backtop


Print 69 comment(s) - last by silver.. on Mar 19 at 4:26 AM


Images courtesy WIRED Blogs: Autotopia
The Aptera typ-1 can achieve 230MPG thanks to its diesel-electric hybrid system

Loremo AD got a lot of attention last year when they announced its $13,000 Loremo LS coupe. The tiny 2+2 coupe is powered by a 20HP turbo-diesel engine and is capable of achieving 157MPG.

More recently, Venture Vehicles unveiled its VentureOne hybrid 3-wheeler. The two-seater is capable of 100MPH and can get 100MPG thanks to its tiny gasoline motor and 15kW hybrid system.

Today, we've learned of another high-mileage vehicle in our midst. The Aptera Motor Company has showed off its Aptera typ-1 which can achieve a remarkable 230MPG while cruising at 55MPH. The Aptera type-1 uses a diesel-electric hybrid powertrain and is able to sprint from 0-60 in under 10 seconds.

Unlike most hybrid automobiles which use Lithium-ion (Li-ion) or Nickel Metal Hydride (NiMH) batteries, the Aptera typ-1 uses Nickel-zinc (NiZn) batteries.

The Aptera looks nowhere close to being road legal in its current form and its "distinctive" shape is sure to puzzle many onlookers. That being said, the vehicle is expected to retail for around $20,000 although no launch date has been given.



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

Funky futuristic vehicle
By psychobriggsy on 3/13/2007 7:15:32 PM , Rating: 2
Looks funky.

Wonder who'd win between this and a Chelsea tractor (SUV to you people West of the Atlantic).

I think most people would only drive something like this if the cost of fuel went up by an order of magnitude! But good luck to them for improving the state of technology in this area.




RE: Funky futuristic vehicle
By semo on 3/13/2007 7:23:14 PM , Rating: 2
hey some of those people have children and might have to do shopping by themselves.

still, those suvs can be outfitted with a flex fuel engine or a diesel (that can run on biofuel) hybrid that solely uses electricity for forward propulsion and have the ice run at constant rpm, which would make them more efficient.


RE: Funky futuristic vehicle
By Samus on 3/13/2007 11:53:50 PM , Rating: 3
9/10 SUV's I see on the road are single passenger occupancy. Furthermore, statistics show that drivers nationwide travel alone 95% of the time via automobile. So what's the SUV for again? Ohh, right, its 'safer?'

Statistics also show SUV injuries and fatalities are significantly higher than, say, a Corolla or Civic, because of the prove to roll over, lack of control and maneuverability, and that little thing called Truckers Syndrom that makes people make stupid decisions in a vehicle too big for them to handle.

Couple ALL that with the fact that cost more to buy, operate, maintain, and own, and, well, 95% of SUV owners are morons.

No wonder GM and Ford dealers are liquidating them and making up for it charging more for sedans. No wonder there is a huge surplus of SUV's on the market, and you can't even buy a hybrid without being on a waiting list. No wonder half the SUV's I drive past parked on the street have forsale signs in the window.


RE: Funky futuristic vehicle
By Pandamonium on 3/14/2007 1:22:20 AM , Rating: 2
SUVs are a status symbol. No logic you spew will convince people to stop driving them; give up.


RE: Funky futuristic vehicle
By Moishe on 3/14/2007 6:48:57 AM , Rating: 2
Calling all SUV owners morons is NOT logic. It's moronic.
Your stat about 95% of driving is alone does not at all undo the need for SUVs. If I have a large family I may drive alone most of my time, but the one time out of ten I do drive with the kids, what am I supposed to do, make multiple trips? Own three cars? Not everyone can afford that and it can easily be cheaper to own one SUV than to own an SUV and a small car.

I agree that SOME SUV owners have the vehicle for status. I agree that SOME SUV owners are single people who have no reason (IMO) to own an SUV. However, your wide generalizations are unfair and invalid for the rest of the population that has an actual need for a large vehicle.

Not to mention the fact that we still live in a free country and people should be allowed to pay more (gas, taxes, etc) to drive a larger vehicle if they want to. Their freedom shouldn't be reduced by some control-freak, pin-head bureaucrat who has no understanding of the situation.

Remember that when you start throwing around names and personal opinions, you're acting as if what you think is more important than what everyone else thinks. You're also acting like everyone else is a moron, but they're probably most as smart or smarter than you. Comments like yours show a lack of forethought and insight. Your comment is knee-jerk at it's best.


RE: Funky futuristic vehicle
By diliff on 3/14/2007 7:12:53 AM , Rating: 3
You make some fair points, but an SUV is not the only answer to transporting large families. What about a minivan? They're far more fuel efficient and not such a domineering force on the road.

And you're right, you should be free to make your own choices, but I do think that you still have to be accountable for them. If you choose to drive what has been determined to be an inefficient and therefore unnecesarily polluting car, you should be penalised somewhat. Others invariably are affected by these sort of choices. Absolute freedom of choice can be problematic for this reason and I believe it should be tempered with consideration for others and the effect such choices have.

In an ideal world, people would have more consideration for others, but since that isn't always the case, we do need bureaucrats to ensure that the best interests of all are considered. Its a shame even that doesn't always happen!


RE: Funky futuristic vehicle
By Moishe on 3/14/2007 7:53:29 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
If you choose to drive what has been determined to be an inefficient and therefore unnecesarily polluting car, you should be penalised somewhat.


People ARE penalized for owning bigger more polluting vehicles. They pay significantly more in gas and taxes and they have know-it-alls standing around criticizing their every move. Just in case you're not aware, minivans are about the same as similar sized SUVs as far as gas mileage is concerned. Go look up a few of each on edmunds.com. Some SUVs are better than minivans, some are worse. Of course the size (cargo/person space) of the vehicles compared is important.

Freedom of choice is important (nothing is absolute). People will do what is best for themselves. Most often, that translates to what is actually best for society. People don't want to pollute or pay extra, but they've also got individual situations that they must deal with. People will gladly pay for a vehicle that does what they want without preventing them from doing what they must do. Most of the time it's not their fault that there is no large fuel-efficient SUV, yet the consumer is the one who is called the moron, not the car makers.

In defense of the auto manufacturers, there is also the point to make about technology. If you leave your conspiracy cap off and work with just proven stuff you'll see that for a long time the tech to make a large fuel-efficient vehicle was simply not there or was prohibitively expensive. When the tech becomes cheap and common, they started using it. Yes, it takes time (because large things are slow to build momentum), but it's happening. In 5-10 years there will be a huge increase in effiency in large(r) vehicles and most people will own a much more efficient car. At that point hopefully the knee-jerks will look back and see that it was coming all along and the whining and blaming was premature and unfair.

The impression I get is that people think that consumers should be efficient no matter what. If there is no efficient car that meets their needs they they should buy an efficient car that does NOT meet their needs. This is subjecting the need of the consumer to the opinion of another. In other words, that's just another way for some efficiency nut to control me. They don't mind making MY life harder as long as it fits their belief, but if it were to turn around on them they'd cry like little babies. See my point?

In general, bureaucrats are just another guy (like us) with his own agenda. The difference is that a bureaucrat has power and usually has no integrity. Not that government can't be effective for some things, but government is extremely wasteful and broad stroked. The govt has no business milking honest citizens out of extra taxes just because that citizen has a genuine need for a larger vehicle.


RE: Funky futuristic vehicle
By lufoxe on 3/14/2007 8:22:53 AM , Rating: 2
time for me to chime in, I'll outright say, most people with SUVs... don't need them. simple. As for mini-vans, yes I do prefer them much better, for the same price you get more interior room, and alot more features. Yes I have done research on edmunds.com and comparisons of prices should be made within the same class (a RAV4 should not be compared to a Honda Odyssey) The aforementioned Honda, Has as much interior room as a 99 suburban (we are talking about passenger space) as well as features that will quiet any kid in the back (standard DVD systems now, ex: chevy uplander) The only reason I know this, is cause I have been in both vehicles. SUVs may have a use to some. But they are horribly inefficient (not just in gas but in space) overbearing, unsafe (for rollovers as well as everyone else on the road), gives people a false sense of power (ask any H2 owner). If you drive the car safely, and make use of it, we aren't talking about that once in a while trip to disney world, but rather "every saturday we go to (insert place) and sunday we go to (insert place), I use all the space in the back as well as all 3 rows while towing my boat" (ok so that last part is overdoing it, but you get the idea) then more power to you.

I do not blame auto manufacturers, they build what the customer wants, but rather I blame ignorance, the parents that buy it for their 16 yr old daughter, so they can be "safer". Little do they know all the people they are cramming into there. People are way more unsafe, than riding a small 2dr car.

Now what I believe should be done, as far as fuel efficiency... We need more diesel hybrids, oh and tell the bureaucrats to do me a favor, reduce the tax on diesel gas... (in Florida unleaded fuel is $0.18 while diesel is $0.50, if it wasn't for the tax diesel would be 40c cheaper), BUT, that's another rant for another time


RE: Funky futuristic vehicle
By masher2 (blog) on 3/14/2007 8:39:16 AM , Rating: 3
> "people with SUVs... don't need them. simple"

Most people with cars don't need them. They could easily use a bicycle, or walk. If they live extremely far from work-- they should move closer.

Most people with houses don't need them. It'd save energy and resources to live in a small apartment instead. Have all your kids share a bedroom...multi-family communal kitchens and bathrooms would save even more energy.

Most people with computers don't need them. The combination of a solar powered calculator and a manual typewriter would save energy. As for playing games and web browsing...who really needs to do that?

Most people don't need to take vacations, or travel to sporting events, movies, concerts, or other entertainment venues. It'd save far more gas to always stay at home and watch it all on TV. Or better yet, watch a shared TV in the lobby of your commune apartment building.

The list just goes on and on and on...


RE: Funky futuristic vehicle
By dever on 3/14/2007 1:31:01 PM , Rating: 1
Thank you masher. The poster obviously didn't read the comment that even though it may be less efficient much of the time for an individual to own an SUV, if they need the SUV only 10% of the time, it might be worth it for them to use that rather than two or more vehicles. The great thing is that, at least for now, it is their choice.


RE: Funky futuristic vehicle
By Moishe on 3/14/2007 8:42:10 AM , Rating: 2
As I've stated already, I agree that SUVs are not ideal for most people. But you cannot make a blanket statement saying that nobody needs an SUV. Blanket statements are usually wrong anyways. I personally own a very small car and a small pickup, but I'm also not so arrogant to think that my situation is ideal for everyone or that my opinion is the ultimate source of knowledge.

So instead of name calling, I'm simply asking people to be reasonable and fair. You're calling for car owners to be considerate to others in regards to their vehicles. At the same time you are being inconsiderate to people who disagree with your opinion on the kind of car they should own. I call that hypocrisy.


RE: Funky futuristic vehicle
By Moishe on 3/14/2007 8:57:59 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
I do not blame auto manufacturers, they build what the customer wants, but rather I blame ignorance, the parents that buy it for their 16 yr old daughter, so they can be "safer"


I agree completely with this statement without reservation.

The conclusion I come up with is "what do we expect"? We have a culture where "I" am first. People are taught to get ahead by any means. I don't think humans are naturally benevolent. They learn what they're taught, plus they tend toward selfishness. People have wealth without anyone really teaching them how to use it responsibly. In the end it comes back to the people who make up the culture. Just like whoever is in office comes back to the people who voted (or didn't vote).


RE: Funky futuristic vehicle
By masher2 (blog) on 3/14/2007 9:06:40 AM , Rating: 1
> "We have a culture where "I" am first. People are taught to get ahead by any means..."

Whoa there Nelly. Don't blame modern culture; blame several hundred million years of evolution. We are bred to protect our offspring and to place their survival above all else. Anyone who doesn't do this is a loser in the great game of life. My children will all drive massive SUVs and if it means they live while some other poor sap dies-- so be it.

As for labelling all humanity, that only holds up until you examine the rest of the animal kingdom, which is uniformly far more brutal and self-centered than our species ever thought of being. And before you trot out inaccurate factoids like "man is the only animal that kills for pleasure", I suggest you research them first.


RE: Funky futuristic vehicle
By Spivonious on 3/14/2007 9:30:05 AM , Rating: 2
Please instruct your children not to drive near me. I don't really want to get crushed by an H2 driven by a 16 year-old. And anyway, that's cruel to the kid unless you're buying their gas.


RE: Funky futuristic vehicle
By masher2 (blog) on 3/14/2007 9:42:55 AM , Rating: 2
> "And anyway, that's cruel to the kid unless you're buying their gas."

Less cruel than getting crushed themselves. And a less efficient vehicle for a kid on a budget means they drive less....which increases safety further :p


RE: Funky futuristic vehicle
By Moishe on 3/14/2007 9:53:26 AM , Rating: 2
Hey, I'm not saying it wasn't the years (all of history) before our culture that brought it about. But you can't deny that humans in general are selfish.

You can debate the reasons, but you can't debate the fact that it is true. The result is people who can buy a huge pimped out ride just to drive themselves to the gym/store once a week. It's not bright, but at the same time it seems to be pretty much par for the course. Nothing I haven't seen before and I expect to continue seeing it the rest of my life. People in general don't change. They were selfish thousands of years ago and they still are.


RE: Funky futuristic vehicle
By masher2 (blog) on 3/14/2007 9:56:53 AM , Rating: 1
> "you can't deny that humans in general are selfish."

As I said-- selfish...but less selfish than any other animal on the planet. That puts it rather in a different light now, eh?


RE: Funky futuristic vehicle
By mezman on 3/14/2007 2:00:26 PM , Rating: 2
Right on.

<proof> My cat kills for pleasure. She rarely eats the mice she kills. My cat is not Man. </proof>


RE: Funky futuristic vehicle
By MrBungle123 on 3/14/2007 10:15:11 AM , Rating: 2
listening to you guys banter back and fourth reminds me of that comercial for the mibatsu monstosity in GTA III, where the guy says "I live alone and commute to work on the highway, so of course i need a vehicle that seats 12 and is equiped to drive across arctic tundra".


RE: Funky futuristic vehicle
By silver on 3/19/2007 4:00:15 AM , Rating: 2
I own a Mercury Villager and a Ford Explorer. Got a good deal on the Explorer from my brother. Had he not offered it to me for $2,k less than Blue Book, I would have taken a pass. Now that I have it I know that I should have anyway. On the highway it actually achieves about 17mpg. Around town is simply guzzles fuel faster than a politician can spend money. 12mpg would be a good estimate. The Villager has a 3.0L Nissan motor in it which gets 24.5 highway23 city MPG which have been confirmed after over 500,000 miles. It handles better, rides better and has much more space internally than the Explorer. In fact the only two things the Explorer has over the Villager is A) pulling power and B) a great stereo. Other than that it's one of the top ten lousiest vehicles I've ever owned.

Now would I own one of these 200 MPG cars ? ABSOLUTELY ! I currently ride a Yamaha FZR1000 to work everyday as I have a 120 mile daily commute. Sign me up !


RE: Funky futuristic vehicle
By masher2 (blog) on 3/14/2007 9:37:28 AM , Rating: 1
> "What about a minivan? They're far more fuel efficient ..."

Midsized minivans get about 16-19 MPG city, 23-28 highway. Mid-sized SUVs run 14-19 MPG city, and 18-28 highway. If you count vehicles like the RAV4 (technically a midsized), you get up to 24 city, and 30 highway. Honestly, there really isn't a lage gap between SUVs and equivalent-sized minivans.


RE: Funky futuristic vehicle
By mindless1 on 3/15/2007 4:15:55 AM , Rating: 2
Not all are morons, just those that argue for their use for something other than SPORT UTILITY.

Arguing to use one because you have a lot of people to transport = moronic, there are other vehicles better designed for transporting people

Arguing to drive one 9 times out of 10 without others in it, just because the 10th time you might need one = moronic, because transporting kids is not a sport utility function, and because if you can afford to support that many kids you can afford a smaller vehicle for single person transportation those other 9 out of 10 times.

You write "not to mention" about a free country, but that is the only valid argument, prior to that is only excuses. So yes you have a right to have one, but that doesn't make other arguments less moronic.

Their freedom should in fact be limited when their choices impact others. I'm not free to rob banks because it has a negative impact on others. Same for pollution, dangerous roadways including collision and loss of visibility.

You write about others having "no understading" but obviously they do - so you're a moron. It's not hard to understand a concept of freedom or of transporting more than 4-5 people in a car, but do people that own SUVs and argue that they transport people, have more than 4-5 in the vehicle? Not all, so the argument is not entirely applicable without more scrutiny.

People should be allowed to pay more for something, so long as that someone has no impact on others. Obviously that is not the case, so the argument is another avoidance of the central issues.

Remember that some opinions really ARE more important than others, because those opinions consider what works best for everyone instead of taking a selfish "to hell with you I'll do whatever I want to do".

If you take the "to hell with you" attitude, then expect others to likewise say "to hell with you" for being so selfish. Yes you have a right to drive an SUV, and others have a right to look down upon you for doing so. Deal with it or don't, your choice.


RE: Funky futuristic vehicle
By masher2 (blog) on 3/14/07, Rating: 0
RE: Funky futuristic vehicle
By semo on 3/14/2007 6:43:00 AM , Rating: 2
no need to tell me that, i was being sarcastic in my post above. i was also trying to make a point that a proper hybrid (not the half baked solutions we have today) could make a real difference in emissions even in big stupid vehicles. of course you cannot change the physics that tell you that heavier traveling mass equals more collision energy.


RE: Funky futuristic vehicle
By Spivonious on 3/14/2007 9:30:52 AM , Rating: 2
p=mv

physics rocks!


RE: Funky futuristic vehicle
By Moishe on 3/14/2007 7:56:05 AM , Rating: 2
People need to stop trying to fit everyone into one fuel-efficient box. The world is marvelously diverse and there is no one car or opinion that will fit every situation.

It does no good to say that everyone who disagrees with you is a moron.


RE: Funky futuristic vehicle
By semo on 3/14/2007 8:09:30 AM , Rating: 2
why "one fuel-efficient box"? why not a whole range? there are diesel hybrid trains that use the ice to simply generate electricity for the electric motors and many agree that's a very efficient way to propel things. so if this technology can be used for a big heavy machine, why not something smaller? that aptera thing seems to be doing this (not sure if the ice is used for forward propulsion). all we need is something in the middle. i know this is a lot harder than it sounds but you cannot say that efficient powertrains are only for one type of car. it's just that car makers haven't yet provided that model range yet (and most of today's gas-electric hybrids are just a joke).


RE: Funky futuristic vehicle
By Moishe on 3/14/2007 8:48:34 AM , Rating: 2
I hardly think that only small cars can be fuel-efficient. Larger vehicles are slowly becoming more efficient as technology and demand increase. Anyone with any sense welcomes a car that will perform a large vehicle task while getting good gas mileage.

What I'm hearing is that if you drive an inefficient car, you're "bad" or wrong. The statement rarely, if ever, takes into consideration the context or situation.

I think this car is ugly, but if it does the job for some people it will probably sell and do well. As far as I'm concerned I wish Aptera success. This is just one more nail in the coffin of using oil as the primary vehicle power source and that IS a good thing.


RE: Funky futuristic vehicle
By walk2k on 3/13/2007 7:50:43 PM , Rating: 2
Not street legal in that form I guarantee.
Needs 5-mph bumpers at least.


RE: Funky futuristic vehicle
By lufoxe on 3/14/2007 8:03:31 AM , Rating: 2
actually it's 2.5 MPH
http://www.iihs.org/news/rss/pr030107.html
should be changed back to 5 though


RE: Funky futuristic vehicle
By mindless1 on 3/15/2007 4:04:45 AM , Rating: 2
I'm eagerly awaiting a compact car shaped like a sloped wedge on all sides and a reinforced roof, so when an SUV hits it, the SUV is sent airborne into a spiral.


Ni Zn
By ninjit on 3/13/2007 7:03:17 PM , Rating: 4
Ok,

Stuff like that Nickel-Zinc battery puzzle me - it was invented ages ago, its more efficient, lighter AND (the kicker) cheaper than the common existing rechargeable battery chemistries.

So why haven't we seen more of this before?




RE: Ni Zn
By AssMonkey76 on 3/13/2007 7:07:48 PM , Rating: 2
Politics and Money!


RE: Ni Zn
By OddTSi on 3/13/2007 8:04:23 PM , Rating: 1
How is it better? Perhaps you should compare the specs to Li-Ion and then make a post.


RE: Ni Zn
By ninjit on 3/13/2007 9:14:21 PM , Rating: 5
Perhaps you should take your Zoloft before you post?

I asked a question, and i wasn't specifically referring to Li-Ion either.

Li-ion is great, but still fairly expensive compared to other technologies (seen the price difference between Energizers lithium E2 batteries and regular ones?).
It also has a lot of safety concerns due to overheating in high-draw applications (I assume you were around for all the Sony battery fire news bits?) - it's the primary reason why Li-ion isn't used in most hybrid cars. I really wish I could use Li-ion AA/AAAs in my headlamps (the lower weight would be great when hiking), but manufacturers strongly warn against the use of them due to possible burn/explosion of your head.
Tesla motors, the company behind the super-cool all-electric sports-car (based on the Lotus elise) have said that most of their patents are related to making a safe large Li-ion battery pack for use in high current draw automotive applications.

So no, Li-Ion isn't the answer to everything.

And since you're too lazy to click the link above to the wikipedia entry on NiZn, I'll paste the info here for you:

quote:
The Nickel-zinc battery (sometimes abbreviated NiZn) is a type of rechargeable battery commonly used in the light electric vehicle sector.

It was invented by an Irish chemist, Dr James J Drumm (1897-1974)[1] and installed in a railcar in 1932 for use on the Dublin-Bray line. It was apparently successful and it is not known why the idea was not further developed at the time.

The battery is still not commonly found in the mass market, but they are considered as the next generation batteries used for high drain applications, and is expected to replace lead-acid batteries because of their higher energy to mass ratio and higher power to mass ratio (up to 75% lighter for the same power), and are relatively cheap compared to nickel-cadmium batteries (expected to be priced somewhere in between NiCd and lead-acids, but have twice the energy storing capacity).


RE: Ni Zn
By BladeVenom on 3/14/2007 1:05:11 AM , Rating: 3
Just compare that to the wikipedia entry on Lithium-Ion batteries and you'll see that Nickel-Zinc battery are inferior in every way except cost. Energy/weight, Energy/size, and Cycle durability don't even come close to Lithium-Ion batteries.


RE: Ni Zn
By silver on 3/19/2007 4:16:32 AM , Rating: 2
Hmmmm, and I wonder which one has had a lot more development dollars spent on it ?


ewww
By RallyMaster on 3/13/2007 11:11:47 PM , Rating: 2
it's fugly...ugh

why would i drive a white praying mantis around?




RE: ewww
By Tedtalker1 on 3/14/2007 12:38:15 AM , Rating: 2
Quote"why would i drive a white praying mantis around?

Because George Jetson drives one and it has a Flux Capacitor.


RE: ewww
By mezman on 3/14/2007 2:07:32 PM , Rating: 2
pfft...if only it had a flux capacitor. I'll bet as soon as you add one, the added weight will push the mpg back a lot. :)


whaa!?
By matthewpapa on 3/13/07, Rating: 0
RE: whaa!?
By superzor on 3/13/2007 9:04:41 PM , Rating: 2
Remember, they build these cars with a strange body, but they only do that to catch attention. The main thing is to look at the technlogy, but in today's cars.


RE: whaa!?
By wien on 3/14/2007 9:21:47 AM , Rating: 2
Well, I think the looks have more to do with aerodynamics. (Notice the drop-shape?) You won't get +200MPG in a Volvo, even if it has this powerplant and is lighter than air.


Funky looking
By shaw on 3/13/2007 9:00:48 PM , Rating: 2
I don't care if the car looks funky, as long as it looks more like a car and less like a cheap airplane.




RE: Funky looking
By TSS on 3/14/2007 7:47:24 AM , Rating: 2
í'd imagine that that 230mpg goes down quite alot if they shape this more like a car then a plane. the added weight, far worse aerodynamics then the shape it's in now...

sure, anything for the enviroment, unless it doesn't look good :P


Styling.....
By sintaxera on 3/13/2007 9:44:42 PM , Rating: 4
Barbarella called, she wants her car back to find Duran Duran.




Demolition man
By Omega215D on 3/14/2007 8:51:07 AM , Rating: 2
Looking at this car it makes me think:

"Fellow Greetings sir! What is your boggle?"
and "Be well John Spartan."

Not all three wheel vehicles are classified as motorcycles, the Morgans with 3 wheels were labeled as cars. For it to be a motorcycle if there are two wheels in front it cannot be more than a certain distance apart; if there are two wheels in the back then it is called a trike/ side car rig.




RE: Demolition man
By masher2 (blog) on 3/14/2007 10:16:22 AM , Rating: 2
> "Not all three wheel vehicles are classified as motorcycles..."

Do you have a link reference on this? I checked the DMV departments of several states and all defined a motorcycle as "any vehicle having a seat and not more than three wheels", though some specifically excluded farm tractors.


.
By semo on 3/13/2007 7:10:16 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
...no launch date has been given.
shocking.

is the ice used for forward propulsion or just generate electricity?




Flying License
By Kougar on 3/13/2007 8:22:50 PM , Rating: 2
I think that vehicle looks perfectly normal. Well, once you stick a "pushing" propeller on the back. That design strongly reminds me of a couple small ultralight craft I've seen before...




By SilthDraeth on 3/13/2007 11:09:35 PM , Rating: 2
These strangely designed cars are no more unsafe than a motorcycle on the highway. Yes I know, motorcycles are pretty dangerous, but they don't get 200mpg either. Speaking of which, since it is a 3 wheeled design, it would be classified as one on American roads anyways.




Meh.
By Ralph The Magician on 3/14/2007 12:27:25 AM , Rating: 2
Someone needs to take a Hummer H2 and fit it with MB's BlueTec Diesel engine, only throw in some batteries to make it a gas/electric hybrid and then use 50/50 diesel/biodiesel.




55mph sucks
By jmunjr on 3/14/2007 12:33:09 AM , Rating: 2
For me, I travel city roads and highways. This means I rarely drive around 55 mph. In the city I'll go from stop and go up to 45mph tops. On the highway I am usually hitting 70mph+.

It isn't 1975 anymore. Test the car in the city and at higher speeds than 55mph morons.

I am sure it gets its best mileage at 55mph, though most cars do so around 40 and in top gear I think.




Headline Correction
By masher2 (blog) on 3/14/2007 8:31:32 AM , Rating: 2
> "Aptera Motor Company Shows Off 200+ MPG Motorcycle ."

If it has three wheels, its a motorcycle by US DOT nomenclature regulations.




Cool but I would take the Loremo
By Mitch101 on 3/14/2007 10:16:12 AM , Rating: 2
This is just a little too space geek even for me. Give me a Loremo for $13K and I will go green. Please make it a reality and not another concept to never exist.




1 gallon at the pump woohooooooooo
By chhimp on 3/14/2007 11:46:27 AM , Rating: 2
With only about 1 - 2 gallon at the pump to fill = the average car mpg at 10-14 gallon = good local commuting car + $$$. Gas prices are rising again, $3.30 for the premium. Manufacturers need to hurry up with production and make it affordable for local commuting.




By PandaBear on 3/14/2007 2:21:26 PM , Rating: 2
Then it is a duck.




So unsafe that...
By GhandiInstinct on 3/13/07, Rating: 0
By mindless1 on 3/15/2007 4:23:29 AM , Rating: 2
Which is more dangerous, this or a motorcycle? Do most people who avoid motorcycles do so because they expect to be "dead in an hour" or because of the other factors like minimal cargo space and no protection from the elements?

Small vehicles that are well designed can run straight into a concrete wall and protect occupants, let alone impact with something more forgiving like a larger vehicle. The real question is how much lower the fuel economy would be to design it towards that end of more occupant safety, and what needs to happen in our legal system to encourage people to start conserving more fuel.

One idea that comes to mind is to designate speed limit classes for roadways. Ultra-efficient vehicles get to travel 10 MPH above posted speeds on non-residential or school/etc zones, and ultra-wasteful vehicles have to travel 5 MPH under that posted limit. When it starts to impact travel times, when the rich see their expensive vehicle being limited like this then it will start to make them think about it more, not to mention it will improve fuel efficiency to create an environment where those who want to go fast, don't choose a gas guzzler.


By isaacmacdonald on 3/13/2007 7:52:17 PM , Rating: 1
I seriously doubt there would be a mass adoption. The thing looks incredibly unsafe. I *might* consider driving one of these at 55mph on a closed track or if the only other vehicles in my lane weighed less than 1200lbs; otherwise it looks a bit suicidal.


By Samus on 3/13/2007 11:56:49 PM , Rating: 3
Also safer than a motorcycle, which I might add account for 3% (ref. wikipedia) of the registered vehicles nationwide.

I personally own a motorcycle because it gets 80MPG (Honda Rebel.) I'd consider one of these for the same reason, and it has a cabin so it would drive more comfortably in bad weather and maybe hold more cargo.


By silver on 3/19/2007 4:26:06 AM , Rating: 2
This is exactly my concern as I live in Tennessee where everyone that owns property, including the state, has a bulldozer come in and knock down 90% of the trees on their lots. I've already been blown off the road once that was in a Mercury Villager which has a V6 engine complete with fairly heavy front wheel drive system. The aerodynamic shape ought to help a good deal but that tail section combined with the light weight is a real bad combo.


FUCK HYBRIDS!
By daftrok on 3/13/07, Rating: -1
RE: FUCK HYBRIDS!
By Trippytiger on 3/13/2007 8:09:11 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
The Aptera type-1 uses a diesel-electric hybrid powertrain and is able to sprint from 0-60 in under 10 seconds.


Emphasis mine. These vehicles with incredible fuel economy are hybrids. Seriously, try reading the whole summary.


RE: FUCK HYBRIDS!
By daftrok on 3/16/2007 8:57:11 PM , Rating: 2
UGH I meant those Toyota and Honda hybrids artard.


"Google fired a shot heard 'round the world, and now a second American company has answered the call to defend the rights of the Chinese people." -- Rep. Christopher H. Smith (R-N.J.)

Related Articles
157 MPG Vehicle for only $13,000
February 27, 2006, 5:15 PM













botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki