Rehash of the "start with a small batch" idea

[mrienstra]

Just sent the following to Aptera (via their website's contact form).

Disclaimer: Not the most original idea ever. :)

I'm sure you've heard this idea already, but what the heck...

Sell 20 vehicles at $50,000 - $100,000, to raise $1,000,000 - $2,000,000.

Benefits:

* Make it clear that this car isn't vaporware.
* Get valuable real-world feedback.
* Maybe generate some income?

You could even make this first run a little more stripped-down than the 2 series, more like the Typ-1 / Mk-1 in some ways, to keep production costs down.

Actually, it might be interesting to do these by auction.

One angle: collectable, 0-generation Apteras. Each one could have a custom paint job, designed in collaboration with a different artist (or the same artist for all of them). Take a look at the Google Image Search results for "race car classic" : google .com/search?q=race%20car%20classic&tbm=isch -- each Aptera would be numbered, from 1 to 20.

I understand that you seem to be very committed to starting off as a mass-production, affordable vehicle, rather than something boutiquey (like Tesla), which I think is a wise idea. Still, it may be time to briefly alter your strategy in order to get some wheels on the road.

Small request: It would be nice to keep this thread focused on positive ideas. There are plenty of other threads about things not looking so good, things to be upset about, etc. Maybe this one could be a good-old-fashioned "the future looks bright!" thread... or not! :D

[NeilBlanchard]

Right, they need to decide which prototype version would be something they can produce at the scale they can manage.

The fact that they destroyed the molds and tooling for the PP series, is just tragic.

Can they get the firm (in Michigan?) that built the SO-1 to start a small run of chassis? How many can they build for $1Million? Then the good folks at Aptera need to spend another $1Million assembling them.

Start by selling the working units they have; saving just one for show and tell.

[Grendal]

Well done and well said. The Aptera signature series. How can it hurt?

[CyberBill]

I would love it if Aptera would do that... but I just don't think they will.

At this point, I honestly think the only way any of us is going to be driving an Aptera is if someone here makes their own clone and sells shells to other DIYers.

[Rembrant]

Not.:D
If, and that's a huge if, they were going to do something like this it would be the current vehicle they would do it with. Previous designs are history in every sense of the word.
I would guess that if they don't get the DOE loan they may try limited production as a last try to get something done. Or they may just throw in the towel. Who knows.

[wpatters]

The Aptera died when they, whoever. Disregarded the lightness and simplicity rule. It was doomed when they went to front wheel drive.

Just give it up and buy a Prius.

[NeilBlanchard]

Front wheel drive didn't doom the 2e; c'mon. Lightness and simplicity are key, but front wheel drive is very important, too.

[eventhusiast]

The front wheel drive added a huge cost increase, it does make the vehicle better in some respect BUT if you are truly looking for a low cost lightweight ev, then rear wheel drive is the way to go. It is simple, lightweight and propels the vehicle easily.

[NmGfan]

The front wheel drive added a huge cost increase, it does make the vehicle better in some respect BUT if you are truly looking for a low cost lightweight ev, then rear wheel drive is the way to go. It is simple, lightweight and propels the vehicle easily.

The toothed belt and pulleys weigh all of 8 pounds and contain no additional friction inducing shafts or bearings beyond the existing rear wheel bearing and the two bearings in the motor on my EV. Component cost for all three parts is about $125. I don't have regenerative braking, but I regularly consume in the 124 -150 Wh/mile range on daily drives, meaning I run between 6.8 and 8 miles per kWh. It may not be state of the art with respect to utilizing an advanced drive-train, but it is closer to the holy grail of miles-per-kWh than ANYTHING else for sale up to this point in time.

I'm sure I'll hear about the advantages of FWD on this, but a FWD system is heavier, does cost more, is more complex to implement, and has greater frictional losses.

:happy0025:

[palmer_md]

I'd be interested in seeing the difference between the jan 2008 fwd components and the jan 2010 components. I suspect the first version was custom made and worked fine for the power outputs needed for a lightweight vehicle but they were removed and beefed up to utilize mainstream supplier components instead of custom. Total speculation on my part but it has crossed my mind. I liked the simplicity of the belt drive on the rear wheel. It would not have been a dealbreaker for me to not have maximum regen ability. I'm not sure if the gain in regen would have outweighed the loss of efficiency.

