> The car also boasts a “safety cell seven times stronger than steel,” for those worried that its unique design may not hold up well in an accident
Isn't that the opposite of what you want? Like... crumple zones?
> there’s also an option to put extra panels on the hood and hatch to add range
Sounds dubious. Can't imagine you're getting much power from an extra panel on the hood over the course of a drive?
Website also states that me, living in boston, driving 40 miles a day would only need to charge 6 times a year? There's just no way that's accurate. Deeply skeptical of this one.
Though I wouldn't hate a 20k electric triwheel car that didn't try to force the solar gimmick.
Because of the downvotes I will explain my statement.
The car has "a safety cell 7 times stronger than steel". That makes no sense. The strength of a physical object is a combination of the strength of its material(s), the geometry it's made into, and the joining method used to connect the parts.
An object is not stronger than steel, a material is. Saying an object is stronger than steel means nothing.
> Sounds dubious. Can't imagine you're getting much power from an extra panel on the hood over the course of a drive?
It's not primarily about charging while driving, it's increasing the range added from charge time while parked under the sun. Think parked all day while at work. It will increase the range of your commute to/from work, assuming it can charge in sunlight throughout the workday.
It seems like a perfectly reasonable assumption. The vast majority of parking spaces in existence are uncovered. And in cases where covered parking exists, there are usually uncovered options (for example in most parking garages that have a top uncovered floor, that floor tends to be the least occupied).
I love the idea of this vehicle, and if it performs as advertised I could see myself using it. However - I wouldn't want to bank on it charging during work to extend it's range every single workday. Overcast and rainy days happen almost everywhere, at least some times.
Or I could be misunderstanding something about solar panels - do they continue to charge even without direct visible light? I don't know much about them.
> Or I could be misunderstanding something about solar panels - do they continue to charge even without direct visible light? I don't know much about them.
They diminish output in proportion to the amount of light. In a charging situation where you require at least a certain voltage to push anything into the batteries, I presume it will just stop charging well before the panels are 100% dark.
Their calculations include corrections for capacity factors due to weather. They are probahly a little generous about traffic conditions in some areas though. 40 miles at constant 30mph is very different to stop start hitting 30mph each block or to constant 70mph.
A 100kWh battery is sufficient to average available energy for a 700W panel out over several weeks in summer at lower latitudes, and a month or so in worse conditions.
The idea seems untenable until you consider that it's more like a big ebike than a car. It weighs a fifth as much as a tesla and has under a third of the air resistance.
Solar panels do produce less power on overcast days than in full sun, but they are actually more efficient, not less - like other semiconductors, they work better at lower temperatures.
On one hand, I see where you are coming from. The vast majority of people overestimate the ability of solar to generate power. It requires a lot of surface area with good orientation to generate "meaningful" power, where "meaningful" is enough to power a typical house, a typical car, etc...
But it is also possible to attack the problem from the other end. Instead of making more energy, make things more efficient. For example, my e-bike is incredibly efficient. A 100 watt solar panel with good orientation and exposure is likely sufficient to charge my e-bike for my (previous) 14 mile round trip commute (since covid I am WFH though). But that same panel would probably get you 1-2 miles in a Tesla (more likely 0 as you couldn't even push enough power to initiate a charge on the massive batteries).
Seems like Aptera is coming at this from the efficiency end. There is an annual collegiate solar car competition and based on previous results you can get a pretty good upper bound of how many miles a "car-like" machine can travel on solar alone[1]. Based on those numbers, it looks like the multi occupant vehicles can get into the 80 miles per day range. This is on a track, going ~30 mph, so definitely not real world conditions. But one doesn't have to stretch their imagination too far to see how adding a few more creature comforts (i.e. vehicle weight, cabin and trunk space) and taking into account real world driving conditions, but also investing more time in aerodynamics and solar panels (the college kids in the solar comp are on a much lower budget) could result in a 40 mile/day estimate. I would probably guess that is on the high side, as Aptera has an incentive to push the numbers in their favor. But I couldn't certainly see how the numbers could be possible.
Aptera has a somewhat checkered history, which is another issue entirely. But just from a quick gut check, nothing they are promising seems to be out right impossible.
> Can't imagine you're getting much power from an extra panel on the hood over the course of a drive?
It's not just over the course of a drive. It's charging while your car is parked out in the sun all day long.
> Website also states that me, living in boston, driving 40 miles a day would only need to charge 6 times a year? There's just no way that's accurate.
Back of the envelope, that seems reasonable enough:
700 W * 12 hours/day * 2/pi (to account for sun angle over the course of the day) = ~5.4kWh/day.
Cut that in half to account for lousy Boston weather, and you get 2.7 kWh/day.
If they can get 10 mi/kWh (a Tesla gets ~4 mi/kWh), then that's 27 miles/day, which leaves you 13 miles/day short. Their battery provides 1000 miles of range, so you'd need to charge every 76 days, or about 5 times per year.
That still seems optimistic to me. These are non articulated panels, so I'd expect to see decent charging rates around local solar noon, but steep drop offs before and after, not to mention that any part of the panel being in shade will totally kill the efficiency.
There is no way that rooftop area is even as large as a standard solar panel (say 200 ft²). Even the most efficient panel is no more than 350W, so you're cutting your "700 W" more than in half right off the bat. Discounting less efficient cells, road dirt, and non-perpendicular angles and we'll be generous and say 300 W.
12 hours/day is the maximum possible solar duration so you really need to cut that in half to account for a full year on Earth. So we're down to 1 kWh/day and realistically much less if you happen to park under a tree or a bird poops on your roof. That will hopefully get you to a charging station but not much further.
The 700W number comes from Aptera's website [1]. You don't have to believe them -- but to achieve that, they'd need about 3.5 square meters of solar panels, and if you look at the overhead picture on that page, it looks like it has about that much.
12 hours/day is the average solar duration. You'll get more than 12 hours of sunlight in the summer and less in the winter, but it'll average out.
And sure, if you park under a tree or let your panels get dirty, you'll reduce the amount of charge you can get. Same thing if you park in a garage or paint the roof. We can sit around all day and come up with ways to kill the performance. But you can just choose not to do these things.
I thought this too until I heard about Amsterdam. Apparently it used to be car-centric as well. Then they decided whenever they were going to re-do some district, they would re-do it as walkable. Sure, it takes 40 years, but it's possible.
One issue is that much of the above is about ideal conditions. One has to think about the average car owner.
Even IC engines have ideal conditions like don’t use a lead foot and light on the brakes, but the average driver isn’t getting the ideal MPG. Similar issue with solar.
There's several square meters on there, and they could be using high efficiency panels.
700W is perfectly reasonable. I have a 200W panel acting as shade over a tricycle which is much smaller and can easily charge a 1kWh battery in a day..
> you can't take a battery deficit and make up for it later with a reversion to the mean.
Sure you can. Let's say you have a lousy day where you get 30% of the peak power (1.6 kWh in the example). You'll use 2.4 kWh of battery power that day, and unless your battery was already extremely low, you won't need to charge (and even if you do have to charge, it won't affect total charges per year - see below).
If the next day is good weather and you get 70% of peak power (3.8 kWh), you'll only use 0.2 kWh that day. Overall, you've driven 2 days and used 2.6kWh of battery power. Which is exactly the same as if both days had delivered 50% of the peak power.
Even if you assume that the entire winter will be lousy and the entire summer will be nice, that just means your charging schedule will be different based on season - you might need to charge every 50 days in the winter and every 120 days in the summer - but you'll still end up with the same number of charges per year.
But it's a queuing theory problem. The average is not a good indicator. It's how often does it reach a level that is so low you need to charge. Not the averages of the system. And it's not 0%. It's a level low enough that you don't want to bet on the charge rates
These 3-wheeled "legally a motorbike" car things are always an unpopular niche. Fantastic efficiency and a low price, but most people would rather shell out for a full-sized car.
They're legally motorbikes, so they are often not as safe as cars. This one boasts "eggshell" composites for crash safety, but often the lack of mass makes it hard to make these as safe as a heavier vehicle.
2 seats. It seems to have a lot of storage (25 cubic feet) but I bet it handles very badly if it's weighed down.
I can't find any mention of performance. I bet it's relying a lot on the high low-end torque of electric motors, and aerodynamic design at high speeds, and I wouldn't be surprised if it still handles quite slowly. I found a claim somewhere that it's over 99mph, which isn't exactly stunning.
These things never do that well. It's not because they're a terrible idea, they just have a lot of compromises. Of course, if conventional cars are too expensive (either the high upfront cost of an EV, or the high running costs of a gas guzzler) then it does make them a little more attractive.
Every time gas goes up, you see a bunch of people driving motorbikes or scooters to work to save money. Something that's legally a scooter but has a nice canopy could make a bit more sense, but it rarely seems to catch on.
Where I live, having a license to drive a car doesn't give you a license to ride a motorcycle. You have to go through whole stages of training/certification.
That's the same where I live, but there are plenty of motorcycle learn-to-ride classes that cost maybe $200 and provide the motorcycle. On the last day of the course, a person from the state comes by, supervises the testing, and (if you pass) signs the paperwork to get your license.
It's about as easy as it can be; if you want this Aptera thing a motorcycle license is not a barrier.
What concerns me more is that they have their factory in Carlsbad, CA. I don't think there are too many worse places to put a factory if you have a price point to meet, and I doubt that there is any space to expand.
It's a bit harder here, since you go through several stages, firstly a "learner license", with an "L" plate on the vehicle, then a "provisional license", with a "P" plate, before getting a full license. I think it's a somewhat expensive and time-consuming process.
I haven't done it that way personally, I got a car drivers license decades ago, when it was easy, and swapped it every time I moved countries. Getting a new license for a motorcycle isn't very appealing.
The battery adds a lot of weight so thing thing is heavier than a gas powered trike. I believe 1800lbs for the base model and 2500lbs for the longest range one.
My electrician friend just told me the other day that the sun very conveniently produces a 1000w/square meter at high noon. Solar panels have an efficiency of around 20% give or take. That is in direct sunlight at high noon. So at peak time of day you can produce about 200w/square meter of solar panel. That’s not a whole lot of energy so adding extra panel to the hood won’t yield a lot of energy but I guess every bit helps.
Re: crumple zones. I believe Smart cars feature a similar concept, most of the car is sacrificed on impact—the whole vehicle is a crumple zone—except the the two seats embedded in a tiny roll cage
>No, Aptera is not a car. We call it a Solar Electric Vehicle, because it’s powered by the sun and also charged with batteries when plugged in. Technically speaking, Aptera can be classified as a motorcycle or auto-cycle. A helmet is not required because Aptera is enclosed, and the vast majority of states only require that you have a regular driver’s license to operate Aptera.
They have to call it "not a car" for legal reasons (federal standards legally classify anything with less than four wheels as a motorcycle, regardless of its other qualities), but to anyone with eyes it's obviously a (weirdly-shaped) hatchback coupe.
Aptera is vaporware. It's been a concept since at least 2006 in many different incarnations.
I'm not sure if they've ever come closer to production than 1-2 prototypes driving around in a 1-minute promo video. Not sure they ever will, considering the incumbent competition (actual, real EVs on the road today)
I'm surprised, if the website isn't overselling this could actually be pretty good for the commuting I already do by train (zone 2, daily average of 20 miles). It's less ideal for where I'd rather live (zone 4, probably a higher daily average, with much less train access making a vehicle a better purchase) but still doesn't seem too bad at all.
My gut feeling is "it's too good to be true". I wouldn't pre-order, but I will tentatively await to see early results.
Also I part of me wants to pronounce it "a ptera" as in "a pterodactyl" rather than "ap-terra".
I pre-ordered this spring. The pre-order payment due is just $100. I've wasted more than that on plenty of dumber things in my life. If they can pull this off, it will be money well spent and I'll be thrilled to have one of the first cars they make.
A 1 square meter solar panel generates 200W (when aimed perfectly at the sun).
Since the car's top is a flat surface (as opposed to tilted towards the sun), that's cos(30) * 200W, or 173W.
A typical compact car (Honda Civic) has a surface area of about 8 square meters if it were a perfect rectangle.
That's 8 * 173 = 1.384 kW, or 1.86 horsepower under wildly optimistic circumstances.
I'm pretty skeptical, and details are thin, but this is what they say in their FAQ... "Even though the longest range Aptera can drive for about 1,000 miles between charge, the reality is that most of our driving is 30 miles or less. For Aptera, 30 miles consumes about 3 kWh of electricity. Now, let’s say your commute is 15 miles each way, let’s assume it’s dark when you’re driving to and from work. While parked at the office on a sunny day, your Aptera could put back in about 4.4 kWh which is far more than what you’ll use that day. You’ll arrive home with more charge than when you left with. That’s how it works, it’s as simple as that."
A Tesla Model S Long Range has a 95kWh battery, following the logic you present (which makes sense, btw) that energy is equivalent to a 127hp motor working for an hour. A Tesla definitely has more power than this, and it can definitely run for more than hour, so there's something else obviously missing (is regen braking THAT good?).
That aside, your 1.34kW should be enough to charge a big battery like this one in about two weeks, since that Tesla gets about 400 miles of range and Apteras are supposedly much more efficient, I think one should be fine if you expect to drive no more than 20-30 miles per day.
I believe GP's comment presumes that you can't move anything with 1.86 hp, and that's kind of true; but you don't have 1.86 hp at any given moment, you have whatever energy you have stored in your battery across time.
Assuming the equivalent of 6 hours of sunlight at 173W to account for the lower output in morning and evening, that's about 8.4kWh per day. To go 30 miles would require an efficiency of nearly 3 miles per kWh. That's very ambitious, though not impossible. We'll see how they perform when deliveries actually being I guess.
The prototype of their vehicle had about 700 watts of solar and provided about 40 miles/day of range. If the panels get roughly 6 hours of full insolation per day they're using about 100wh/mile. It's impressive, but only about 2.5 times more efficient than a Nissan Leaf, and still within the realm of possibility.
That same amount of solar on a Tesla would only give about 8 miles of range per day.
Rich Rebuilds has an interview/test with them. One of the people from the company mentioned that you have more aerodynamic drag on a bicycle than you do driving their vehicle.
The key idea is that this car is very efficient, due to its incredibly low Cd of 0.15, and lightweight construction. That enables stuff that other EVs can't do. Like 1,000 mile range, and adding up to 40mi / day via its on-board solar charging.
This can never work simply due to physics. It has a 100 kWh battery pack and no more than 1 kW maximum of solar panel capability, and probably quite a bit less due to the odd angles and less efficient panels.
EEVBlog did a video[0] on this concept recently and pointed out that his entire rooftop of ideally placed solar panels, in a nearly ideal location (Australia) could never power his own EV car. Backed up by real world data and common sense calculations.
Aptera themselves only claims "41 miles per day from sunlight under optimal conditions" which is the upper limit and will likely be a quarter or less in reality.
Compare this car to Tesla's prototype solar trailer[1], which easily has 10x the solar panel area as well as a battery. "If those are all 300W panels (and they look a little small for that), then the optimum output would be 2.7kW. That means it would generate less than 50 miles of range a day extended or a third of that folded up. "
I work from home and all of my driving outside of road trips probably averages out to about 40 miles a week. Considering that I paid $15k for my ICE car, something like this would be super attractive.
Heck, it would be even more attractive if I was commuting ~5 miles a day, which is farther than I’ll ever be willing to commute.
Shade might be a problem. Otherwise you can easily fit 3 sqm of panels which at Boston should [1] generate 688 kwh/yr. At 15kwh/100km efficiency that’s 4500km or 2800 miles or about 20% of your figure.
So… if you have shade, drive lots or live with little sun - buy something else. But if you can’t install solar on your roof and park on street - maybe solar car is decent fit!
So at the quoted 40mi/day for very good sun areas, that's almost exactly your average mileage.
More realistically most will get half that, so will have to get slightly more than half their power from a charger.
Sounds like a fraction to me.
The key difference between the aptera and other versions of similar concepts is they focused on making the vehicle as efficient as possible first. The thing barely uses more energy than a bicycle if the (very reasonable) claims about cd and weight are to be believed.
You'd never power a typical ICE car on 3kWh/day, or even something more efficient like a tesla or small electric motorcycle. But if you start with the most efficient vehicle possible, then you can make it work.
Also the 100 kWH battery pack is curious - a Tesla Model Y only has a 75 kWh battery pack and has a 300+ mile range. That is a ton of weight to be carrying around for a car that you would only drive a few miles once per week.
That video is about the Lightyear Zero, but the Aptera is dramatically different in that it's designed from the ground up for maximum efficiency instead of just having a sedan body plan with solar panels slapped on it.
That's the key thing behind stuff like the "thousand mile range battery pack" - that's actually just a normal (for an EV) sized battery, the car's just using it way more efficiently than most.
So less surface area in exchange for less air resistance? That's a difficult tradeoff when the A/C and other electric load devices will be constant despite the motive demands.
I do think lack of solar rejection and insulation is a big problem in their value proposition though. And with the solar panels built in you can't even reflect the light.
Shipping products implies real things and physics that work. What they say on the aptera website seems entirely reasonable: 700 watts of solar power good for up to 40 miles per day.
Basically this vehicle is very efficient so doing 40 miles while soaking up 6-10 hours x 700 = about 4-5 KWH seems doable. A Tesla would do about 4-5 miles/kwh. This thing is lighter, more slippy, and has one wheel less so it's probably a bit better than that. This car is covered in small panels and has a surface area that is probably 6-8 square meters. let's call it 7. 100w/square meter is not unreasonable. Probably it's a bit higher than that and the effective square meters of solar is a bit lower. But 700watt is not a strange number for a car that size.
The 25K model obviously does not have a 100KWH battery; that would be the top model which is presumably a lot heavier and logically less efficient and twice the price according to the article. Nobody is claiming that that vehicle would do 1000 miles on just solar power.
If you think about it, with such a huge battery, you could do 20 50 mile journeys without plugging in even without solar. Or about a month of commutes. And it would add 20-40 miles back in every day. And since this company is based in California, they get a lot of sunlight there so I could see how that would average closer to 40 than to 20.
Assuming you are not commuting on weekends it would either take months to drain the battery or you'd manage to keep it topped up with just the sun. And when you do run out eventually, you just plug it in and deal with it. If that happens a couple of times per year, so what? And you can go on a long journey and just fast charge and then most of the time when you don't do that, you just rely on the sun topping you up. Seems, like a great value proposition for people with a bog standard 10-20 mile commute. 365*40=14600 miles per year. Most drivers don't do that in a year. Probably the 25K model is all they'd ever need.
They have built exactly 3 prototype vehicles[0]. They are nowhere near shipping even their first production model.
[0] https://aptera.us/faq/
"We’ve completed three Alpha vehicles, Noir, Sol, and Luna. We are currently finalizing development of our Beta vehicles and plan to begin production closer to the second half of 2022."
Well, the commenter was calling bullshit on the physics and I just pointed out that the numbers are actually completely reasonable with some simple back of the envelope math. Please correct me if my math or assumptions are wrong in any way.
To be honest, I think this vehicle is a bit extreme but I don't see any fundamental reason why it wouldn't work as advertised. The design looks simple enough (but a bit wild and maybe not very practical). The square meters add up to the advertised solar capacity and the narrative as to why this would be efficient seems plausible as well. Probably there are going to be a lot more practical vehicles that you can buy for 25K pretty soon and probably cheaper than that even. Some of them even might have some solar panels. Why not?
7 sqm seems ambitious looking at the renders which have a few pannels on the bonnet and presumably a few on the back (but most of the top is all glass and none on the doors) - maybe more like 2-2.5 sqm?
Not saying it’s infeasible based on your other calcs - I’m not qualified to say, but you can see the panels on the render and they are pretty small so that number might need adjustment.
Edit: the panels on the front appear to be 20cm * 20cm = 0.04 sqm each, so 7m would be 175 of those. I think you can count/estimate 12-15 on the right hand side of the bonnet if you zoom in.
It’s funny how many times this same platform has been sold to the public. Elio motors, which is still publicly traded but nearing insolvency, promised to produce a gas version of effectively the same vehicle for 10k.
I like the transparency, simplicity that Mercedes has with the rooftop solar. The roof panel charges the 12v system so the 12v dc transformer is less parasitic. It may add 25km of range in a 1000km day
Three wheeled cars are an inherently bad design. They tip over too easily. The width between the front wheels looks like it's about as wide as what's legal, and that would help, but I don't think they've solved that problem.
Those front fenders are so low they're going to get ripped up on curbs and concrete wheelstops in parking lots. If someone crashes head on into that car it would really be ugly.
If you're old enough you might remember "the Dale car"[1] you'd know this is really not much different in design or the hype promoting it.
Advertising solar is just a gimmick to pick up news.
I'll believe it when I see it. The battery is the most expensive part of an EV, I'm highly skeptical they can price it so low when the other manufacturers are using 60kwh packs. Also, a heavy pack is bad for efficiency.
Article says they announced a factory. There's a pretty long lead time between announcing a factory and being able to "hit production" let alone actually deliver cars.
I'm positive on this general concept but dubious about this.
What about golf carts that senior communities use to get around Florida retirement villages?
Those with solar PV roofs and inductive charging pads seem like they'd be viable right now, anyone building them?
A quick Google suggests some scientist have suggested that basically all golf carts should have solar roofs, and some prepper communities are also building them.
92 comments
[ 2.3 ms ] story [ 146 ms ] threadIsn't that the opposite of what you want? Like... crumple zones?
> there’s also an option to put extra panels on the hood and hatch to add range
Sounds dubious. Can't imagine you're getting much power from an extra panel on the hood over the course of a drive?
Website also states that me, living in boston, driving 40 miles a day would only need to charge 6 times a year? There's just no way that's accurate. Deeply skeptical of this one.
Though I wouldn't hate a 20k electric triwheel car that didn't try to force the solar gimmick.
The car has "a safety cell 7 times stronger than steel". That makes no sense. The strength of a physical object is a combination of the strength of its material(s), the geometry it's made into, and the joining method used to connect the parts.
An object is not stronger than steel, a material is. Saying an object is stronger than steel means nothing.
It's not primarily about charging while driving, it's increasing the range added from charge time while parked under the sun. Think parked all day while at work. It will increase the range of your commute to/from work, assuming it can charge in sunlight throughout the workday.
That seems like a very bad assumption to me.
I love the idea of this vehicle, and if it performs as advertised I could see myself using it. However - I wouldn't want to bank on it charging during work to extend it's range every single workday. Overcast and rainy days happen almost everywhere, at least some times.
Or I could be misunderstanding something about solar panels - do they continue to charge even without direct visible light? I don't know much about them.
They diminish output in proportion to the amount of light. In a charging situation where you require at least a certain voltage to push anything into the batteries, I presume it will just stop charging well before the panels are 100% dark.
A 100kWh battery is sufficient to average available energy for a 700W panel out over several weeks in summer at lower latitudes, and a month or so in worse conditions.
The idea seems untenable until you consider that it's more like a big ebike than a car. It weighs a fifth as much as a tesla and has under a third of the air resistance.
