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.



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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

 

[ERD50]

Jetson Car Available in One Year?

Year is up! Even a 3 month grace period. Where's the car?

How about.... 'next year'?

Why electric cars have stalled - Aptera's speed bumps (3) - Small Business

Aptera, which makes an electric, two-seat, three-wheel model, said last year it would ship 4,000 of its cars by November 2008, ramping up to 10,000 in 2009. Instead, the company ran into design problems.

By the end of next year, Aptera hopes to ship cars to the 3,600 customers who have already paid a $500 deposit (the cars will sell for around $30,000).

-ERD50

 

[ziggy29]

The next big breakthrough in electric car technology is virtually always 1-2 years away.

 

[Frugality_of_Apathy]

The next big breakthrough in electric car technology is virtually always 1-2 years away.

That's why the EPA always feels confident they can ban things there is currently no replacement for. Sure they can't make that product anymore now, but that breakthrough is going to happen in a year when it goes into effect anyway.

Namely flame retardants in plastics. They've banned any of the effective clear ones. Caused me 6 months of hassle for a part we ended up having to just ask for a waiver on a couple safety requirements as it was no longer possible to meet them. sure more people might die from the fires but at least if they decide to start prying up the floor and eating it they'll be perfectly safe.

 

[TromboneAl]

10 Electric Cars You Can Buy Today | Hypermiling, Fuel Economy, and EcoModding News - EcoModder.com

 

[deepc]

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

This is the latest debate it seems, MPG vs. G/100M. While it's true that the difference in SAVINGS are minimal, the difference in total usage is high. Using the given figures, 230 MPG uses about 10 pct of the gas used at 24 MPG to go the 10k; 43 gal vs. 416 gal.

Any business model proposing super high mileage cars needs to emphasize the long term fuel cost savings overall. Here, you're getting a 375 gal premium at the high MPG.

 

[ERD50]

This is the latest debate it seems, MPG vs. G/100M. While it's true that the difference in SAVINGS are minimal, the difference in total usage is high. Using the given figures, 230 MPG uses about 10 pct of the gas used at 24 MPG to go the 10k; 43 gal vs. 416 gal.

Any business model proposing super high mileage cars needs to emphasize the long term fuel cost savings overall. Here, you're getting a 375 gal premium at the high MPG.

I think you are missing the point.

Sure, some super-high mpg figure means we are using only a little gas, but that is just an arithmetic exercise. The goal is, how do you reduce consumption overall in the real world?

And making 230mpg cars that few want to buy doesn't accomplish as much as making 75mpg cars that more people buy. You can't just 'wish' for high mpg, you have to produce a vehicle that can deliver it, with a price, performance and features that people want.

Auto technology is just too well understood to expect some miracle. So we need to go for incremental improvements, and just eliminate miles driven through public transport, telecommuting, car-pooling, etc.

-ERD50

 

[Midpack]

10 Electric Cars You Can Buy Today | Hypermiling, Fuel Economy, and EcoModding News - EcoModder.com

Except all are either NEV's (restricted to roads with 35mph speed limits), very expensive and/or available only in CA or other countries. But it's a start, as someone who would like to have one conventional car and one electric or other very high mpg commuter, I am looking forward to something affordable that can run on highways. The Volt is conceptually there, but time will tell...

 

[ziggy29]

Except all are either NEV's (restricted to roads with 35mph speed limits), very expensive and/or available only in CA or other countries.

I'd love to have one of these for running errands here in town; we can get from just about any place to any other place on roads marked at 35 or less. The problem is that these things are (currently) almost the same price as a new gas-powered car and much more limited in utility, so the cost just can't be justified.

 

[Bestwifeever]

I thought about this thread when I read this story in today's Chicago Tribune:

Solar car completes first-ever round-the-world trip -- chicagotribune.com

The car is completely solar powered. Not practical by today's standards, but for the Jetsons, who could take that monorail everywhere, a car like this would fill in nicely for little trips here and there. It got up to 55 mph, according to the story.

 

[ERD50]

I thought about this thread when I read this story in today's Chicago Tribune:

Solar car completes first-ever round-the-world trip -- chicagotribune.com

The car is completely solar powered. Not practical by today's standards, but for the Jetsons, who could take that monorail everywhere, a car like this would fill in nicely for little trips here and there. It got up to 55 mph, according to the story.

These stories are interesting, but counterproductive, IMO.

I think the general public walks away thinking that a solar panel on a car is a good idea. But it is a terrible idea.

That panel will *never* be in an optimal position to the sun (unless you live near the equator). It will be parked in shade much of the time, etc - it is a waste of the energy it took to maker the panels. Plus, it is a waste to move the weight and added air drag of those panels around day after day. They would be far better off in a fixed mount, producing energy whenever there is sunshine. For practical use, you are going to need enough batteries to provide full performance in a car like that anyway, so ditch the wasted solar panel.

So why invest 'creative energy' and time in a dead end? Silly, IMO. And the wrong kind of media attention.

-ERD50

 

[Bestwifeever]

Well it DID go 33,000 miles--it made it out of the lab and onto the street.

And the Jetsons would love it....

 

[ERD50]

I'd love to have one of these for running errands here in town; we can get from just about any place to any other place on roads marked at 35 or less. The problem is that these things are (currently) almost the same price as a new gas-powered car and much more limited in utility, so the cost just can't be justified.

I'd consider a VOLT w/o the range extender at the right price. There are only a few times a year that I use *my* car for a round trip over 40 miles, and some of those I could plug in during my visit to handle maybe a 60 to 80 mile round trip. We can take the other car for long trips.

But I'm not interested in paying more for a car with those restrictions, and until battery prices come down, I think that is where we will be.

Imagine if that range extender engine was completely modular, with a slide in mount, and quick-connect system. You could just rent one when you needed it, then you would not be carrying that extra weight around when you don't need it, you wouldn't pay for it upfront, and it wouldn't sit around idle for 90% of the time. I've seen some ideas like this with a little trailer behind. I think that could be workable, if it was fixed to the car, so you wouldn't need trailer-backing-up skills.


-ERD50