Action Round 4: Making Sure EV Incentives Apply To Enclosed Three-Wheelers

[iwannaptera]

Originally Posted by KarenRei

That's not what's being talked about. The brackets are only two tons apart, and each bracket adds $2.5k. It's about encouraging people who make vehicles that are 6.8 tons to make them 7.2 tons to get an additional $2.5k credit. You're making the problem worse and getting more money for doing so. And generally, making vehicles heavier makes them cheaper to build, not more expensive (to an extent).

But yes, that's a tangential issue.

The price of medium steel on the wholesale market is approximately 1000/ton (http://www.steelonthenet.com/prices.html). You cannot just make the vehicle 2 tons heavier to get the 2,500 tax break. Even if you got the wholesale price of that steel after delivery and taxes, there would be no benefit to having done so. Then you are stuck with an overweight vehicle that performs more poorly than the competition. The weight requirements are not as trivial as you make them out to be. Yes, there are cheaper ways than steel, but really it is not as trivial or poorly thought out as you imply.

For that matter, it is important that we all realize that the four-wheel requirement is not some legislative snafu or incidental consequence of a poorly worded bill. This requirement was put there on purpose. IIRC, Dingell did have a part in this. There are entrenched interests even in our own backyard (tesla etc.) that really do not want to have to compete with Aptera. GM would hate to see the majority of the tax credit to go to vehicles like the Type 2e. We have to be focused and diligent and polite in our efforts if we want the powers that be to listen and act on our behalf.

We should concentrate on the one section we wish to change. We should not denigrate the bill as written. Someone wrote it that way on purpose, and likely might not take kindly to our opinion. That someone may also be intimately involved in rewriting the bill. We should merely point out the advantages of the changes we propose, and try to get as many people on board as possible.

EDIT: I wanted to add Karen that I (and I am sure many of us) appreciate your efforts on both keeping us up to date on some of the legislative stuff, as well as your efforts on writing a good template for contacting the powers that be.

[evmavin]

Great Karen,

I think if there are a couple letters reviewed and edited from list members it will increase the numbers. I'm not sure what the hot buttons are for each audience but it would be good to include a few of course. I think it is best to approach all possible directions, squeaky wheel thing.

[KarenRei]

Originally Posted by iwannaptera

The price of medium steel on the wholesale market is approximately 1000/ton (http://www.steelonthenet.com/prices.html). You cannot just make the vehicle 2 tons heavier to get the 2,500 tax break. Even if you got the wholesale price of that steel after delivery and taxes, there would be no benefit to having done so.

It's not that simple, though. If it was simply the cost of steel that mattered, your average car would cost $1,500 dollars. What you're really paying for is all of the cost in turning that raw material into a car. A good example: wiring harnesses. The wiring harness on a minivan can be over a hundred pounds. You can cut that dramatically by networking all of your signals onto a couple of wires, but it costs you more money to do so. Likewise, aluminum is lighter than steel, yet costs significantly more. As a general rule, building lighter costs *more* money, not less. Now, this does decrease to some extent the bigger you go, but it always applies to some extent.

And yes, I agree that this is tangential.

EDIT: I wanted to add Karen that I (and I am sure many of us) appreciate your efforts on both keeping us up to date on some of the legislative stuff, as well as your efforts on writing a good template for contacting the powers that be.

Thanks, iwannaaptera. And don't worry, I won't include any of that sort of stuff in the templates. Best to keep focused on the wheels issue.

[Apt3448]

Thank you Karen, for all the work you put into this. It is important to us, for Aptera, and for the environment. You are an amazing person (so go ahead and blush, you deserve it).

[speculawyer]

Originally Posted by KarenRei

Aptera, Persu Mobility, and several other companies all awoke on the morning of September 24th to find themselves at a huge disadvantage. Many supporters of these manufacturers of enclosed three-wheelers that, while legally considered motorcycles are designed for car-level performance and safety, had initially championed the bill.

Others:

The Zap! Alias (if it ever actually ships)


The Myers Motors NMG (which is currently available for $29,999)

[speculawyer]

One more:
The GreenVehicles Triac (if it ever actually ships)

[iwannaptera]

IMHO, the NMG and perhaps even the triac are exactly what the authors of the bill are interested in preventing getting the tax credit. They are terrified of incentivizing the production of vehicles that most people would be uninterested in driving on the highway or using daily. That would not obtain their policy objective which is to incentivize the replacment of daily driving in a gas guzzler with daily driving in a fuel sipper or a fully electric. That is why one of my suggestions to make everything contingent on an NTSB crash safety rating or something like that.

I know there are fans of both vehicles here on the board, but these (the NMG especially) are impractical for the vast majority of consumers. The aptera with its storage space and range are on the other hand is very practical for 95% of the average american's daily drive. We would be better off if we suggested changes that kept the NMG and perhaps even the triac, and especially anything from ZAP from qualifying.

Selfish? Yes.
More likely to succeed? Absolutely.
Better for the environment to get at least a few trikes qualified than none at all? Definitely

[speculawyer]

Well they could eliminate the NMG and maybe the Zap Alias by requiring at least 2 passengers. (It isn't clear if the Zap alias is one or two passengers.) But a 2 passenger NMG is on the way.

[mmalc]

Persu Mobility (née Venture Vehicles)
Possibly Vectrix (video).

I just noticed Vectrix has an excellent new tag line: Unplug and Play.

And I'm not sure if Piaggio will come out with an all-electric version of their 3-wheeler -- they are or were aiming for a hybrid version.

[IanO]

Originally Posted by iwannaptera

IMHO, the NMG and perhaps even the triac are exactly what the authors of the bill are interested in preventing getting the tax credit. They are terrified of incentivizing the production of vehicles that most people would be uninterested in driving on the highway or using daily. That would not obtain their policy objective which is to incentivize the replacment of daily driving in a gas guzzler with daily driving in a fuel sipper or a fully electric. That is why one of my suggestions to make everything contingent on an NTSB crash safety rating or something like that.

I know there are fans of both vehicles here on the board, but these (the NMG especially) are impractical for the vast majority of consumers. The aptera with its storage space and range are on the other hand is very practical for 95% of the average american's daily drive. We would be better off if we suggested changes that kept the NMG and perhaps even the triac, and especially anything from ZAP from qualifying.

Selfish? Yes.
More likely to succeed? Absolutely.
Better for the environment to get at least a few trikes qualified than none at all? Definitely

I don't get your point. An enclosed single-seater is *exactly* the kind of car most people need. What's the figure, 95% of all road traffic is single occupant without significant cargo?

What will make the NmG practical is a price-point that makes it an attractive second household vehicle, and large tax breaks are just the thing for that.