[PatQ562]

The toothed belt and pulleys weigh all of 8 pounds and contain no additional friction inducing shafts or bearings beyond the existing rear wheel bearing and the two bearings in the motor on my EV.
"No additional friction inducing shafts or bearings" is not factually correct. For a toothed belt not to slip it must run quite tight, which puts additional drag and wear on the bearings. Furthermore, the RWD Aptera used a 2-stage reduction so it DID have an additional shaft and belt. Granted that belt drive has low weight and low initial cost, but it is not supremely efficient, and requires periodic replacement. Note that the otherwise well-laid-out belt on the Aptera swing arm photo used an idler pulley for tensioning, yet another source of friction.
I wonder whether rear shaft drive, as used on several premium motorcycles, was evaluated. I would still feel safer with FWD and the cost premium would be worth it to me. There are numerous low cost cars with FWD so how expensive can it be?

Pat Q

[eventhusiast]

There is quite a large cost difference. I dont know exactly how much but I bet it is substantial, especially in low production output. The weight is another issue, transaxle gear box, cv joints, and axles add quite a bit more weight. I thought the key to the car in the beginning was to be "simple and lightweight". I kind of hope they do go out of business now, maybe we could get the original cad drawings and fund a kit car business using Kickstarter. Also I think there needs to be single seat version.

[PatQ562]

There is room for a legitimate difference of opinion here. There are some customers who would be quite happy with something close to a motorcycle in amenities, durability and cost. Such customers will be interested in the NMG Duo, or the Arcimoto, to cite two examples. These vehicles use simple "mid tech" solutions. Efficiency is somewhat better than mainstream offerings due to lighter construction and somewhat lower average speeds. The owner gives up a lot in terms of safety, service support, durability, and all weather comfort. Despite cutting amenities to the bone, such efforts still cost upwards of $20K, often a lot more, which makes the value proposition unappealing for almost all regular customers. There are a few motivated users who don't really expect to put more than 30,000 miles on a vehicle in a 5-year period, which is a reasonable estimate of the usable life of a "mid tech" (or "kit car") design. For these customers, the original belt-drive Aptera presented a stylish and maximally efficient alternative with strong appeal.

Those desiring a "real car" as a daily driver that will give the same 100,000-200,000 mile, 10-20 year service as a mainstream compact car, under all-weather conditions, will need fully tested, high tech engineering. This kind of lifetime requires an enclosed, internally lubricated power train, a fully protected battery pack, and a brushless AC motor with the requisite controller electronics. Aptera's original vision also added a strong, lightweight, non-corroding body shell, and a willingness to use now-affordable technology such as rear view cameras and GPS to improve vehicle management and performance. It was a bold vision, but for a while, it looked like a bunch of smart young designers with a $24M nest egg might pull this off. I had at least hoped that they could have fielded limited numbers of a design sufficiently promising to attract the "real money" required to get into mass production.

Regarding added weight for FWD, there is some impact, but both the Austin Mini and Citroen 2CV managed to field shaft-drive FWD vehicles using steel, rubber and glass construction, that weighed 1150-1250 lbs. As numerous persons have observed, if ruthless weight discipline is used throughout the vehicle, the size and weight of the propulsion components and suspension elements can also be reduced.

Selling a few limited-service vehicles to diehard EV fans is not going to change the world of personal transportation. Showing that a nice, full-service car can be delivered that uses several times less energy than mainstream offerings would be a wake-up call. This, I believe, was the inspiration that motivates a lot of the passion on this forum.

All this said, now that the "high tech" vision has been bloated to death, the original version would at least be a fun collector's car.

Pat Q

[NmGfan]

"No additional friction inducing shafts or bearings" is not factually correct. For a toothed belt not to slip it must run quite tight, which puts additional drag and wear on the bearings. Furthermore, the RWD Aptera used a 2-stage reduction so it DID have an additional shaft and belt. Granted that belt drive has low weight and low initial cost, but it is not supremely efficient, and requires periodic replacement. Note that the otherwise well-laid-out belt on the Aptera swing arm photo used an idler pulley for tensioning, yet another source of friction.
I wonder whether rear shaft drive, as used on several premium motorcycles, was evaluated. I would still feel safer with FWD and the cost premium would be worth it to me. There are numerous low cost cars with FWD so how expensive can it be?

Pat Q

Pat,
With respect to rear belt drive, I was speaking about my EV, not a prototype Aptera; so "factually correct" has to do with the NmG I drive every day. As for toothed belt fit, the idler and tensioner mechanism is not required if the pulley's are spaced correctly according to Gates, the manufacturer of matched pulley sets to go with their Carbon fiber GT belts. You are correct in asserting that the tensioning mechanism adds friction, but that is usually done when there is a miss-match between the torque load and belt dimensions, to prevent the belt tooth from jumping out of the pulley cog. It is a light weight effective method of power transfer.

I've had two motorcycles with rear shaft drive, my current R100RS BMW and an earlier Yamaha XS750-IID. Both bikes use the exact same shaft drive mechanism, but the transverse engine on the Yamaha required an extra bevel gear set to change direction which was a serious efficiency killer. The inline set-up on the BMW is better, but both are very unforgiving in rear tire wear upon deceleration.

:happy0025:

[PatQ562]

I've had two motorcycles with rear shaft drive, my current R100RS BMW and an earlier Yamaha XS750-IID. .....but both are very unforgiving in rear tire wear upon deceleration.

Interesting. What does shaft drive do to cause excess rear tire wear?

The carbon fiber belts you cite may be better than the stretchy belts I used 25 years ago to replace noisy chains on a small EV, which left me with a bad impression. It's hard to know if your NMG belt drive is TRULY more efficient unless you have compared it to an alternative, but I will agree it must be at least comparable to other solutions, although chain drive is known to be the most efficient by a few points. Do you have a finding on service life?

Pat Q

[eventhusiast]

Aren't these belt drives similar to timing belt drives in engines? They have a life span over 60-80k miles minimum. I don't see an issue with a properly designed belt drive. As for costs, I know they are vastly different, that is a no brainer. The mid tech phrase does not cut it either, fwd is not high tech, it just looks more impressive. The tech is in the composite body, safety features and batteries. There is no real high tech drive train for ev's in this price range of vehicle. As for this type of drive making the car more "motorcycle" like that is a difference of opinion. Lets say you have two identical cars, one front wheel drive the other rear belt drive, everything else is identical on the exterior and interior of the car. FWD drive car weighs a little more and has a slightly lower range. Cost of the vehicles are several thousand different too, which would you buy? The cheaper rear wheel drive with slightly longer range or the fwd?

[SEGsby]

Didn't the current management team give away or chop up everything that could recreate a pre-fatS0-1 for mass production? No PP Series for anyone.

And since the X-Prize, there has been NO MENTION of an updated, weight reduced fatS0-2 prototype. :P

[palmer_md]

Since the xprize there has been no mention period. Nothing.

[CyberBill]

Aren't these belt drives similar to timing belt drives in engines? They have a life span over 60-80k miles minimum....FWD drive car weighs a little more and has a slightly lower range....

Timing belts aren't transmitting the entire torque of the engine power, so they don't have nearly the same wear as using a belt to drive the vehicle (particularly AFTER it has gone through a transmission to bring the torque up).

The reason to use FWD is for handling and, in the case of EVs, -longer- range, not lower. Regenerative braking isn't nearly as efficient on the rear wheel(s) - to the point where most rear wheel drive EVs don't implement it. On a front wheel driven EV, though, a significant amount of energy can be recovered via regenerative braking.

[PatQ562]

Acknowledging that my opinions reflect my personal sense of fitness:
Aren't these belt drives similar to timing belt drives in engines? They have a life span over 60-80k miles minimum.
An engine timing belt runs in a sealed environment, and handles much less power than the overall motor, so I don't agree the cases are similar, and 60-80K miles isn't that long a lifetime either. I believe that motorcyclists are happy to get 15-30K miles on their belts, which must handle the full motor power while running in rain and road grit.

As for costs, I know they are vastly different, that is a no brainer.
You get what you pay for. Belt drive is cheaper, but you get less durability, and skittery control issues if the single rear wheel hits a slippery spot while accelerating hard.

The mid tech phrase does not cut it either, fwd is not high tech, it just looks more impressive. The tech is in the composite body, safety features and batteries. There is no real high tech drive train for ev's in this price range of vehicle.
The "mid tech" evaluation pertains to belt drive, brushed DC motors, usually lacking regeneration, battery stacks without good monitoring, fiberglass bodies over tube frames, and general lack of exhaustive lifetime and overload testing of all the moving parts -- similar to what you get with an NMG Duo, or Arcimoto. You can make a vehicle this way - the "kit car" designation refers to similar construction. "High Tech" implies brushless motor drive, fully protected battery stacks, traction control, seamless regen, probably anti-lock brakes, fully tested crash protection, microprocessors everywhere, and lavish modern conveniences, all tested for millions of miles before release -- ie, what you get from a major brand like the Nissan Leaf. These companies have the volume to offer vastly superior cars for not much more money. Imagine what could be done if one of them was bold enough to use the same technical resources to design a car with half the weight and hence half the material requirements.

As for this type of drive making the car more "motorcycle" like that is a difference of opinion. Lets say you have two identical cars, one front wheel drive the other rear belt drive, everything else is identical on the exterior and interior of the car. FWD drive car weighs a little more and has a slightly lower range. Cost of the vehicles are several thousand different too, which would you buy? The cheaper rear wheel drive with slightly longer range or the fwd?
I would buy the FWD because it would have a better chance of giving a long trouble-free service life, and would be safer and more stable. It would be worth the extra cost to me. And with better FWD regen, it's not obvious the range would be lower. My "motorcycle-like" characterization refers to an overall minimalism in design and amenities - motorcycles don't have heaters, AC, windshield defrosting, sound insulation, or lavish interiors. The mechanisms are typically exposed and easy to service - and some maintenance is expected over the life of the vehicle, which is typically a lot fewer miles than a mainstream car.

These "deficiencies" are not a problem for hands-on drivers who are comfortable doing their own maintenance. This is the "difference of opinion". You get what you pay for. Some people want more, some are happy with less for a lower price.

As an incidental point, I read somewhere that surprisingly, FWD cars have lighter weight front suspensions than RWD because the stresses are more balanced. Goes to show that weight analysis is not always obvious.

Heck, if I was building my own car, I'd probably consider belt drive, but if I'm going to pay upwards of $20K for a ready-made vehicle, I'd want it to be comparable to other vehicles in that price range. This is a tall order, unlikely to be met by shoestring startups. The tragedy is that Aptera had a significant nest egg, enough to pay for years of engineering by many dozens of designers, and still didn't make it. These opportunities to significantly change the game don't come along very often.

Pat Q

[palmer_md]

back to the original topic. Small batch is all this car would ever have been. It's what I've felt this vehicle could ever do, and I believe the founders felt the same way. Going "big" was a waste of time and resources. It was pointed out in a thread long ago (just after the takeover by the "b" team and their decision to make the vehicle go "mainstream"). They compared the Typ-1 to a Miata as an example of expected production volumes. The Miata like the Aptera is a two seat vehicle. From Wikipedia it sells about 20k units per year. ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mazda_MX-5 ) This is from a major auto manufacturer with an established distribution and service network. This is also from a car with traditional styling and construction. 20k/year is the Guiness World Record sales for a 2 seat vehicle (http://www.guinnessworldrecords.com/search/Details/Best-selling-car-two-seater-sports/54388.htm)

No way would the typ-1 have beaten that record, but the sales targets for the SO-1 are set higher. SO-1 had several hurdles to overcome. New company, new distribution, motorcycle classification, unusual styling, and electric drivetrain. How many sales can you realistically expect from a vehicle that has to do all this jumping? This vehicle always has been and always will be a small production, niche vehicle. The mistake the "professional" management team made was not understanding this and trying to build a vehicle that would break free from these limitations. Embrace the limitations and focus on what the car does well. It was a lightweight, inexpensive (relative) vehicle that was extremely efficient due to both light weight and low drag. It was a perfect commuter car. Nothing fancy, just a way to go back and forth to work with the least effort.

Take a look at the vehicles that have been released since. There have been 1.5 electric vehicles released to the market, and they are not going to sell anywhere near the 20k number either. These are both 4 door, 4 wheel and 4 or 5 seats with very traditional styling and build components. The Leaf is selling about 1000/mo (US) and the Volt is selling a couple hundred per month. This is where the EV market is right now. I think these are the numbers we are going to see continue until the pricing comes down (years). This is where Aptera would have shined. Because it was more efficient, they could have sold it for less because it requires a smaller battery pack to achieve the same range.

[PatQ562]

All reasonable points. All I can add is, if there WAS a chance for a game-changing mass-adoption by the larger market, it would only come as ordinary drivers realized that these swoopy looking things they keep seeing were actually working well and saving their owners money. There are a number of "ugly duckling" cars that started small but grew on their merits. It does take some years. It was on this hope that I personally welcomed decisions to use long-life technology such as brushless motors and shaft drive, since this would ensure reliability and credibility, but the high efficiency (and low cost) orientation got sidetracked along the way.

The low sales of mainstream EVs is because the value proposition is just not there. Electric propulsion of a standard heavy car is not that advantageous really, and the costs are way too high. A light low-cost car using a few key technical breakthroughs was the formula I was hoping for.

Pat Q

[eventhusiast]

The "mid tech" evaluation pertains to belt drive, brushed DC motors, usually lacking regeneration, battery stacks without good monitoring, fiberglass bodies over tube frames, and general lack of exhaustive lifetime and overload testing of all the moving parts -- similar to what you get with an NMG Duo, or Arcimoto. You can make a vehicle this way - the "kit car" designation refers to similar construction.

Sorry, I was not talking about those cars, I was talking about the early version of the Aptera with all the hi tech features except FWD. Also when people say FWD suspensions are lighter than the RWD that is correct for certain vehicles. Strut suspension is for FWD and it was designed decades ago as the cheap suspension alternative. A modern koni spring shock suspension for light weight vehicles are extremely light compared to the large spring suspensions your talking about.

Pat, you want all the features at a low price, wont happen with Aptera, it would have been 30-35K. I wanted the cool car at 20K or below.

I am not trying to argue, not worth it here, we just have different opinions. On to the next subject.

[NmGfan]

The "mid tech" evaluation pertains to belt drive, brushed DC motors, usually lacking regeneration, battery stacks without good monitoring, fiberglass bodies over tube frames, and general lack of exhaustive lifetime and overload testing of all the moving parts -- similar to what you get with an NMG Duo, or Arcimoto.

My "motorcycle-like" characterization refers to an overall minimalism in design and amenities - motorcycles don't have heaters, AC, windshield defrosting, sound insulation, or lavish interiors.

Pat,
Just a couple of perception corrections.
The Corbin Sparrow/Myers NmG is constructed from a fiberglass/steel composite monocoque tub that contains the front battery bay (under the hood), and the entire passenger cockpit as one. The front fenders and upper a-arm/lower control arm (coil over spring shocks) bolt onto both sides of the front of the tub. The rear section is a motorcycle-like steel tube frame that supports a single sided monolever swing arm drive train, motor and rear suspension mounted to the back of the tub covered with a fiberglass shell (4 panels).
The NmG has a 3000W heater/defroster (two minutes to toasty warm), two-speed windshield wiper/washer, AM/FM stereo CD player with AUX input, a fully finished interior, carpeted floor, electric fully opening widows on both sides, a Corbin seat (premium aftermarket motorcycle seat brand) and a carpeted "trunk" floor. I've driven it through three winters without a drop of water leaking into the interior.

I checked out an Arcimoto at a recent local SAE auto show. It was initially parked next to my NmG, but was quickly moved to another location after one of their folks read the spec sheet on my NmG. The open frame, FWD, exact same lead acid batteries, fair weather use only, wasn't nearly as complete a product even though they claim it could go 10 miles farther on a charge. Same price point too.

:happy0025:

[NmGfan]

back to the original topic. Small batch is all this car would ever have been. .... This vehicle always has been and always will be a small production, niche vehicle. The mistake the "professional" management team made was not understanding this and trying to build a vehicle that would break free from these limitations. Embrace the limitations and focus on what the car does well. It was a lightweight, inexpensive (relative) vehicle that was extremely efficient due to both light weight and low drag. It was a perfect commuter car. Nothing fancy, just a way to go back and forth to work with the least effort.

...

I agree completely, embrace the limitations, hell feature them!
As I sit in my single seat EV at various intersections here in Silicon Valley, I see countless vehicles with a single occupant. But most would tell me that they need to go to grandma's place in LA once a year, to Tahoe to ski once a year for a week, a one or two trips a year to the garden center or whatever. You know, about 1500 miles a year on exceptional trips. They commute over 12,000 miles per year solo to work, so of course they are driving a $50K+ Chevy Tahoe or Ford F-250 4WD pick-up for its "utility" and "off-road" capability. Couldn't possibly make that purpose built EV work for their daily commute unless it cost less than $10K and could survive a 65mph impact from a fully loaded cement truck.

Okay enough hyperbole!

:happy0025:

[NmGfan]

Interesting. What does shaft drive do to cause excess rear tire wear?

The carbon fiber belts you cite may be better than the stretchy belts I used 25 years ago to replace noisy chains on a small EV, which left me with a bad impression. It's hard to know if your NMG belt drive is TRULY more efficient unless you have compared it to an alternative, but I will agree it must be at least comparable to other solutions, although chain drive is known to be the most efficient by a few points. Do you have a finding on service life?

Pat Q
A drive shaft has a tendency to cause "jacking" of the motorcycle's rear suspension, upward on acceleration and downward on deceleration. The suspension compression (downward jacking) on deceleration causes the tire to "skid" before rotation begins because the suspension absorbs the energy that would have started the tire rotation. Both chains and belts have some slack (3/8-1/2") that absorbs the deceleration energy rather than jacking the suspension before rotation begins. Rather than skidding the tire, the belt or chain stretches.
My last chain driven motorcycle needed about three chain adjustments per 10k mile life before replacement from stretching. If the chain wasn't replaced then, the sprockets would wear severely causing a replacement issue there. Belts need no adjustment during their life. I'll let you know when the current belt gives up...

I love shaft drive motorcycles, check the differential oil once each riding season...

:happy0025:

[PatQ562]

Perhaps my low opinion of the Sparrow was formed too early in its history. I saw them at a car show and was drawn over quickly by the happy colors. The car was reasonably well appointed as noted, but feeling the slack in the steering gear, noting the "go-kart like" tie rods, the fiberglass tub with unknown strength, the brushed motor and belt, the lead-acid batteries distributed here and there, the controller kind of stuck on at an angle, all gave the impression of a rather amateurish design job wrapped in an bold shell. The styling is a personal matter but doesn't LOOK very streamlined or stable to me. If they could have sold for well below $10K it would have been a "minimal" alternative to a regular car, but they couldn't make money at such pricing, and lead-acid lifetime is not very good. Even at the time, pricing as I recall was $12K-$13K for a barely 65mph, 30-40 mile range vehicle which I expected to go maybe 10K miles on a set of batteries. Lithium would be much better today but also more expensive. The excessive cost is the same problem faced by other EV companies. At least now, if you are willing to pay, you can get expensive EVs with excellent performance and somewhat realistic range numbers, which might well give 10 years of uninterrupted service.

Glad you are happy with yours however.

Pat Q

[NeilBlanchard]

BMW and Moto Guzzi both completely solved the shaft drive "jacking" and dropping issue with a second U-joint and a torque bar.

I think the worries over front wheel drive are over-wrought. Take a look at the FVT eVaro drivetrain -- it is the definition of utter simplicity and has very high efficiency. It uses NO gears by having two direct drive motors.

[NmGfan]

Neil,
You're right on how BMW and Moto Guzzi resolved the rear shaft drive "jacking" issue. However, those proprietary swing arm/drive shaft solutions are tightly integrated to the transmissions, meaning to get that tech benefit one would need the transmission too or a lot of cleaver engineering to separate the two. At any rate, their solution is only available on a mass produced (over 50K units per year) upper end two wheel motorcycles for around $20K (+/- $5K depending on model). Not really a low cost, off-the-shelf, small batch solution for a RWD 3-wheel EV.

I like all the benefits of FWD, and as a motorcyclist, I really like the notion of a fully enclosed all weather "motorcycle-like" EV. I wonder if the two motor approach in the eVaro is less expensive than a single speed trans-axle. The differential function has been replaced with an electronic/software solution, but the CV joints are still required. Unfortunately, it seems that the more car-like the 3-wheel EV gets, the higher the labor content to put all that stuff into the vehicle, more expensive components for a automotive type interior and drive train, a larger motive pack to haul the heavier more complex vehicle, and we end up with a $35K-$45K estimated drive away price for a small batch EV.

:happy0025: