Jetson Car Available in One Year

[TromboneAl]

Finally a car that looks like what Popular Science said we'd be driving in the year 2000.

Aptera.jpg

The electric model is said to go 120 miles/charge. Lowest coefficient of drag of any car. Hybrid model said to get 230 MPG. Has special safety features. Cost: $28,000.

Aptera

[samclem]

I sure hope the car's design is better than that web site. Ugh

[ERD50]

Originally Posted by samclem

I sure hope the car's design is better than that web site. Ugh

Geez, fire that 'creative' web designer, now. I guess they don't want to sell cars.

For a while, I thought it was some kind of gag, since after several minutes of various random scenes, there was zero info about a car. Ken Burn's effect slides and a short repetitive guitar thing that sounded like 'Blackbird'. I didn't get it.

So, when you turn the key, do you need to sit through a vacation slide show with background music before the car starts? Maybe that's how it gets such good mileage - the owner gets frustrated waiting, and gets out and walks?

A bit more digestible info here (but not much):

Aptera hybrid car - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Nickel-zinc battery - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

330 MPG! Aptera Hybrid Promises Amazing Mileage for Less Than $20,000

-ERD50

[chinaco]

Site was pretty bad. They tried to make it like an interactive commercial.


The ideas they are working with seem right. But I am not sure that the design (looks) of that car will be a success. I hope that is a prototype and not the real deal.

If they could turn it into a 4 wheel vehicle that looks a little more conventional that gets 150 mpg/hybrid.... they might have a successful venture.

[travelover]

Looking at the car, I think someone is burning through an inheritance or someone else's money.........

[ERD50]

Originally Posted by chinaco

If they could turn it into a 4 wheel vehicle that looks a little more conventional that gets 150 mpg/hybrid.... they might have a successful venture.

Yes, going for super-high mileage can actually be counterproductive. Super-high mpg impacts the acceptability of the vehicle to the masses due to the constraints placed on them, so fewer people buy them and the math works against you.

At 10,000 miles a year, if you get someone to buy a 75MPG car vs a 35MPG car, you conserve 152 gallons annually.

At 10,000 miles a year, if you get someone to buy a 230MPG car vs a 35MPG car, you conserve 242 gallons annually. Only 90 more gallons conserved.

So, we are better off getting two people to convert to 75mpg vehicles (354 gallons conserved) than one person converted to a 230 MPG vehicle (242 MPG gallons conserved).

I think this was brought up on another thread, but the real gallons savings is to get the low/mid MPG vehicles improved, that is where the most actual savings can be realized.

Getting a 15 MPG driver to choose a 24 MPG vehicle saves more fuel than getting a 35 MPG driver to step up to some currently unavailable 230 MPG car.

35 MPG moved up to 230 MPG = 242 gallons saved over 10,000 miles.
15 MPG moved up to 24 MPG = 250 gallons saved over 10,000 miles.

There was a group that was sponsoring a high MPG car design contest, and they stressed that they were shooting for a 100 MPG design for this very reason. Very little gained going to 200 MPG and the negatives outweigh the positives, at least for now.

-ERD50

[Lakewood90712]

Originally Posted by chinaco

If they could turn it into a 4 wheel vehicle that looks a little more conventional that gets 150 mpg/hybrid.... they might have a successful venture.

It's 3 wheel to be classified as a motorcycle, bypassing most federal and state safety requirements, and allowing driver only access in carpool lanes.

This one might actually survive. No exotic technology , and no bogus "Under $10,000" claims from some sim. small companies in the past.

[chinaco]

Looks like Lithium Ion batteries would not be a good idea for cars.

Watts the Deal With Lithium-Ion Batteries?

Apparently, Lithium carbonate is mainly produced by China and Argentina.

Oh well. NiMH is looking much better.

[chinaco]

Chevy Malibu has a hybrid. Here are the specs of the regular 4 cyl and the hybrid.


Hybrid 4cyl - (City/Hwy) 24/32 mpg
Regular 4cyl - (City/Hwy) 22/30 mpg

2008 Chevrolet Malibu specs, auto safety at Edmunds
2008 Chevrolet Malibu specs, auto safety at Edmunds

With numbers like that... why bother?

[Nords]

Originally Posted by TromboneAl

Finally a car that looks like what Popular Science said we'd be driving in the year 2000.

Yeah, but where the $%&^ do you put the longboard?!?

[Peaceful_Warrior]

Originally Posted by Nords

Yeah, but where the $%&^ do you put the snowboard?!?

Exactly my problem, too!

[tryan]

Forget about your gas savings ... you'll blow thru that 10 fold trying to service the thing. Some how driving in a fig-leaf does not give me a warm-fuzzy feeling.

[travelover]

Originally Posted by chinaco

Chevy Malibu has a hybrid. Here are the specs of the regular 4 cyl and the hybrid.


Hybrid 4cyl - (City/Hwy) 24/32 mpg
Regular 4cyl - (City/Hwy) 22/30 mpg

2008 Chevrolet Malibu specs, auto safety at Edmunds
2008 Chevrolet Malibu specs, auto safety at Edmunds

With numbers like that... why bother?

I agree, the GM mild hybrids are a waste. But look at the Civic Hybrid with the 4 cylinder non hybrid at 30/40 (city / highway) and the full hybrid version at 49/51. One could argue that that is not even enough increased mileage for a reasonable payback period, but using the mild hybrids as an example may distort the potential of hybrids.

http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/FEG2007.pdf