybrids, which they really wanted no part of because they thought they couldn't sell enough of them at prices that would make money.

[G-Jet]

Very well put KarenRei. Petroleum products are very useful.

G

[appyfan]

Well I'm no business major, but if I just had to bet... I'd say the majority of all money made in oil comes from your local gas station. Not plastic party favors.

I mean I'm no econ professor, but let's be real. How much money can the "Petroleum Corporations" make through the manufacturing of frisbees?

Someone said something about change and how some company is against that; which I totally agree. I think any corporation is against change because thats just all really expensive. I know if I were head of a major oil company, I sure as hell would make every effort to ensure the security and stability of oil dependance. Nothing makes more money for a drug dealer than his loyal speed addicted customers... Know what I mean? ;)

[KarenRei]

US demand for the following:

Gasoline: 9.3 mbpd
Distillate fuel oil (heating oil + diesel): 4.2 mbpd
Jet fuel: 1.6 mbpd
Other petroleum products: 3.4 mbpd

http://www.npra.org/news/facts/fuels.cfm

So, gasoline is only about half of demand. Cut all diesel and you cut out another couple mbpd. I wouldn't expect much in terms of cuts in jet fuel from electrics for a good while. Unless people want to switch to scimitar turboprops, but even then...

[LQUAN]

"Gasoline: 9.3 mbpd"

What a waste...it would be more productive to use oil on petroleum product. If the world use 0 mbpd for transportation, where would the oil industries be? Of course, if that happened, petroleum product would be extremely expensive.

[KarenRei]

Not necessarily. Cutting demand in half isn't like cutting it by several orders of magnitude; it'd still be used in huge quantity. Furthermore, more expensive oil sources (deepwater, bitumen, ultra-heavy, etc) would shut down, but light sweet crude production would remain. That being cheaper, that would act to lower prices.

Also, just a note: "other petroleum products" is a very broad category -- not just plastics. For example, lubricants, oils, solvents, epoxies, asphault, dyes, and so on are all frequently petroleum products. Also, there are some products listed that would automatically have their production cut if oil production went down -- for example, sulphuric acid, an important industrial chemical, is largely produced as a byproduct of removing sulphur from oil.

Yeah, it is a shame that we're just burning it up; I like to see things "produced". We can make oil from almost anything that contains carbon, although the less energy it has, the more you need to put into the process. But squandering the "cheap" stuff as a fuel is a shame. I'd be even more of a shame if they have to start turning oil shale into fuel. Yes, the beds that they'll target will be fossil-poor... but oil shale, by its nature, is composed of organic matter that hasn't completely broken down (i.e., that's why it's still kerogen and not oil yet), so there's always the loss.

[johnh]

Appyfan thank You for posting. I may ask for my money back and sit back and see what happens.

[n_dawg]

What concerns me more is how much of our food production is tied to petro-chemicals. Most modern fertilizers and pesticides are almost all petroleum based, and fuel is still used to plant/harvest, refrigerate, and transport it. All thanks to the "Green Revolution," AKA the mechanization of modern food production. It staved off a food shortage in the 1960s, but now we're dependent on oil to an even greater extent.

[Typ-1e, Slot #1685]

If you have NetFlix, try to rent the DVD of "Who Killed The Electric Car." It will get you all riled up at the red tape and baloney that hamstrung the General Motors EV-1, and it will make you pray that GM never gets their hands on the Aptera.

[KarenRei]

What concerns me more is how much of our food production is tied to petro-chemicals. Most modern fertilizers and pesticides are almost all petroleum based

Well... kind of.

Most fertilizers aren't petroleum based. Most minerals that plants need are mined in one form or another (although petroleum is used in the machinery). A big exception is ammonia (and other nitrogen-bearing fertilizers derived from ammonia), which is made via the Haber process. It's not that it needs oil; it needs hydrogen, and natural gas is currently the cheapest way (but not the only way) to produce hydrogen. Pesticides and herbicides, on the other hand, are sometimes sourced, at least partially, from petroleum products, although it's more that they just need a lot of different industrial chemicals. Example: Glyphosphate ("Roundup"), the most widely used herbicide in the US, is made from formaldehyde (which is made from methanol) and glycine. Glycine is made from chloroacetic acid and ammonia (which, as just described, is only "kind of" sourced from petroleum). Chloroacetic acid is made from acetic acid (vinegar) and chlorine. Chlorine is made from salt.

[pk-sd]

If you have NetFlix, try to rent the DVD of "Who Killed The Electric Car." It will get you all riled up at the red tape and baloney that hamstrung the General Motors EV-1, and it will make you pray that GM never gets their hands on the Aptera.

That is my concern also. Not only before I buy the car, but also after. I don’t want to spend $30k on a car and a year later I find out they have been bought over by GM just to shut them down.

[swinti]

Ok, so what do you think? If for instance Aptera becomes a huge hit In california, what are your opinions here:

Would they sell the company to possible General Motors?

Would this be a positive or negative if the management remains in place? It could help spur faster production, and a ton more cash for research and development for future models. Or would it be a negative with GM influencing too much?
My experience in this type of business doesn’t show this risk. Big companies are far too arrogant to buy a small know how think tank. Their lawyers will find a way around, when the time and the markets are ready for the product. Who wants an APTERE now, must take all the risks involved or he has to wait an other ten to twenty years for a similar GM product.

Who wants to know what would happen, has to ask Mr. Nicolas Hayek about his experience with the SMART, VW and Mercedes Benz.

[SpyderMike]

I agree swinti, Aptera is chump change for any corp at this stage. There isn't much to buy. They don't have a proven product, and 1800+ deposits of intent don't mean 1800+ sales. Now in a couple of years, if a reliable, produceable, profitable product is made and the sales start to gather momentum, and they sort out the support system and look to expand it could be interesting for some corp, but I seriously doubt one of the big boys.

More likely , in my mind anyway, is some kind of consolidation of smaller players in the niche industry or some manufacturer using similar production technologies that wants to utilize their low volume production line capacity for more efficiency (like a boat mfr or plane mfr or motorcyle mfr)...Polaris, Seadoo, Cirrus Design come to mind.

Mike

[SR-71]

I absolutely agree with others that GM would only buy Aptera to end its production (assuming Aptera started eating into GM's profits). Status quo, minor changes, and small steps seems to be the way big car makers tend to think.

But in small production numbers the big companies probably wouldn't even take notice. Then again, if serious numbers of Aptera's start hitting the streets (competing with Civic's and such), that would be a whole different ballgame. If Aptera's start getting produced, in numbers of say... 100's, or even 10's of thousands per year, that would definitely would start eating into profit margins. At that point the big guys would probably start planning a strategy to buy Aptera out; but not for production. These big companies have way too many high level people that manage and influence company decisions to allow such an unconventional vehicle to be produced. Heck, even most of their 'concept cars' are considered too outlandish for production. Can you imagine GM producing the Aptera?! No way.

But some food for thought. Back in 1969 (in Hawaii) and 1970 (in the remainder of the states) Honda introduced the N600, which I believe was their first US production car. At first the big 3 barely took notice, then as the smaller cars caught on with the public, small car sales took off. And it definitely helped that the timing was perfect; (increasing fuel prices and eventual claimed shortages at the pump). By the time the big-3 knew what was happening the Japanese were well on their way, and the big-3 found themselves trying to catch up. Who knows, maybe Aptera is the company that will repeat that success by doing the same thing... thinking outside the box. I just hope Aptera can figure a way to keep the cost per unit price under control.

In any case, I think Aptera is definitely on their way to building a better mouse trap, and like Honda, exactly at the right time. As soon as they are permitting out-of-state sales, I'll have mine on order (even if I have to do my own maintenance).

SR-71

[KarenRei]

At that point the big guys would probably start planning a strategy to buy Aptera out; but not for production

Why on earth would they buy a company that's being quite profitable to then get rid of it? You're acting like GM hates money. If the choice is between "buy a company and earn money like crazy on it" and "buy the same company for the same price and then throw away all of our investment", it's a no-brainer which they'd choose. Like all companies, they're in the business of turning a profit for shareholders.

[appyfan]

Karen, they wouldn't buy them to make money, they would buy them to inhibit change. Aptera represents progress and progress is synonymous with change.

Right now Aptera is a joke to the big auto makers. But once they see people buying Aptera's instead of Chevy's, it's entirely possible that there will be some business talks. Aptera will not be a source of profit, it will be a way to keep people buying profitable, obsolete technology.

[n_dawg]

Well, considering that Aptera is a private company, they would have to convince the owners, or Idealab. Both of these seem unlikely.

[SR-71]

Why on earth would they buy a company that's being quite profitable to then get rid of it? You're acting like GM hates money. If the choice is between "buy a company and earn money like crazy on it" and "buy the same company for the same price and then throw away all of our investment", it's a no-brainer which they'd choose. Like all companies, they're in the business of turning a profit for shareholders.

Hi Karen - This is just my opinion of course, but I figure the Aptera design would be considered way too unconventional by the powers-that-be at GM. Notice that 99.9% of the vehicles on the road today look [at least somewhat], like a box shape with 4 wheels? The Aptera design would no doubt be WAY OUT THERE for most GM Exec's. They would probably consider the Aptera even beyond a Concept design. Lets' face it, the Aptera design is unique and way ahead of its time. GM typically makes only minor changes to their designs; from year to year; more cup holders, slight body design changes, MP3 player connectivity, minor horsepower increases, etc.

Also GM Exec's might consider the Aptera a giant bucket of worms from the product liability standpoint (recalls, yet unknown safety issues, etc).

A few years back there was a book written about the story of GM's C5 Corvette. It detailed how difficult it was to get design changes approved through GM's management chain, on a car that had already been established since 1953. And how the production of the C5 almost didn't make it to production at all. The book was a real eye-opener for me.

But assuming GM did buy Aptera, (and again, just my opinion), more than likely what would happen is GM would utilize whatever technology improvements they could reap from the Aptera, then incorporate those improvements into a more conventional vehicle, like their GM Volt, with hopes of improving profits on their future (conventional) designs.

And of course there's another angle to consider. If GM bought Aptera and killed production it would eliminate some of their competition which they would probably increase profits on their conventional vehicles - thus reestablishing their sales numbers and profits.

SR-71

[KarenRei]

Karen, they wouldn't buy them to make money, they would buy them to inhibit change.

That is *the only* thing car companies care about: money. They don't give a whit about change. They care about cold, hard cash, and however they can wring as much of it out as they can.

The Aptera design would no doubt be WAY OUT THERE for most GM Exec's. They would probably consider the Aptera even beyond a Concept design

If it was too way out, then they wouldn't buy it.

This is really simple economics here. The goal of a company is to maximize its profit to shareholders. Companies live and die by this. The rate of return is based on how much money they make versus how much they put in (including investments in research), adjusted for interest and inflation. Also, the risk of an investment has to be taken into account, and is a very major factor (once you retire the risk -- such as showing that there's a market for a space-age electric car that looks kind of like a dolphin -- and you better darn well believe that's a lot of risk! -- all that's left is the return). In your situation, the purchase is premised on a successful Aptera -- risk retired, solid rate of return -- which has no negatives. This is fundamentally different from launching the idea yourself and accepting the risk.

Small players in the market tend to take far greater risks. In return, investors (knowing that they could lose all of their investment) expect far greater returms. Large caps like GM tend to be exceedingly cautious and take very conservative approaches to change. That doesn't mean, however, if the risk has been retired on something that was seen as radical, but is now successful, that they wouldn't love to have it in their porfolio. They don't dislike the profit; they dislike the risk. Like all companies. There is really only one situation in which profitable ventures are purchased and then killed off: products in direct competition, where the company doing the purchase sees more profit potential in their own product (more often the opposite happens -- a company is bought and the buyer's own product in competition is killed off). This is rare. The Aptera does not directly compete with any GM products; the sort of person who buys an Aptera is not going to have bought a Yukon instead. Quite to the contrary, Aptera hits the fuel-efficient Japanese imports the hardest. GM owning Aptera would essentially be stealing from Toyota and Honda. Which is a dream come true for GM. Even if it *was* competing with their own products, it would *at worst* be revenue-neutral for them, since they'd own both brands.

Back to products. Why is it that they keep making four wheeled boxes that look similar? Risk, as just described. Toyota and Honda took a huge risk making things "merely" as radical looking as the Prius and the Insight. Toyota's gamble paid off. Honda's gamble failed, and they had to go back to a more conventional vehicle for their hybrid drivetrain (the Civic). That's risk for you. There is another force at play as well, also shaped by consumer hesitation: what people are willing to pay for what. In the US, consumers in general expect to pay linearly more if a vehicle is proportionally larger or has proportionally more horsepower. Well, adding horsepower or building larger doesn't cost the company as much as people are willing to pay extra; this directly translates to larger profit margins on every sale. And, all together now: what are all companies motivated by, above all else?

*Profit*.

GM will keep fighting mileage regulations, emissions standards, and promoting as big of vehicles as they can so long as people are willing to pay more. Thankfully, high gas prices are *finally* starting to change this buying trend.

[SR-71]

Profit is the overall bottom line of course. Then again, like most major auto makers, GM has designers working on wild off-the-wall designs that never see the light of day, much less ever turn a profit.

Assuming GM exec's could actually agree to go into production on something like the Aptera, (and I would expect to see Forest Gump as our President first), they would have already done it. They certainly have had the resources.

[Mr Aptera]

Ok, so let's look at this from any large car company's perspective. You have a startup company with a disruptive innovation that could change the industry. You can either continue to do business as usual, match their game, or buy them out.

If you're a big company looking at this, you have to note something: Aptera has 2,500+ reservations in less than a year for a car that's not even in production. They've sold people on the concept with pretty pictures and a couple videos. I sure as heck hope that those aren't all CG. If you look at the numbers, they've already booked $75M in sales (assuming all Typ-1H, and no drop outs). That's impressive no matter how you cut it.

Aptera is a private company, so they don't have to sell. However, being small-ish, they are susceptible to dirty games, such as frivilous lawsuits, etc. GM could just sue them out of existence if they really wanted to.

If the owner's sell, Aptera's fate depends on who buys them. I think any company will want to try to see this succeed, but some companies will fail. Detroit will mismanage it. Japanese companies won't like the risk. Tata motors would be interesting, but they just blew a wad of cash on Jaguar and LR.

I think that Aptera's owners won't sell out. At least they shouldn't. And they shouldn't go public, because once that happens they'll be subject to a hostile takeover - which will happen.

APTERA OWNERS - Take a lesson from Mark Zuckerburg, the founder of Facebook. He has consistently been offered to sell, but he stuck it out and is now worth around $1.5B. That's B as in Billions. DON'T SELL OUT!!!

[gkra]

If you look at the numbers, they've already booked $75M in sales (assuming all Typ-1H, and no drop outs). That's impressive no matter how you cut it.

Or $66.25 million, assuming 2500 orders for the Typ-1e. Either way, no small chunk of change.

APTERA OWNERS - Take a lesson from Mark Zuckerburg, the founder of Facebook. He has consistently been offered to sell, but he stuck it out and is now worth around $1.5B. That's B as in Billions. DON'T SELL OUT!!!

Well, he only sees that money if he does sell out. So... Don't sell out until you think you're getting good value for your time and effort? :)

[SR-71]

Everything considered $75M and $2,500+ potential sales in less than a year is certainly impressive numbers for a start-up auto company, but to put those numbers in perspective, here's an interesting stat. Just in the first three months of 2007, Toyota together with its half-owned subsidiary Daihatsu reported number one sales of 2.348 million units.

Granted, night and day difference between these two companies and Aptera will more than likely grow but I think most larger auto makers will not even notice Aptera - at least for a good long while.

[johnvall]

Not only GM but also any big oil companies, we are like drug addicts, more fuel we use, more fuel we want,

[Aptera2435]

I think the major auto makers are paying attention. Several have proposed three wheeled designs but haven't yet launched. If one company produces a successful vehicle that gets a lot of free publicity (which the Aptera will), then a copy won't be too far behind. With the Aptera's movie star good looks, and the trend to embrace green tech, there will be imitators.

[lwylie]

Recently, I heard part of an NPR discussion detailing the response of several American auto maker's to the rise in fuel costs. GM's response (paraphrasing here) was that they had looked at hybrid technology and decided to stick with what they do best. While corporations are indeed in business to make money, this fact does not preclude them from being dinosaurs, IMHO.

[SR-71]

Well perhaps the question of this post has been answered...

GM reported last week that they're going ahead with the Chevy Volt - production model expected in 2010. Electric powered with 1 liter gas generator to charge the batteries, with generators in the wheels for recharge when breaking and going downhill.

Buying Aptera would probably have been less expensive than all the R&D dollars they pored (and are poring) into their Volt.

SR-71

[jdbgn]

You need to watch the movie "Who Killed The Electric Car" then rethink your reply's.
GM would lose a great deal of money on electric cars. The maintenance factor drops to near zero.
The oil companies are in the same boat. They stand to lose their profits on over a trillion barrels of oil still in the ground.
Money talks and both the auto makers and the oil companies have a great deal of it to squash upstart electric vehicle manufacturers.

[SR-71]

jdgn - Perhaps they reconsidered. Here's GM's news report:

http://gm-volt.com/2008/06/03/gm-ceo-chevy-volt-is-a-go-production-schedule-approved-by-the-board-and-design-shown-publicly-in-the-very-near-future/

[Matthijs]

jdgn - Perhaps they reconsidered. Here's GM's news report:

http://gm-volt.com/2008/06/03/gm-ceo-chevy-volt-is-a-go-production-schedule-approved-by-the-board-and-design-shown-publicly-in-the-very-near-future/
Lol I really liked a comment on the story: The article I read also drubbed the Hummer a bit as the symbol of gas guzzlers, and that GM might sell the brand. But imagine turning that beast into an EREV. Imagine if it might actually “hum”…

[JimmyDreams]

Not only GM but also any big oil companies, we are like drug addicts, more fuel we use, more fuel we want,

Oddly enough, I'm kind of the other way around. Once I start down the path of 'getting off the grid' so to speak, I start looking for MORE ways to further my grid-getting-offedness. :)

Unfortunately, due to big oil and the big car manufacturers, doing this at this early-adopter phase is expensive. If 'we' as a country chose to, we could have PV power affordable and abundant.

An Aptera in the driveway, plugged into some solar cells on the roof. NICE. But that will remain expensive because once you buy the car, the PV cells, and the extension cord, no one makes any more money.

Oh well...one can dream....

JimmyD

[evolutionmovement]

The good thing about it is that with these gas prices, nobody but the oil companies are making money and that might force a change of thinking (or even any thinking at all) with the guv'ment. Besides, we need to be advancing this kind of oil-less new tech to stay near the top of the world economy as well.

[Scott]

I would hope (meaning I have no idea whether GM would entertain such a thing) that they would not acquire Aptera, or any of the other "way the heck out there" startups. Aptera and its kin are probably the only safe way to introduce radical new concepts in automotive design. The Honda Insight probably wouldn't have failed so quickly if there was already some groundswell acceptance for bizarre designs.

Having very small niche operations, like Aptera, handle the process of broadening peoples minds to what's "cool" or "acceptable" would probably HELP the big automakers, because they could begin stepping out of the box themselves to compete with each other instead of all fundamentally building the same vehicles with minor variations in build quality.

I would the think a compelling reason for big automakers to snap up a startup outfit is if they have some compelling technology that they want to acquire. Well, Aptera doesn't, really. They are just willing to take huge risks against public opinion to combine things that make sense from an engineering perspective in the hope that people actually *will* be willing to buy a vehicle straight out of the 1950's science fiction.

[SR-71]

I don't think the Honda Insight failed due to a lack of education to bizarre designs. I owned an Insight for two years. While it's styling was a bit unique, people bought the Insight for one of three reasons; fuel mileage and/or to have the ability to access the HOV lanes (in some states) without having a car pool, or they just wanted to be a bit more green. The Insight did get good fuel mileage; I averaged 55-60mpg, and even managed 71.2 mpg once, but it was one of the roughest riding, uncomfortable, and under-powered cars I had ever owned. The Insight was also the first car I had ever owned that had a weight limit (not that you could fit much in the car anyway). What can I say, it was what it was. The sales numbers were down so Honda dropped it.

Here in Virginia rumors were floating around that laws would eventually change kicking all Hybrid vehicles off the HOV lanes, which was a major incentive for me - and HOV-3 would be the rule. Of course owners of the 2 seat Insight would just be out of luck! I ended up selling my Insight (resale loss was terrible), and bought a Prius. My Prius reaps less mileage (48-51mpg), but I have zero regrets.

Lesson learned. Great fuel mileage is a nice thing to have, but paying less at the pump seems to loose it's charm when you're getting your teeth jarred loose! :)

SR-71

[KarenRei]

SR-71: OOC, did you ever try changing to a different brand of tires?

[SR-71]

Karen - No, just changed the brand of car. :D I do remember inquiring about a different tire but the dealership highly recommended staying with the OEM tire.

[KarenRei]

Low rolling loss tires can lead to a rougher ride. I would have tried that first ;)

[wcabdefense]

Corbin Motors went belly up about 4 years ago, and I lost 1,000 Deposit after they put about a dozen Merlin on the road. Their Merlin was a single passenger commuter car with gas platform, as compared to the current NMG (Prior Sparrow). It was supposed to get about 75mpg, and looked like a sweet idea at the time. GM could more easily buy the Merlin rights and put a Clone on the road in 2 years or less. Hell, they could probably make Merlin comply with regular auto safety, and make it a better product at the same time. I drive alone 85% of the time, and a lot of others do, too. Merlin would complement the fuel-efficient market rather than kill an Aptera innovator. In the meantime, I am waiting for my Aptera Hybrid.

[JoeReal]

Daimler and Tesla Motors recently inked some deals, so it will not be far-fetched that Aptera Motors would be in for some good deals in the future.

http://www.foxbusiness.com/story/markets/industries/transportation/tesla-inks-small-deal-daimler-grow/

[johnvall]

There is a lot ahead of us before any speculation about Who is Buying Who. There is a lot that Aptera need to proved in the future, by now averything APPEAR to be going good. The pudding by now it is just been cooked. The technology, reliabilty and safety of the car must be proved before we can say, this is what we where expecting of Aptera.

[Drack]

GM is facing hard times, and is already developing a PHEV of their own - the Volt.

I don't think they would want to acquire a company like Aptera. They would be spending an emormous amount of money they already can't spare, and not benefit much. I don't think GM sees Aptera as a practical acquisition.

[JakesOnline]

Has anyone noticed Aptera's biggest funder is an oil company?

[pk-sd]

Has anyone noticed Aptera's biggest funder is an oil company?

Who would that be ?

[JakesOnline]

Some articles just name Esenjay Explorations as the funder and others name Michael Johnson CEO of Esenjay.

Michael Johnson is also on the board at Kontron Mobile Computing which makes motherboards which have been used in StreetDeck products.

[pk-sd]

Some articles just name Esenjay Explorations as the funder and others name Michael Johnson CEO of Esenjay.

Michael Johnson is also on the board at Kontron Mobile Computing which makes motherboards which have been used in StreetDeck products.

And that makes an it "Aptera's biggest funder is an oil company" ? Its a stretch to put it mildly!!

Has anyone noticed Aptera's biggest funder is an oil company?

[JakesOnline]

And that makes an it "Aptera's biggest funder is an oil company" ? Its a stretch to put it mildly!!

Well, yes. Based on this NY Times article:
http://www.nctimes.com/articles/2007/09/26/business/news/7_01_009_25_07.txt

Over the last two years, Aptera Motors received two more cash infusions, Fambro says. It got about $1 million from Idealab, a Pasadena-based venture capital firm. That funding was followed by more than $1 million from another investor, Esenjay Explorations, an oil and gas drilling company based in Corpus Christi, Texas.

I think the StreetDeck connection is more interesting than the oil connection. I just happened to make the oil connection first, hence my first post.

[JimmyDreams]

Well, yes. Based on this NY Times article:
http://www.nctimes.com/articles/2007/09/26/business/news/7_01_009_25_07.txt

Ok....so 50% of their LATEST cash infusion was from an oil company. That makes an oil company one of their contributors, but certainly not 'one of their largest'. We have no idea how many millions Aptera has received from other sources.

Besides, maybe that oil company sees the writing on the wall and is looking to set up a profitable venture beyond the oil industry???

JimmyD

[KarenRei]

Esenjay would best be described as "Little Oil" (as opposed to "Big Oil") ;) 1.8 million in annual sales:

http://www.manta.com/coms2/dnbcompany_fkxygr

It's a good example of why people's tendancy to lump together all oil companies as though they're all some part of the same shadowy entity isn't accurate. Different oil companies take very different approaches to the world, just like different auto manufacturers do. Some are more into diversifying into renewables and alternative transportation than others. The classic example I give is the world's biggest and second biggest supermajors: Exxon-Mobil and Royal Dutch Shell. For the longest time, Exxon-Mobil has been outright funding extensive amounts of sowing seeds of doubt about global warming, going so far as to offer a prize to any scientist who'd publish in a peer-reviewed journal a paper that denies some aspect of global warming, hosting global warming denial conferences, and so on. Shell chancellors, on the other hand, have actually gone so far as to give speeches calling on governments to do more to crack down on global warming, and the company has invested a good bit in alternative energy and carbon sequestration.

Not all oil companies are the same. Just like with all companies, they're headed by people -- people from different backgrounds with different views on the world.

One other thing people might be surprised about: oil company lobbying/campaign contributions. It's interesting to spend some time browsing around on OpenSecrets.org. Two things I found surprising were 1) compared to the size of their industry, their contributions were smaller than I would have expected -- in some cases a lot smaller. Of the top industries donating to congress, for example, oil and gas ranked only 20th in 2008 - between "Building Trade Unions" and "Hospitals/Nursing Homes"; 2) while the lobbying on some fronts was the sort of stuff you'd expect from oil companies -- looser restrictions on how they can drill, less strict controls on refining operations, and so on -- their lobbying related to foreign relations was resoundingly *antiwar*. Each big oil company had at least one hostile country that they were lobbying the US to *improve* relations with -- Iran, Libya, Sudan, etc. Oil companies need stability and cordial relations to be able to drill; people blowing up pipelines or the like is a nightmare for them.

[JakesOnline]

I didn't say it was a bad thing. Esenjay is also in the natural gas business. I am a huge proponent of natural gas. I'm considering purchasing a Civic GX.

[evolutionmovement]

Mobil/Exxon also pushed leaded fuel when it was being discussed as an additive for gasoline to raise compression ratios back in the '10's and got the weasel US AG to go along with it despite the known effects even back then. Britain's AG equivalent went along with the US report without doing independent research and we had leaded fuel for decades. They still sell it in Africa (and of course for piston-engine aircraft until 2010).

I don't think Big Oil really needs to lobby that aggressively since they have the world over a barrel. They're very much like the modern day British East India Trade Co.

[JoeReal]

One other thing people might be surprised about: oil company lobbying/campaign contributions. It's interesting to spend some time browsing around on OpenSecrets.org. Two things I found surprising were 1) compared to the size of their industry, their contributions were smaller than I would have expected -- in some cases a lot smaller.....


One thing to remember is that those who are in the government offices are oil tycoons, or are involved and have businesses tied to oil, or oil investors themselves, so there is absolutely no need to lobby, hence the smaller contributions. The lobbying effort are for other purposes like stability of countries they deal with.

So don't be surprised why oil companies gets $20 billion/year subsidy while the renewable or alternative energy, not even $1B, and being threatened of budget cuts. Why not $1B for oil industry subsidy and $20B for alternative energy development?

[JakesOnline]

Mobil/Exxon also pushed leaded fuel when it was being discussed as an additive for gasoline to raise compression ratios back in the '10's and got the weasel US AG to go along with it despite the known effects even back then. Britain's AG equivalent went along with the US report without doing independent research and we had leaded fuel for decades. They still sell it in Africa (and of course for piston-engine aircraft until 2010).

I don't think Big Oil really needs to lobby that aggressively since they have the world over a barrel. They're very much like the modern day British East India Trade Co.


Probably true, especially with the growing demand for oil in China. China will probably surpass the US in oil consumption.

[pandabear]

Toyota got rid of their excellent EV's also. Everyone who had one wanted to keep it but they weren't allowed to, unless they were famous. They could have sold tons of EV's, but they took it off the market. They are partners with GM: I know a retired guy that worked for GM and he knows it's true. If Aptera sells out, it'll be because THEY are all about quick profit. We already know what GM's about.

[JoeReal]

Toyota got rid of their excellent EV's also. Everyone who had one wanted to keep it but they weren't allowed to, unless they were famous. They could have sold tons of EV's, but they took it off the market. They are partners with GM: I know a retired guy that worked for GM and he knows it's true. If Aptera sells out, it'll be because THEY are all about quick profit. We already know what GM's about.

It's different with the Toyota RAV EV, the test owners were given their right of first refusal, got to pay at almost ordinary price as the gas RAV to keep theirs. We have at least one owner of the all Electric Toyota RAV in our town.

[JoeReal]

http://www.seattleeva.org/wiki/Toyota_RAV4_EV
The Toyota RAV4 Electric Vehicle is an electric version of the popular RAV4 SUV.

Toyota Motor Corporation discontinued production of the RAV4 Electric Vehicle worldwide in the spring of 2003. The vehicle sold far faster than expected, and after just eight months the retail program was terminated. There was very little advertising, and few people knew that they were ever available. In the US RAV4 EVs were only available for sale at a relatively few selected dealers in the Los Angeles and San Francisco regions beginning in 1997.

Beginning in February of 2002, the public could buy or lease the non-polluting SUV in limited quantities at participating Toyota dealers. The MSRP was $42,000; but in California, rebates of $9,000 and a $3,000 credit from the Internal Revenue Service brought the price down to a more palatable $30,000, including home charger. This 100-percent electric vehicle (EV) can transport passengers at speeds up to 78 miles per hour, with a range of over 100 miles per charge. This was to give Toyota additional vehicles to address the California Air Resources Board's zero-emissions vehicle (ZEV) mandate, which would have required 2 percent of a manufacturer's vehicle sales within the state to be ZEV. CARB eliminated most of the ZEV requirement, substituting a greater number of partial zero-emissions vehicles (PZEVs) to meet the requirement. A Super Ultra Low Emissions Vehicle (SULEV) category was also added. This program requirement was designed to obtain equivalent emissions reductions by substituting less expensive and more general purpose vehicles.

Unlike other manufacturers, Toyota did not recall vehicles, destroy them, and completely terminate the program. Toyota did, however cease sales one day after the California ZEV mandate was terminated by the substitution of PZEV vehicles. While no longer sold, the vehicle is still supported and is driven daily by hundreds of lucky owners.

http://greenhome.huddler.com/products/2002-toyota-rav4-ev

2002 Toyota Rav4 Electric Vehicle
The Toyota RAV4 EV is an all-electric version of the popular RAV4 SUV. It is powered exclusively by NiMH batteries.

328 RAV4 EVs were made available in November of 2002 and sold out immediately. After the 328th one sold, the program was unceremoniously shut down. The EV-95 battery was no longer available. Chevron had inherited control of the worldwide patent rights for the NiMH EV-95 battery when it merged with Texaco, which had purchased them from General Motors. Chevron's unit won a $30,000,000 settlement from Toyota and Panasonic, and the production line for the large NiMH batteries was closed down and dismantled. Only smaller NiMH batteries, incapable of powering an electric vehicle or plugging in, are currently allowed by Chevron-Texaco.

[pandabear]

Well Joe,
There was a very long article in an Orange County paper about a guy who loved his
Toyota EV, and grieved the loss of it when it was recalled. They would not let him lease it or buy it. (months later...), a Toyota spokesman mis spoke about selling the cars they had recalled. In order to save face, they did sell some of them at that time. Of course they are selling as used cars today.
The point is, they took them off the market even though many people wanted them...including the ones that already had them.

[pandabear]

Well, there you have it. Thanks to Chevron for killing the Toyota EV. I think they have most of what we need on their shelves...inventions that were bought and never used.

[JoeReal]

Well Joe,
There was a very long article in an Orange County paper about a guy who loved his
Toyota EV, and grieved the loss of it when it was recalled. They would not let him lease it or buy it. (months later...), a Toyota spokesman mis spoke about selling the cars they had recalled. In order to save face, they did sell some of them at that time. Of course they are selling as used cars today.
The point is, they took them off the market even though many people wanted them...including the ones that already had them.

Yep, this can happen, the dealers do not communicate very well with suppliers and vice versa, and the links I posted above were the official stance of the companies involved.

[JoeReal]

Well, there you have it. Thanks to Chevron for killing the Toyota EV. I think they have most of what we need on their shelves...inventions that were bought and never used.

It is quite different now with the GM Volt. At least the A123 batteries have patents owned by MIT people, and not big oil. The Aptera, I have to admit it, will not have any significant impact at all, in terms of scales of production. GM will first start selling off 10,000 Volts followed by 100,000 Volts the following year, and perhaps 250,000 volts if it clicked with the public.

While over here with Aptera, they will be producing a handful by the end of the year, may be a couple thousand next year, and perhaps 4,000 to 10,000 the year after that. I love the unique design and fuel economy of Aptera over other electric vehicles being touted out there, it is just that I might get the Volt first due to the very long queue at Aptera Motors but I might get both.

[JimmyDreams]

While over here with Aptera, they will be producing a handful by the end of the year, may be a couple thousand next year, and perhaps 4,000 to 10,000 the year after that. I love the unique design and fuel economy of Aptera over other electric vehicles being touted out there, it is just that I might get the Volt first due to the very long queue at Aptera Motors but I might get both.

For $40,000, the volt had better exceed what the Aptera can do. Oh wait, it won't? Ok, nevermind...I'll wait for my Aptera. :)

JimmyD

[JoeReal]

For $40,000, the volt had better exceed what the Aptera can do. Oh wait, it won't? Ok, nevermind...I'll wait for my Aptera. :)

JimmyD

Seats 4, :)
I might get both. I need to replace 3 of my "gas"lers anyway, they're due to be replaced, so I'll just hold on a little longer. Will have enough budget for both.

[Vasil]

You guys are looking at this from the wrong perspective. You need to see it from the investors' eyes.

There would be two types of investors going into a startup company: those who want to see the company flourish and enter the market as a major player, and those who want to see the company start market ripples that would force the big guys to buy them out. There are inherent risks with both approaches.

1. If you want the company to flourish, you're hoping the well established big players don't buy out your company. If they do, you may see a generous payout during the sale of the company, but then again you may not. If the company does flourish (in this case, Aptera), then you stand to be one of the ground floor investors that would be vested in the next GM.

2. If you put money into a startup company hoping the big guys buy him out, you're betting on the large sale payout. It would be like investing in a new cell phone carrier that has only enough infrastructure to function long enough for Sprint or AT&T to buy them out, hopefully yielding a hefty dividend.

What's the tipping point? The product. If the product and business model are robust enough, the company will successfully penetrate the market and the investments will take off.

Even if GM is willing to buy Aptera, the majority of Aptera's stock holders must OK the sale. If they OK the sale, the result is obvious, but only if the payout is substantial. No sense putting in $20k of investments to get $21k as a buyout dividend, especially after X number of years of investment. Now, imagine if Aptera says no to the sale. They're in it as a legitimate contender, and GM or any other auto maker will have a tough fight to go up against a wholly green auto maker with a viable product. In this instance, I'm sure there are millions invested in Aptera's success and subsequent growth. Roll out a new model a year later that seats four, maybe has four wheels, four doors, and more cup holders and you have a new product introduced to market.

Oh, and as for anyone's mechanic buddies that are all huffy about new electric cars, tell them to reinvest in an education in maintaining e-vehicles. Not our fault they're too vested in archaic technology...

[speculawyer]

Right now I'd love to see Aptera be acquired by GM assuming they will crank out the cars.

GM has lots of idle factories and Aptera has a nice car design and more on the way.

[jdbgn]

If GM got ahold of Aptera they would either double the price of the vehicle or kill it.
Plain and simple.
Look at the $40000 Volt.
No range and super expensive.

[esmith]

In the next two years, one of two things will happen.

1) Aptera will turn out to be a massive flop (a cross of Delorean and Corbin) and they will go out of business.
or 2) We'll stop wondering whether Aptera would eventually be acquired by GM, and start wondering whether GM would eventually be acquired by Aptera.

[johnvall]

To be talking about acquisition is to put the carriage in front of the horses, there is a lot to be proven yet by Aptera.

[KarenRei]

I don't think anyone gobbling up GM is very realistic. They're too big. More realistically, I imagine they're probably going to start selling off assets to help get themselves out of their current financial hole.

[esmith]

They used to be big, but they're not any more. Their market cap is something like $5 billion.

[jstdadd]

Maybe Daimler will buy GM. They did so well with the Chrysler purchase, why not?

Yes, GM is $5.6B market cap, but a recent article said they had $20B+ available as ready reserves (they are very diversified, remember) and they could hold on a couple of years.

GM with the Volt and Ford with the Ranger EV already have all the technology to make a successful EV. Look on eBay, Ford Ranger EVs are selling like hotcakes when they come online, and they have wet cell Lead Acid battery packs. They owners say there is little maintenance - think about how much maintenance the oil and gas chugging engine takes, including all the environmental controls, occasional smog checks, catalytic converter and exhaust system. None of that on an EV.

The big car makers abhor a car that won't wear out in 8-10 years. No re-buying frenzy.

[daddio]

Let me know what I can do for Aptera/you all to "spread the word" on Aperta here on the east coast...

I can only read about it.... but have never seen/touched an :aptera: So I can only say it reads well and some of its "technology followers" seem to be impressed (I'm not permitted to invest in one yet... to report on my own:rolleyes: )

[pandabear]

Right now I'd love to see Aptera be acquired by GM assuming they will crank out the cars.

GM has lots of idle factories and Aptera has a nice car design and more on the way.

That's true, and I wish it were like that. Unfortunately, the world doesn't operate that way. It's more likely that GM would purchase :aptera: just to get the competition off the road. That's what the oil companies have done, sucessfully for decades. On the shelves of the oil companies, sit the most wonderful inventions. All of them in competion for oil.
We'll see them soon though. OPEC won't increase production because it can't. Peak oil is here and they're trying to get the most per barrel that they can before it's all gone :scared0008: So, is that good news or bad news...or just news.

[danieloneil01]

They just need to hurry up, before something else better comes out. By the time the whole country is able to buy one Toyota or Honda may have something just like it. And then they would be go under.

[pandabear]

Honda has the fuel cell car. Unfortunately, you need a natural gas hook up to generate the hydrogen fuel for the car. Kinda defeats the whole purpose for me. I like the electric car far better. GM ? Heck, all the big 3 are capable of taking the whole market back, but I think they've been in bed with big oil for too long to change quickly enough :love0014: . That's the advantage :aptera: has. Big oil hasn't built a new refiner for years, and they never will. The age of oil is about over, and it's about time.

[jstdadd]

SOAPBOX_MODE=ON
I think that the whole hyrdrogen-fuel issue is a smokescreen. Converting hydrogen from another carbon-fuel source loses energy - there are tons of studies and calculations on the efficiency of producing hydrogen by various means.

The only method for producing hydrogen on the car that could 'possibly' be efficient is using Brown's gas, and I doubt we will see anything commercially available there within 10 years. Then you are carrying a couple gallons of water and a rather large hydrogen generator around - yes, eventually you might shrink that part.

Hydrogen fueling stations and on-vehicle storage are horrendously expensive and wasteful. Electric is the answer, and electric-series-hybrid gives extensive range. Look for a big battery energy density improvement in the next 5 years as the market for such batteries surges.

I don't think the age of oil is over, but the age of personal transportation that is oil-based is headed for a cliff.

I think the oil companies would LOVE to be able to keep us connected to the pump with hydrogen filling stations. Even though Compressed Natural Gas (CNG) is a much, much better alternative, cheaper and needs no huge technical advances to work. Still, it is a fossil fuel and burning it in your car has much of the same problems that burning gasoline has in terms of engine durability, cost of ownership and pollution controls.
SOAPBOX_MODE=OFF

I'll take electric any time.

[KarenRei]

The only method for producing hydrogen on the car that could 'possibly' be efficient is using Brown's gas, and I doubt we will see anything commercially available there within 10 years. Then you are carrying a couple gallons of water and a rather large hydrogen generator around - yes, eventually you might shrink that part.

It's a scam. That's not even the proper name for it; the proper name is "oxyhydrogen". If you see anyone promoting something that mention's "Brown's Gas", especially concerning using it to power a car, they're probably trying to scam you.

[pandabear]

SOAPBOX_MODE=ON
I think that the whole hyrdrogen-fuel issue is a smokescreen. Converting hydrogen from another carbon-fuel source loses energy - there are tons of studies and calculations on the efficiency of producing hydrogen by various means.

The only method for producing hydrogen on the car that could 'possibly' be efficient is using Brown's gas, and I doubt we will see anything commercially available there within 10 years. Then you are carrying a couple gallons of water and a rather large hydrogen generator around - yes, eventually you might shrink that part.

Hydrogen fueling stations and on-vehicle storage are horrendously expensive and wasteful. Electric is the answer, and electric-series-hybrid gives extensive range. Look for a big battery energy density improvement in the next 5 years as the market for such batteries surges.

I don't think the age of oil is over, but the age of personal transportation that is oil-based is headed for a cliff.

I think the oil companies would LOVE to be able to keep us connected to the pump with hydrogen filling stations. Even though Compressed Natural Gas (CNG) is a much, much better alternative, cheaper and needs no huge technical advances to work. Still, it is a fossil fuel and burning it in your car has much of the same problems that burning gasoline has in terms of engine durability, cost of ownership and pollution controls.
SOAPBOX_MODE=OFF

I'll take electric any time.

This is pandabear and I heartily approve this message !

[nuaetius]

There is almost no commonality between the supply chains of GM and Aptera. There are no components that are currently in produced by GM that can be transferred to a GM Aptera division. In the end the Aptera product is a motorcycle, so therefore let’s look at companies that DO have supply chain commonality with the Aptera product.

Reasons why all motorcycle manufactures make more since than a car manufacturer:

-Production and distribution of an Aperta will need to be in the motorcycle model. (Shipped in crates, final asembley at the dealership) The reason for this is that shipping costs are greatly reduced because the product can be shipped by train/truck as freight (half the cost of car transport).

-Aperta products have 1/10 the moving parts of a ICE car. This puts its part count closer to the ICE motorcycle.

-Because of a guaranteed nitch market status, and a likely quick evolution of design in the coming years, a “just on time” manufacturing process makes the most since. Only Honda and Suzuki manufacture at full scale, all others use the JOT approach.

Makes by advantage/disadvantage

Harley Davidson

Pros: Largest domestic motorcycle manufacturer. Harley has a history of buying smaller manufactures and incorporating their products into their lines (MV Agusta Group, Buell, Indian). Many design partners (Ford, Porsche, etc..)

Cons: No carbon fiber experience, No electric drive experience, Marketing aproach out of sink with Aperta Product

Honda:

Pros: Honda is currently one of the world’s largest producers of small generators, and motorcycles. All components besides the motor and body can be sourced from already existing products (Suspension from racing division, batteries from new Prius clone, transmission from motor cycle division, electronics and safety features from car division, etc..). Honda has a currently established world wide distribution/regulation compliance network through out the world.

Cons: Aptera product will compete with vehicles already in Design chain. No in mass carbon fiber experience

Lotus:

Pros: One of the largest manufactures of Carbon fiber bodies/Frames. Company willing to sell “gliders” (Think Tesla). Already in the “JOT” manufacturing model.

Con: Already has agreements in place with Tesla, might me a conflict.


I think that the best approach would be for Aperta to stay independent, but affiliate with Honda for the suspension and drive train, and Lotus for the body. Do final assembly in California and North Carolina for distribution and tax benefits.

[G-Jet]

Interesting points nuaetius.

Currently, the typ1 uses NO carbon fiber anywhere.

G

[chasmccl]

Given its current stock price, perhaps the better idea would be for Aptera to acquire GM. :character0012:

[DonC]

GM has already acquired Aptera ... it was called the EV-1. I'm sort of joking but GM's take on why the EV-1 failed was: (1) two seater; (2) not great performance; (3) limited range. The Aptera has all of these "problems". The Volt addresses them all - four seats, 0-60 in 7 seconds, unlimited range.

The Aptera is a niche vehicle. You have to be something of a gearhead, and one without kids, to want one. (Personally I love the teardrop shape but this is probably not typical). And you have to live in a climate that doesn't have much, if any, inclimate weather.

Definitely not of interest to GM. Maybe Tesla down the road if it becomes what it says it wants to be -- an BEV car company. In that case it might want very effecient BEVs like what Aptera is making. But even then I'd think they'd want a more convential vehicle that seated four and had four wheels.

[KarenRei]

Interesting points nuaetius.

Currently, the typ1 uses NO carbon fiber anywhere.

G

Sure about that?

[G-Jet]

Are you sure they are using carbon fiber?

G

[KarenRei]

No. However, there's a black mesh visible in several videos during the manufacturing process which some have suggested is carbon fiber. And, of course, there's always elements that we haven't seen yet.

Saying "Currently, the typ1 uses NO carbon fiber anywhere." seems pretty hard to defend unless you have insider information, and if so, please do share. :)

[APTERA 2356]

I believe in several videos they say that the body was carbon fiber to reduce weight and it's stronger than steel

[Vasil]

Watch the videos again. The mention the carbon fiber monocoque design, like F-1.

[G-Jet]

Watched all the videos. They mention formula one type monocoque, but not carbon fiber. If you watch the factory tour you can see the parts in the mold, and hear Chris describe the process. Resin infusion over cored composites. Look at all the parts they show, no black telltale sign of CF.

Karen, the black mesh is probably a bonding or seaming type "tape". Composite construction in this manner uses many types of materials including the core material and the skin material. I have yet to see, or hear, any carbon fiber being used.

Cost. That is the issue with CF.

My statement is based on continual research, and a bit of composite construction knowledge. It is possible that the aptera will use some somewhere, but all the vids show regular fiberglass parts.

G

[KarenRei]

G-Jet: I don't have time to dig through the videos for you right now, but I can assure you, it's not tape. It's way too narrow for that; it's either a black fiber mesh or a thin black spacing being used for something akin to honeycomb (except it's a grid, not hexagonal). It's being embedded into the panels. This has been discussed here several times before. I know at least one of the videos where you can see it is the one where they give a guided tour of the vehicle. I think the tour of the factory is another one where you can see it.

[G-Jet]

"tape" is just another word for a binding part or seal etc. etc. I didn't mean actual tape with sticky parts, thus my use of "quotes" (Gary?;)). Sometimes they are used in the bagging process. Honeycomb/grid is a possibility as well, and yes, it appears to be embedded in the panels. Again, normal composite process for resin infusion. The large panels shown clearly are regular fiberglass with some sort of core but no evidence of carbon fiber that I can see.

G

[deanwvu]

Would it necessarily be a bad thing if Aptera were bought out??

No offense to the company--it is great. But, supplying a few hundred (maybe a few thousand) of these vehicles to a few homes in SoCal is not even making a dent in a national problem with oil dependency/pollution/global warming, etc...

I say roll em out for a year, show everyone how great they are, and sell off to someone who can make them in earnest and in bulk. And, make sure the deal specifically states that the buying company WILL do just that--supply xxx,xxx number of units over x number years.

I'd buy one today if there were a servicing dealer somewhere near me...

[Vasil]

Would it necessarily be a bad thing if Aptera were bought out??

No offense to the company--it is great. But, supplying a few hundred (maybe a few thousand) of these vehicles to a few homes in SoCal is not even making a dent in a national problem with oil dependency/pollution/global warming, etc...

I say roll em out for a year, show everyone how great they are, and sell off to someone who can make them in earnest and in bulk. And, make sure the deal specifically states that the buying company WILL do just that--supply xxx,xxx number of units over x number years.

I'd buy one today if there were a servicing dealer somewhere near me...
Sounds like how GM got into their current mess. Build based on projected sales figures, not actual public demand. Don't forget over 60 years in bed with Big Oil, and now a huge hiccup has hurt US auto makers.

Aptera's approach is sound. There is public demand, build your fleet to confirm demand and simultaneously make more demand, then ramp up production. Do NOT hand over your operations to a company that would either 1) dismantle your company as a competitor or 2) take your product down the same myopic marketing path that got them into trouble in the first place. Sure, I have no say for the stock holders of Aptera, but there's a decision between getting paid now in the short term from a buyout, or making lots more income down the road in terms of residual dividend income.