They are much less efficient however
But it is also possible to attack the problem from the other end. Instead of making more energy, make things more efficient. For example, my e-bike is incredibly efficient. A 100 watt solar panel with good orientation and exposure is likely sufficient to charge my e-bike for my (previous) 14 mile round trip commute (since covid I am WFH though). But that same panel would probably get you 1-2 miles in a Tesla (more likely 0 as you couldn't even push enough power to initiate a charge on the massive batteries).
Seems like Aptera is coming at this from the efficiency end. There is an annual collegiate solar car competition and based on previous results you can get a pretty good upper bound of how many miles a "car-like" machine can travel on solar alone[1]. Based on those numbers, it looks like the multi occupant vehicles can get into the 80 miles per day range. This is on a track, going ~30 mph, so definitely not real world conditions. But one doesn't have to stretch their imagination too far to see how adding a few more creature comforts (i.e. vehicle weight, cabin and trunk space) and taking into account real world driving conditions, but also investing more time in aerodynamics and solar panels (the college kids in the solar comp are on a much lower budget) could result in a 40 mile/day estimate. I would probably guess that is on the high side, as Aptera has an incentive to push the numbers in their favor. But I couldn't certainly see how the numbers could be possible.
Aptera has a somewhat checkered history, which is another issue entirely. But just from a quick gut check, nothing they are promising seems to be out right impossible.
[1] https://www.americansolarchallenge.org/the-competition/2021-...
It'd suit the vast majority of commuters by me (American southwest), assuming it performs as advertised - which may be another very bad assumption.
It's not just over the course of a drive. It's charging while your car is parked out in the sun all day long.
> Website also states that me, living in boston, driving 40 miles a day would only need to charge 6 times a year? There's just no way that's accurate.
Back of the envelope, that seems reasonable enough:
700 W * 12 hours/day * 2/pi (to account for sun angle over the course of the day) = ~5.4kWh/day.
Cut that in half to account for lousy Boston weather, and you get 2.7 kWh/day.
If they can get 10 mi/kWh (a Tesla gets ~4 mi/kWh), then that's 27 miles/day, which leaves you 13 miles/day short. Their battery provides 1000 miles of range, so you'd need to charge every 76 days, or about 5 times per year.
12 hours/day is the maximum possible solar duration so you really need to cut that in half to account for a full year on Earth. So we're down to 1 kWh/day and realistically much less if you happen to park under a tree or a bird poops on your roof. That will hopefully get you to a charging station but not much further.
12 hours/day is the average solar duration. You'll get more than 12 hours of sunlight in the summer and less in the winter, but it'll average out.
And sure, if you park under a tree or let your panels get dirty, you'll reduce the amount of charge you can get. Same thing if you park in a garage or paint the roof. We can sit around all day and come up with ways to kill the performance. But you can just choose not to do these things.
[1] https://aptera.us/vehicle/
Kinda think govs should mandate one per suburb street to give people a mobility option, especially when they don’t require full licence.
Even IC engines have ideal conditions like don’t use a lead foot and light on the brakes, but the average driver isn’t getting the ideal MPG. Similar issue with solar.
700W is perfectly reasonable. I have a 200W panel acting as shade over a tricycle which is much smaller and can easily charge a 1kWh battery in a day..
I know this is pedantic, but it said extra RANGE. Range to me asks how far can you go without stopping.
> Cut that in half to account for lousy Boston weather, and you get 2.7 kWh/day.
But if you have a lousy day you need to charge... you can't take a battery deficit and make up for it later with a reversion to the mean.
Sure you can. Let's say you have a lousy day where you get 30% of the peak power (1.6 kWh in the example). You'll use 2.4 kWh of battery power that day, and unless your battery was already extremely low, you won't need to charge (and even if you do have to charge, it won't affect total charges per year - see below).
If the next day is good weather and you get 70% of peak power (3.8 kWh), you'll only use 0.2 kWh that day. Overall, you've driven 2 days and used 2.6kWh of battery power. Which is exactly the same as if both days had delivered 50% of the peak power.
Even if you assume that the entire winter will be lousy and the entire summer will be nice, that just means your charging schedule will be different based on season - you might need to charge every 50 days in the winter and every 120 days in the summer - but you'll still end up with the same number of charges per year.
They're legally motorbikes, so they are often not as safe as cars. This one boasts "eggshell" composites for crash safety, but often the lack of mass makes it hard to make these as safe as a heavier vehicle.
2 seats. It seems to have a lot of storage (25 cubic feet) but I bet it handles very badly if it's weighed down.
I can't find any mention of performance. I bet it's relying a lot on the high low-end torque of electric motors, and aerodynamic design at high speeds, and I wouldn't be surprised if it still handles quite slowly. I found a claim somewhere that it's over 99mph, which isn't exactly stunning.
There's already plenty of 3-wheeled EVs, the SARIT, ElectraMeccanica Solo, Spirtus EV as well as this one - https://electricautonomy.ca/2021/05/10/electric-three-wheele...
These things never do that well. It's not because they're a terrible idea, they just have a lot of compromises. Of course, if conventional cars are too expensive (either the high upfront cost of an EV, or the high running costs of a gas guzzler) then it does make them a little more attractive.
Every time gas goes up, you see a bunch of people driving motorbikes or scooters to work to save money. Something that's legally a scooter but has a nice canopy could make a bit more sense, but it rarely seems to catch on.
It's about as easy as it can be; if you want this Aptera thing a motorcycle license is not a barrier.
What concerns me more is that they have their factory in Carlsbad, CA. I don't think there are too many worse places to put a factory if you have a price point to meet, and I doubt that there is any space to expand.
I haven't done it that way personally, I got a car drivers license decades ago, when it was easy, and swapped it every time I moved countries. Getting a new license for a motorcycle isn't very appealing.
Well, no. You have those zones + extremely strong cell. [0]
https://youtu.be/TJzZ7-Od6KY
If its the same design as the original failed aptera the shell is carbon fiber.
There is a big question as to who is funding them as the original aptera motors had the same design & went bankrupt in 2011.
>Is Aptera a car?
>No, Aptera is not a car. We call it a Solar Electric Vehicle, because it’s powered by the sun and also charged with batteries when plugged in. Technically speaking, Aptera can be classified as a motorcycle or auto-cycle. A helmet is not required because Aptera is enclosed, and the vast majority of states only require that you have a regular driver’s license to operate Aptera.
I'm not sure if they've ever come closer to production than 1-2 prototypes driving around in a 1-minute promo video. Not sure they ever will, considering the incumbent competition (actual, real EVs on the road today)
My gut feeling is "it's too good to be true". I wouldn't pre-order, but I will tentatively await to see early results.
Also I part of me wants to pronounce it "a ptera" as in "a pterodactyl" rather than "ap-terra".
That's 8 * 173 = 1.384 kW, or 1.86 horsepower under wildly optimistic circumstances.
I call bullshit.
A Tesla Model S Long Range has a 95kWh battery, following the logic you present (which makes sense, btw) that energy is equivalent to a 127hp motor working for an hour. A Tesla definitely has more power than this, and it can definitely run for more than hour, so there's something else obviously missing (is regen braking THAT good?).
That aside, your 1.34kW should be enough to charge a big battery like this one in about two weeks, since that Tesla gets about 400 miles of range and Apteras are supposedly much more efficient, I think one should be fine if you expect to drive no more than 20-30 miles per day.
I believe them.
Take a look at the shape of the car. Pretty much the entire thing is designed around minimizing drag.
My Nissan Leaf (which is decidedly more brick-shaped than a Tesla) cruises at 50mph at something like 10-15hp, or less than 12kW.
It takes surprisingly small amounts of power to maintain cruise speed on level ground.
(Obviously cruise power scales with the cube(?) of speed, so it’s not like 10x power gets you 10x speed)
That's doable: https://ecocostsavings.com/electric-car-kwh-per-mile-list/
That same amount of solar on a Tesla would only give about 8 miles of range per day.
Rich Rebuilds has an interview/test with them. One of the people from the company mentioned that you have more aerodynamic drag on a bicycle than you do driving their vehicle.
For reference: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I-KdsjVQhu0
But when you need an artist's rendering to get a picture of your factory... there's probably some 0 to 1 work to be done first.
I pre-ordered one when I heard them interviewed on an NPR show this spring: https://www.wbur.org/hereandnow/2021/09/22/electric-cars-sun.... Rich rebuilds also did an episode around them: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I-KdsjVQhu0
I hope they get off the ground and actually start shipping cars
EEVBlog did a video[0] on this concept recently and pointed out that his entire rooftop of ideally placed solar panels, in a nearly ideal location (Australia) could never power his own EV car. Backed up by real world data and common sense calculations.
Aptera themselves only claims "41 miles per day from sunlight under optimal conditions" which is the upper limit and will likely be a quarter or less in reality.
Compare this car to Tesla's prototype solar trailer[1], which easily has 10x the solar panel area as well as a battery. "If those are all 300W panels (and they look a little small for that), then the optimum output would be 2.7kW. That means it would generate less than 50 miles of range a day extended or a third of that folded up. "
[0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xIokNnjuam8
[1] https://electrek.co/2022/07/04/tesla-unveils-solar-range-ext...
Some people do a few miles once a week. They’d never run out.
Heck, it would be even more attractive if I was commuting ~5 miles a day, which is farther than I’ll ever be willing to commute.
The US DOT says the average miles driven per year is 13,476 miles. You could never ever do even a fraction of that solely with on-vehicle solar.
So… if you have shade, drive lots or live with little sun - buy something else. But if you can’t install solar on your roof and park on street - maybe solar car is decent fit!
1: https://globalsolaratlas.info/map?c=42.360253,-71.058291,11&...
More realistically most will get half that, so will have to get slightly more than half their power from a charger.
Sounds like a fraction to me.
The key difference between the aptera and other versions of similar concepts is they focused on making the vehicle as efficient as possible first. The thing barely uses more energy than a bicycle if the (very reasonable) claims about cd and weight are to be believed.
You'd never power a typical ICE car on 3kWh/day, or even something more efficient like a tesla or small electric motorcycle. But if you start with the most efficient vehicle possible, then you can make it work.
Divide that by 365. 36 miles a day? Seems like it'd be fine here.
Most people would only need the 25kWh version.
That's the key thing behind stuff like the "thousand mile range battery pack" - that's actually just a normal (for an EV) sized battery, the car's just using it way more efficiently than most.
I do think lack of solar rejection and insulation is a big problem in their value proposition though. And with the solar panels built in you can't even reflect the light.
Basically this vehicle is very efficient so doing 40 miles while soaking up 6-10 hours x 700 = about 4-5 KWH seems doable. A Tesla would do about 4-5 miles/kwh. This thing is lighter, more slippy, and has one wheel less so it's probably a bit better than that. This car is covered in small panels and has a surface area that is probably 6-8 square meters. let's call it 7. 100w/square meter is not unreasonable. Probably it's a bit higher than that and the effective square meters of solar is a bit lower. But 700watt is not a strange number for a car that size.
The 25K model obviously does not have a 100KWH battery; that would be the top model which is presumably a lot heavier and logically less efficient and twice the price according to the article. Nobody is claiming that that vehicle would do 1000 miles on just solar power.
If you think about it, with such a huge battery, you could do 20 50 mile journeys without plugging in even without solar. Or about a month of commutes. And it would add 20-40 miles back in every day. And since this company is based in California, they get a lot of sunlight there so I could see how that would average closer to 40 than to 20.
Assuming you are not commuting on weekends it would either take months to drain the battery or you'd manage to keep it topped up with just the sun. And when you do run out eventually, you just plug it in and deal with it. If that happens a couple of times per year, so what? And you can go on a long journey and just fast charge and then most of the time when you don't do that, you just rely on the sun topping you up. Seems, like a great value proposition for people with a bog standard 10-20 mile commute. 365*40=14600 miles per year. Most drivers don't do that in a year. Probably the 25K model is all they'd ever need.
[0] https://aptera.us/faq/ "We’ve completed three Alpha vehicles, Noir, Sol, and Luna. We are currently finalizing development of our Beta vehicles and plan to begin production closer to the second half of 2022."
To be honest, I think this vehicle is a bit extreme but I don't see any fundamental reason why it wouldn't work as advertised. The design looks simple enough (but a bit wild and maybe not very practical). The square meters add up to the advertised solar capacity and the narrative as to why this would be efficient seems plausible as well. Probably there are going to be a lot more practical vehicles that you can buy for 25K pretty soon and probably cheaper than that even. Some of them even might have some solar panels. Why not?
Not saying it’s infeasible based on your other calcs - I’m not qualified to say, but you can see the panels on the render and they are pretty small so that number might need adjustment.
Edit: the panels on the front appear to be 20cm * 20cm = 0.04 sqm each, so 7m would be 175 of those. I think you can count/estimate 12-15 on the right hand side of the bonnet if you zoom in.
Those front fenders are so low they're going to get ripped up on curbs and concrete wheelstops in parking lots. If someone crashes head on into that car it would really be ugly.
If you're old enough you might remember "the Dale car"[1] you'd know this is really not much different in design or the hype promoting it.
1: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twentieth_Century_Motor_Car_Co...
Mr. Bean taught me this a very long time ago.
no, they did it in 2009. Its one of the longer running car scams out there, maybe only beat by the Moller flying car
CEO came back, I imagine had to rebuy IP and trademarks, and start over again.
I'll believe it when I see it. The battery is the most expensive part of an EV, I'm highly skeptical they can price it so low when the other manufacturers are using 60kwh packs. Also, a heavy pack is bad for efficiency.
What about golf carts that senior communities use to get around Florida retirement villages?
Those with solar PV roofs and inductive charging pads seem like they'd be viable right now, anyone building them?
A quick Google suggests some scientist have suggested that basically all golf carts should have solar roofs, and some prepper communities are also building them.
https://www.pv-magazine.com/2020/07/16/techno-economic-analy...