Found an old "Aptera Brochure for Potential Investors"

[gg222]

Design has changed a bit.

http://jaymehellerdesigns.com/print_portfolio.pdf

(Page 6)

[KarenRei]

Wow, great find. Aptera sure has outgrown her "ugly duckling" phase :)

One thing that made me groan was this line:

"Despite differing views in the scientific community on global warming"

Yes -- differing views. On one side are approximately 50 scientists in the field who either don't believe in global warming, believe it's due to forces other than humans, or think there's not enough evidence yet (a large chunk of the 50 or so whose salaries are literally paid by fossil fuel interests), and on the other side are the remaining several thousand scientists in the field. I hope this isn't actually what Aptera believes, and that this was just targetted at conservative investors who think global warming is a communist conspiracy to destroy capitalism and America.

I do like this line, however:

"By removing as much of the labor content as possible from the manufacturing process, AC doesn't have to travel the world seeking the lowest labor wage."

[Don]

Karen, from what I have researched, global warming is indeed fact. That it is caused by humans burning fossil fuels is fallacious. There is zero evidence to support it. The output from the sun is the primary reason for the warming. Many years ago, before autos were invented, the earth went through several periods of cooling and warming.

Knowing this does not detract from the efforts that are being made by Aptera and others. If gas engines remain the sole source of power, our atmosphere will continue to be fouled with unhealthy particulates. The rapidly rising cost of oil and gas is also a major roadblock to clean air. It should go without saying that we should do what we can to heal our planet. Driving an Aptera will not stop the melting of the polar ice caps. What it will do is revolutionize designs in transportation and benefit the pocketbooks of those who own one. Let us hope that enough can be manufactured to conclusively prove that.

[KarenRei]

Don: Your "research" comment is interesting, as your "research" put you in conflict with the overwhelming majority of peer-reviewed papers on the subject and scientists in the field. What peer-reviewed journals did you research in?

The output from the sun is the primary reason for the warming.

Which of the approximately 50 or so recent papers on the subject have you read? Hoyt and Schatten, 1993? Lean et al, 1995? Hall and Lockwood, 2004? M. Wang et al, 2005? Loon and Shea, 2000? Douglass and Clader, 2002? Gleisner and Thejll, 2003? Haigh, 2003? Stott et al, 2003? White et al, 2003? Coughlin and Tung, 2004? Labitzke, 2004? Crooks and Gray, 2005? Marsh and Svensmark, 2000? Kristjansson et al, 2002? Sun and Bradley, 2002? Frohlich and Lean, 2004? Rottman, 2005? Willson and Mordvinov, 2003? Dewitte et al, 2005? Lee et al, 1995? Chapman et al, 1996? Preminger and Walton, 2005? Benestad, 2005? Spruit, 2000? Sofia and Lee, 2001? Dziembowski et al, 2001? Woods et al, 1996? Harder et al, 2005? Hoyt and Schatten, 1993? Lean, 2000? Lockwood and Stamper, 1999? Solanki and Fliegge, 1999? Baliunas and Jastrow, 1990? Svalgaard et al, 2004? Y. Wang et al, 2005? Jirikowic and Damon, 1994? Rigozo et al, 2001? Muscheler et al, 2007? Foster, 2004? Schatten and Orosz, 1990? Lean et al, 1992? Lean et al, 1997? Boberg and Lundsedt, 2002? Marsh and Svensmark, 2000? Fioletov et al, 2002? Geller and Smyshlyaev, 2002? Hood, 2003? Ramaswamy et al, 2001? Labitzke et al, 2002? Haigh, 2003? Labitzke, 2004? Crooks and Gray, 2005? McCormack, 2003? Salby and Callaghan, 2004? Gray, 2005? Gray et al, 2005? Carslaw et al, 2002? Harrison and Carslaw, 2003? Kristjansson and Kristiansen, 2000? Usoskin et al, 2004? Harrison and Stephenson, 2006? Udelhofen and Cess, 2001? Kernthaler et al, 1999?

Let me guess: the answer is zero, and you read some news article from someone who also doesn't know what they're talking about, summing up what one of the ~1% of scientists in the field who disagree with everyone else said, and decided, "Hey, that sounds about right!". And never bothered to learn what the rest of the field has to say on the subject, and specifically what they had to say about that person's work?

There's a reason for peer review. There's a reason for summaries to gather the state of peer reviewed research. That's what the IPCC technical reports are for. And, for people who don't want to read the whole reports, that's what the technical summaries are for. And for those who have no background in science, that's what the summaries for policymakers are for. In each case, it's summarizing: summarizing papers, summarizing summaries of papers, and ultimately summarizing the summaries of summaries of papers.

There's a reason why complex scientific fields are not "do it yourself". There's a *lot* you need to learn about. Which you have not done. To sum up the state of current scientific research on the topic of solar radiation forcing: the change from the Maunder Minima to the current cycle minima is about 0.04% (0.5W/m^2), leading to a radiative forcing of ~+0.1W/m^2 (specifically, 0.12 +- 0.06, 90% confidence interval). Maunder Minima to the current point in the cycle (non-minima) is 0.08%. This compares to approximately 1.66W/m^2 from CO2, 0.48W/m^2 from CH4, and 0.16W/m^2 from N2O. There are various indirect forcings from solar radiation, mind you -- UV modulation of ozone levels, solar forcing affecting the GCR flux, and so forth. The forcings from all of these are even more minor.

[butter]

Thank you, KarenRei. As the sister of a climate scientist who works for Environmental Defense (and who was one of the thousands of scientists who "shared" Al Gore's Nobel Prize), I blink back tears of relief and appreciation for people like you.

Thank you.

[Aptera #1159]

Karen & Don, why are you arguing? Neither of you are going to change each other's opinion.

Anyways, Karen seems to be convinced global warming is fact. That I don't doubt, but the change made by me getting this car is negligible. The same is true for the 2000 people that will have them (for the time being). 2000 is nothing. Although, influence may make a difference. Either way, I could care less about the my carbon footprint.

Those who get this car should not get it to stop global warming, but purely for economic reasons (and because it is awesome).

I agree with Don. I don't care if the earth melts, there is always an equilibrium constant. We will evolve.

But, I am only in High School. Karen is far more wise than I am.

Just don't argue, that is what makes forums lame. Okay?

[3-4-me]

Wow Don, I think you struck a nerve.
Karen, how long did it take you to come up with that list?
Pretty overwelming support for your case. Of course who's going to check it?
I'm not sure if I've been dazzled with brilliance, or baffled with BS. Either way it sounds impressive.
Can't we all just get along?
I just want to drive my Aptera:D

[Don]

Karen,
My post was intended to convey the idea that such vehicles as the Aptera are much in need and that aside from whatever global warming may conotate.
I am surprised you have responded as you have. In spite of all those names you have mentioned, I do think your evaluation of me is sadly lacking in facts.
I assumed this board was for discussing Aptera related information, so with that in mind, I will refuse to comment further on your unfounded allegations of my research sources. At this conjecture, I concede whatever may construed as a debate, to you.

[futura]

Pretty overwelming support for your case. Of course who's going to check it?
I'm not sure if I've been dazzled with brilliance, or baffled with BS.

I checked it. It's not BS (not that I ever doubted KarenRei's punctilious message, I just hadn't seen any of the 2006 & later reports on this).

Can't we all just get along?
I just want to drive my Aptera:D

Love this statement :cool: . So far, on this forum we seem to get along and are mostly motivated by Aptera-desire. Some want to save $; some want to save the planet. Probably not going to radically alter anyone's views here but I wouldn't discourage people from politely expressing their broader, sometimes off-topic, socio-political motivations. I'll bet there's different motivations on Aptera's team for doing this. I'm just glad they are!

[garygid]

My great interest in this car is not primarily for the savings
(since it still costs more than it is likely to save many folks),
but for the innovative and awesome use of technology that
will hopefully still be embedded in the production vehicle.
Without the futuristic shape and technology, this might
be just another one of a growing array of "little" vehicles.

Many parts may evolve to even better technologies, like having
the electric motor in the wheel itself, LED Headlights,
active-dampening suspension for softer ride, etc.

However, thanks Aptera, this appears to be a great start.

[Apteratude]

I haven't spent much time on the global warming subject, although I don't doubt proponets on either sides abilities/desires to use their "data" for whatever evil or good that they desire.

Not that I am gaga over John McCain either, but I do like his statement in the debates several months ago summarized basically by saying, "regardless of it's truth or not, what's wrong with giving a greener earth to our successors." And I say, at this point where oil/gas prices are, green technology once adapted to by the masses will save us all money, and help the environmet.

Some may argue whether a used up NiMh battery pack from a Toyota Prius at 45mpg's is better or worse than a Toyota Yaris emitting more Hc's and CO2's over it's lifetime, but whatever. At this point I have no doubt that buying an Aptera is a more environmentally responsible option than all other cars that I know of. And, Im ready to do my part. This from a former performance junkie who used to remove the catalytic converter off every car I drove.

Gotta go to work...on call =(

[Aptera #1159]

My great interest in this car is not primarily for the savings
(since it still costs more than it is likely to save many folks),
but for the innovative and awesome use of technology that
will hopefully still be embedded in the production vehicle.
Without the futuristic shape and technology, this might
be just another one of a growing array of "little" vehicles.

Many parts may evolve to even better technologies, like having
the electric motor in the wheel itself, LED Headlights,
active-dampening suspension for softer ride, etc.

However, thanks Aptera, this appears to be a great start.

Yes! Exactly.

[n_dawg]

Has anyone else seen the original press release (http://web.archive.org/web/20060209021310/http://www.acceleratedcomposites.com/ACPR_1_18_06.pdf)?

There's lots more stuff at the archive.org archive of their old site (http://web.archive.org/web/20060209021310/http://www.acceleratedcomposites.com/), including photos of the Mk-0 prototype in-progress.