GM just revealed its new electric Escalade – a huge, wastrel of an SUV that will start “around” $130,000. It’s an obscenity on so many levels it is hard to count them all.
First, if the “climate” truly is in “crisis,” then why the – expletive deleted – are vehicles such as this being made? Why are they being encouraged? Doesn’t a “crisis” require sacrifices? As in making do with less? Yet here is a vehicle that uses up probably five times as much raw materials to make it – and five times as much energy to power it – as something like the Aptera, which isn’t an affront to common sense but that probably isn’t something that uber affluent virtue-signalers want to drive.
And that’s probably why you haven’t even heard of it. So what is it?
The Aptera is a small, light, three-wheel EV that isn’t designed to virtue-signal. It is designed to be efficient as well as practical and – the big one – affordable (the projected base price of this little EV is $33,200).
In order to be those things, the Aptera cannot be anything like the Escalade EV, which weighs nearly four tons and requires the electricity equivalent of 15 gallons of gasoline to travel a supposed 450 miles (if you believe it will actually go 450 miles – in the cold – there’s a great deal to be had on a bridge that’s for sale in Manhattan). Even assuming it’s so, it’s at best a modest improvement over the 456 highway miles a non-electric (and not quite three ton) Escalade can actually travel on 24 gallons of gas, irrespective of the cold.
For $79,295.
That’s the base price of a new, non-electric Escalade. Let’s see. That’s a difference of some $50,000 to be able to not use nine gallons of gas – the extra you’d need to put in the non-electric Escalade’s tank to go the same distance GM says the electric version will supposedly go on the electric equivalent of 15 gallons.
Work out what the cost per gallon of that is. Then again, if you can afford to spend $130,000 on a vehicle, you don’t have to worry about how much gas – or electricity – you can afford.
The Aptera, on the other hand, is what an EV ought to be – if the point is to have a car that makes more sense than EVs like the battery-powered Escalade. If the point is to use less rather than waste more.
And if there really is a “crisis.”
Because it is not an energy hog. Nor is it a resources hog.
It does not need the two tons of battery needed to store the energy equivalent of 15 gallons of gas vs. the 150 pounds that 24 gallons of gas weighs that will take the non-electric Escalade (sans the weight) the same distance. It has a small battery sufficient to store the energy it needs to go almost as far ( supposedly) as the battery-powered Escalade will supposedly go – and the Aptera’s touted 400 mile range is apt to be more in line with how far it actually does go, precisely because it is not dragging around a two-ton battery (plus the rest of itself).
The Aptera’s curb weight is less than one ton.
The whole thing. The car – and the battery. Just 1,800 pounds. That’s the prototype; whether the production model can hew to that while also complying with all federal saaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaafety requirements, which have helped pork up all new cars, remains to be seen.
But the point here is that Aptera is at least trying to make a light EV.
And if Aptera succeeds, an 1,800 pound pound Aptera would be hundreds of pounds lighter than any non-electric car on the market and half the weight of the “‘lightest EVs on the market (even a small EV such as the Tesla Model 3, which is a compact sedan about the same size as a Honda Civic, weighs more than most current mid-sized cars and almost as much as some full-sized cars).
If the production Aptera lives up to its 1,800 pound promise, it would weigh about the same as a ’70s Beetle.
And because it weighs so little, it can do something no other EV can do. It can make practical use of solar power – on the go.
Aptera says the car is light enough that the small amount of sun power collected by its roof-mounted solar panels can keep it going for 40 miles, without having to stop for a charge. If this proves to be doable, it will be sensational. Sun power – for free – for real. As opposed to coal and natural gas power, for real.
With other EVs, solar serves no meaningful purpose because it is not generally possible to collect enough sun power (within a reasonable amount of time) to instill sufficient motive force to move two tons of steel and glass. Let alone four. When these electric Oprahs run out of power, they stop running – and you begin waiting.
In order to be what every other EV isn’t, the Aptera is nothing like them. It does not try to be a family car. As a small (and very light) two-seater car – riding on three wheels – the Aptera is designed to be a single’s or couple’s car or a second car. Though it Aptera promises highway legs, these are not the point – though having the capability will be nice.
The point is that the Aptera accentuates the EV’s strengths by not being designed around its weaknesses. It is thus the one thing no other EV on the market is.
That being a car that might actually save you money (never mind the planet). People might actually want to buy it. And without being forced to.
Imagine that.
For these reasons, it will probably never actually become available. The government cannot allow such an EV as it would contrary to the whole point of “electrification.” Which, by now, is something all but the most starry-eyed dullards have finally clued into.
. . .
If you like what you’ve found here please consider supporting EPautos.
We depend on you to keep the wheels turning!
Our donate button is here.
If you prefer not to use PayPal, our mailing address is:
EPautos
721 Hummingbird Lane SE
Copper Hill, VA 24079
PS: Get an EPautos magnet or sticker or coaster in return for a $20 or more one-time donation or a $10 or more monthly recurring donation. (Please be sure to tell us you want a magnet or sticker or coaster – and also, provide an address, so we know where to mail the thing!)
If you like items like the Keeeeeeeeev! t shirt pictured below, you can find that and more at the EPautos store!
More FUD (fire prone unsafe disasters)?
Nikola Issues EV Truck Recall, Halts Sales After “Thermal Incident” Probe
https://www.zerohedge.com/markets/nikola-issues-ev-truck-recall-halts-sales-after-thermal-incident-probe
From link:
About 60% of the heavy-duty battery-electric trucks manufactured by the company over the last year have been recalled. This is almost every truck that was shipped to customers. These trucks are currently used by commercial freight businesses, parked at dealership lots or the company’s headquarters.
Nikola recently flagged “substantial doubts” about its ability to continue operations for the next 12 months
—
Yeah, no shit.
That’s gold, FDS: “FUD (fire prone unsafe disasters)”
I’ve been reflecting on the words of the Tom Woods fan and what I hear is defeat. Also, the words of the Borg, “you will be assimilated!” Ultimately, though, very cynical and going through the motions of “libertarianism” in order to deride it. Truly an(other)? agent of demoralization that, sadly, one of our own has decided carry a torch for.
Now that we’re in August 2023, not say, November 2020, it’s easy to mock what, in this very blog commanded by Eric and supported by you and the overall commenter community here, provided myself and my family, and dare I say many others here, the grist to fight on against a seemingly unstoppable (at the time) get along go along “blob.” And to a very large extent we’ve been vindicated. I’ll never forget that and I doubt any Johnny-come-lately heckler type will ever understand that. The haters will still hate but f ‘em.
Funk,
I can’t speak for anyone else, but for my part, it’s been my pleasure.
I have enjoyed your posts John. And Eric and Raider Girl and Drumpish and Funk…and even Anonymous, too. And I may have misses a few regulars who have been here a long time. I get to the point where it is just not worth the waste of typing a respnse to others who add nothing to the conversation.
I sort of enjoy poking them in the ribs until they embarrass themselves. Which they tend to do.
From about March of 2020 and for a good 12 months after, Eric and the regular commenters here were absolutely essential to the fight and my sanity. This space was literally one of only a very few respites from the plandemic blob that encircled the earth. That was a very nasty, surreal time!
I remember listening to Tom Woods in the months of March and April of 2020, and although I think the world of Tom, he himself was very wobbly on the topic. I initially wrote him off as lost, but Woods eventually found his spine and I’m thankful for that.
From day one though, Eric was preaching the truth and fighting with the utmost of courage, getting tossed by his “friends” at the Donkey for not wearing “his” mask (I’ll never forget his rage when he learned the Donkey received about $150k in “covid” payoffs), giving us those great Diaper Reports and even scoping out the hospital in Roanoke to document the lie of “hospitals overflowing with covid patients.” At the time it literally felt like there were maybe 100 people on earth that recognized the scam and about 50 of them (us) were here. I’m not sure if I knew a single person physically around me (outside of my immediate family) that hadn’t fallen deeply under the “covid” spell. Of course, everybody now claims to have always been against it, right?
FDS: My resolve against tyranny is stronger than ever, in large part because of this community. But, some men you just can’t reach. You’re right, it does sound like defeat.
Thanks for the kind words, Mister!
Lately, I feel back in the fight – dealing with Martin – who is one of those people who thinks it was no big deal. Just move on and carry on. Who, even now, defends his bowing to the mass hysteria. I have tried hard to explain to him why doing that only worsens and prolongs it and – far worse – increases the chances of such a thing happening again.
It is imperative that enough people come to understand what the “pandemic” was – and understand that another one can never be permitted to get going, again.
His adamant defense of his masking indicates one of two things. A: he’s proud of it or B: he’s deeply ashamed of it.
Where you guys write the word, “defeat” I see the word, submission.
…Anyway, have you guys listened to this song yet?
https://forum.ericpetersautos.com/forums/topic/songs-of-the-resistance/
I’m just about 100% certain it won’t make your teeth hurt.
Thanks, Funk –
You’ve nailed it. Defeatism justified. He “needed to get some shit” – and so he did what he was told. He showed his “opposition” to “masking” by wearing a gaiter. Which qualified as a “mask.” So that he could get some “shit.” He does not understand – or want to accept – that by wearing the goddamned “mask” – or gaiter – he and others who did affirmed the hysteria, thus helping to propagate it.
Similarly, he does not understand that by not refusing the forced EV he is assuring EVs will be forced on all.
Instead of acknowledging the principles at issue, he defends his own circumstances and casts aspersions on those who do understand – and did not give aid and comfort to the enemy.
These are the people who will do (and amen) anything the government tells them to do in order to not be inconvenienced. They remind me of Ned Beatty. Look, we don’t want any trouble here...
The problem with these people, Eric, is that they eventually want to force the rest of us to wear the mask….or get the jab…..or drive the EV instead of the ICE vehicles we refuse to give up without a fight. These kind of people simply cannot mind their own business, and they have to make it their life mission to make us as miserable as them.
Here’s you one Eric, if you haven’t already seen this. The fun of owning an electric F-150.
s://moonbattery.com/learning-the-hard-way-not-to-buy-an-ev/
Can go to the original article, but thought you would enjoy reading this also.
Hi Elaine: Thanks for posting that. It makes perfect sense. EVs are just not up to the task of taking over the duties of ICE cars and trucks. They are vastly inferior on most accounts and costs significantly more.
Fortunately, EVs need not take over all duties of all ICEVs. We don’t live in a world of all this and none of that.
Martin,
You write:
“Fortunately, EVs need not take over all duties of all ICEVs. We don’t live in a world of all this and none of that.”
This entirely misses the point – which is that the intention is to eliminate all alternatives to the EV, so that EVas do “take over all the duties.” They intend to make this a world of “all of this and none of that.”
It’s not a debatable point. The laws and regs are on the books – and more are coming.
Indeed, Eric. One way or another they will force us out of our ICE vehicles. Either by eliminating the supply of petrol or the means of maintaining our ICE vehicles.
Current EVs fill that very important niche of those looking for vehicles vastly inferior to and significantly more expensive than ICE cars and trucks.
It is undeniable that EVs are less capable in virtually every way, save “Ludicrous Mode” (i.e. instant full torque), but that causes a big drain on an EV’s range and eventually the novelty wears off. One only has to ask what NEED is NOT being fulfilled by an ICE car or truck that an EV will provide?
Martin Brock: In your case, what things are lacking from your Mazda 3 that an Aptera (or any other EV) would provide? This is a genuine question. I’m really interested in hearing your response. Maybe I’m dead wrong on this, but I just don’t think you’ll come up with anything.
I saw a Ford Lightning the other day. Wonder how that will work once forty below arrives? If the driver is lucky, he will not get stranded and freeze to death in the middle of nowhere.
Well… if Aptera starts to become popular… Expect that THEY(Secular Ruling Families & Billionaires) will start to TAX the SUN.
54 miles driven today, 3 gallons of fuel. 12 big dollars.
In March of 1970, the cost during a gas war was 60 cents, 19.9 cents per gallon, no kidding.
60 cents in 1970 is 12 dollars in today’s currency, not that it matters or something.
75.9 cents per gallon in the middle of a New York City gas station was the straw that broke the camel’s back, you are paying through the nose.
Back then, you were taken aback.
Another 54 miles, another 60 cents in 1970 dollars, no problem.
Another day of drinking beer and having fun.
What else is there? Nothing! Have fun!
The EVs AS THEY OUGHT TO BE opinion can easily be defended by observing actual low priced, lightweight EVs already on the roads in China.
One in four cars sold in China in 2022 was an EV.
BYD’s basic Seagull EV model costs a mere 73,000 yuan (about $10,200 as of late July) and, with two available versions, travel 305 to 405 kilometers (about 190 to 252 miles) per charge, according to Reuters, The very low price is partially the result of generous government subsidies, tax breaks, procurement contracts, and other policy incentives.
The low end of China’s EV market — small and cheap electric cars priced below 100,000 renminbi (RMB), or around $15,000 — is already highly electrified, with “mini city cars” like the bestselling GM-Wuling Hongguang EV costing as little as $5,000. Mar 14, 2023
There are problems too:
Hundreds of EV companies have gone bankrupt, leaving behind thousands of abandoned cars in fields and warehouses June 22, 2023
Cars made for the Chinese market aren’t subject to U.S. safety standards. For Americans to really enjoy the low prices available in China, they would need Chinese EV companies to move their operations to North America, thus sidestepping the tariff. July 5, 2023
Tesla has slashed prices on some vehicles in China by more than 40% compared to their sticker price in the US as Elon Musk’s struggling electric automaker responds to dwindling demand in the region. Jan 6, 2023
Below is a link to one of MANY road tests of a cheap Chinese EV:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cngD6jyxAOA
This is a real Chinese EV in production and for sale. It is not a prototype that has never been driven by anyone except company employees. The EV review does not rely on claims copied from the manufacturer’s press release.
Here is a chart I made for special needs people whose initials start with R.G. who need extra help understanding that any atmospheric CO2 level above 100 ppm has little effect on warming. This chart illustrates why current CO2 levels of 420 ppm are not warming the planet.
https://i.ibb.co/nnsVgbQ/221717-30c7d1810a08558e84cdb92112602783.png
https://i.ibb.co/VqqQCq5/co2-modtrans-img2.jpg
Just remember ppm is parts per million, and why increasing a trace gas in parts per million does NOT control the thermodynamics of a planet as claimed by the Klimate Katastrophe Kult (KKK).
“This chart illustrates why current CO2 levels of 420 ppm are not warming the planet.”
The chart shows just the opposite. It is a deception chart where a doubling of CO2, from 20ppm to 40 ppm, is one increment apart, while a doubling from 400ppm to 800ppm requires 20 increments. Each increment looks tiny until you add up all 20. An old charting trick. I figured it out in one minute, years ago, while completing a NY Times crossword puzzle in 10 minutes, with a pen rather than a pencil, during a conferene call with the president.
About your claim that CO2 above 420ppm is NOT warming the planet:
2024
Stockholm, Sweden
Yukon Jack wins Nobel Prize in Physics
For proving that nearly 100% of the world’s scientists have been completely wrong about the warming effect of CO2 since 1896.
In his acceptance speech, Mr. Jack, who hides behind a moniker and a mask, said: “I want to thank Mr. Nobel for making this day necessary.”
And then his dream ended, and Mr. Jack woke up.
A charting trick? According to the first link, raising the co2 atmospheric concentration from 0 to 20ppm increases the temperature by about 1.5C. At a concentration of 420ppm, raising the concentration by 20ppm appears to raise the temperature by about 0.02C. So doubling the concentration from 400ppm to 800ppm would raise the temperature by 0.02C * 20 = 0.4C. Doubling the co2 concentration from 400ppm to 800ppm raises the temperature by about 1/4 as much as increasing the concentration from 0 to 20ppm.
Te logarithmic effect of CO2 alone is compromised with the CO2 versus temperature chart presentation in 20ppm increments.
In addition to the effect of CO2 alone, any climate change variable that increases the average temperature of the troposphere, such as CO2, causes the troposphere to hold more water vapor.
Water vapor is a powerful greenhouse gas.
A +1 degree C. increase in the average temperature will increase troposphere water vapor by about +7%.
The result of more CO2 and the water vapor positive feedback is believed to be at least double the warming effect of CO2 alone.
CO2 is a weak greenhouse gas above the current ambient level of 420ppm. Rising CO2 from this point is not dangerous in any way. Even if the warming effect of CO2 is doubled with a water vapor positive feedback, the total warming effect will not dangerous in the next 100 years.
Skeptic scientists who I trust, such as Richard Lindzen and William Happer, estimate a +1 degree C. warming from a doubling of the CO2 level.
The IPCC estimates a +2.5 to +4.0 degree C. warming from a doubling of the CO2 level.
With the current global average temperature of about 15 degrees C., a +4 degree C. increase could be a problem.
How long would it take for the current CO2 level of 420ppm to double to 840ppm nat the current rise rate of +2.5ppm a year? Answer: 186 years.
This adds up to a nothingburger prediction because no one actually knows for certain if the climate will be warmer or cooler in 100 years.
A problem with some conservatives is they set themselves up to be fact checked and ridiculed as science deniers.
The most common statements are that there is no greenhouse effect, CO2 is 97% natural, CO2 does nothing, CO2 causes cooling, CO2 above 350ppm, or above 420ppm, has almost no effect — too small to be measured, etc. All of these statements can be proven to be false.
The truth about CO2 is simple, based on lab spectroscopy measurements, and the truth based on measurements is very effective to refute climate scaremongering:
CO2 is a weak greenhouse gas above the current level of 420ppm (0.042%), so more CO2 in the atmosphere will not harm anyone.
The last +50% rise of the CO2 level, from 280ppm in 1850 (estimate) to 420ppm in2023 (measurement) harmed no one.
There is no reason to assume the next +50% rise of CO2 will harm anyone, because the next +50% rise of CO2 must cause less warming than the last 50% rise of CO2. That is the logarithmic effect of CO2.
This summary I provided does not require a science degree or experience as a climate scientist. In fact, climate scientists are mainly employed by governments, so they must believe in a coming climate crisis to get their jobs, and keep their jobs.
I believe in data-backed science, not wild guess predictions of climate doom in 100 years, that have been wrong for 44 years in a row, since the 1979 Charney Report.
Here’s my climate prediction from 1997:
— “The climate will get warmer,
unless it gets colder”.
Charting trick? Nope. The background chart, BTW, is also in the very link you posted dumbass.
This is the link you posted below, scroll to the third chart:
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/03/08/the-logarithmic-effect-of-carbon-dioxide/
David Archibald made the chart, he says “I recast Willis’ first graph as a bar chart to make the concept easier to understand to the layman”
The chart is not a “trick”, it is a representation of CO2 saturation drawn in a fashion to present the same data in an easy to understand format. Each 20ppm addition of CO2 has less and less warming effect because it follows an inverse exponential path. So 20ppm increase to 420 is of far less effect of going from 20 to 40 ppm. That is not a trick, that is the way CO2 warms the atmosphere – and you really fail to understand that during the ice age, CO2 levels go back and forth from 180 to 280 ppm have no effect either way, thus CO2 is not the driver of cold or warm in the ice age cycle.
Thus, for anyone to see, at current level of 420ppm, the additional forcing is so tiny as to not be measurable – and the reason why the dumbasses gov’t shills at the IPCC forecasts are totally wrong. And all real climatologists know this, but the shills refuse to acknowledge it because they would lose funding and their job. 100% of the scientists whoring for climate bucks agree with the narrative to get funding for their lab and department.
https://i.ibb.co/h8C9gFb/governmant-paid-shills-science.png
What you are doing Richard is shilling MSM bullcrap, and you are on this site to disrupt any discussion that upsets the MSM narratives. I believe you are a paid shill, like this crap you spew:
“nearly 100% of the world’s scientists have been completely wrong about the warming effect of CO2 since 1896.”
That meme of 96% or 98% of the world scientists believe in global warming is false, it is an invented statistic completely debunked by real climate scientists – who do not believe the government narrative.
But maybe I am wrong, maybe you are not a shill, just really, really dumb with and short bus IQ.
‘But maybe I am wrong, maybe you are not a shill, just really, really dumb with and short bus IQ.”
You are wrong, but I will still add your complement to my resume.
CO2 levels in the ice core period do not include manmade CO2 emissions, and therefore can not be used to describe what manmade CO2 emissions do.
(1) A natural CO2 process:
Any climate change variable that warms (or cools) the oceans causes them to release (or absorb) CO2, changing the atmosphere / ocean CO2 ration.
This effect is based on Henry’s Law.
The ocean temperature changes of an estimated 5 to 6 degrees C, caused atmospheric CO2 levels to change by about 100ppm, from 180ppm to 290ppm and back to 180ppm.
These changes happened at roughly 100,000 year intervals due to changes in planetary geometry that affected how much solar energy reached Earth’s surface.
These cycles are called the Milankovitch cycles, and include:
The shape of Earth’s orbit, known as eccentricity;
The angle Earth’s axis is tilted with respect to Earth’s orbital plane, known as obliquity; and.
The direction Earth’s axis of rotation is pointed, known as precession.
These are long term cycles that have no measurable effect over a 50 to 100 year period.
(2) A manmade CO2 process
Humans adding CO2 to the atmosphere cause global warming, with a slight lag due to ocean’s high thermal inertia.
(1) and (2) are two different processes involving CO2 that happen at the same time.
For (1), atmospheric CO2 level changes are the result of ocean temperature changes, and then the atmospheric CO2 changes add to those ocean temperature changes, as a positive feedback.
For (2), CO2 level changes cause temperature changes that are amplified by a water vapor positive feedback
These positive feedbacks obviously have limits, or else no one could survive a long term positive feedback (aka runaway warming)
Milankovitch cycles, solar cycles yes. CO2 no. You are really hung up on CO2, you are trying to find something, anything to support the MSM narrative that CO2 is the problem.
CO2 is not the problem, Richard, you are the problem, because you believe the Judenpresse.
Everthing coming out of the mouths of the idiots on the Jewtube is a bald faced lie, especially that CO2 is a pollutant and warms the earth.
CO2 (increases) doesn’t do squat but make plants grow twice as fast.
So smarty pants, did you know that low CO2 in the ice age is the major cause of megafauna extinctions?
Low CO2 = death of earth. Plants stop growing below 200 ppm, farming not even possible until CO2 gets to 240 ppm.
Current CO2 levels of 420 are at bare recovery levels for life to thrive on earth.
High CO2 levels in the past gave us giant dragonflies. For real. The earth thrived in it. Bring it back!
I imagine they’ll get around the safety regulations by claiming it is a “motorcycle” much like others such as the Can Am and Slingshot. It reminds me of the vehicle announced by Elio Motors that was ICE (now apparently electric), but unfortunately went no where. I don’t know how much of a market there’ll be for something like this in the US.
I think so, too, Rob –
And if that is what they do, then people who live in states that have helmet laws (for motorcycles) will have to wear them to drive the Aptera.
They aren’t claiming it’s a “motorcycle”. They’re claiming it’s an enclosed autocycle, because it is, and that no helmet is required in 47 states, except for Arizona, Oklahoma, and Wyoming. I suppose they’ve carefully researched this requirement, but I’m will to read any contrary evidence you provide.
For Georgia, this law firm specializes in motorcycle injury cases.
https://www.steelhorselaw.com/what-you-should-know-about-georgias-mandatory-helmet-law
>Georgia’s motorcycle helmet law does have a few exceptions. It doesn’t apply to a rider in an enclosed cab or motorized cart. …
Oh my goodness Eric, Richard and Martin are arrogant and tiring SOB’s! A little entertaining and then they get old quickly. Richard does try groveling just enough to stay in your good graces. I do get tired of Richard constantly trying to advertise his blog. Him and Martin need to get together and blog away on their own site.
Thanks, Elaine!
I just had to step away for a bit – for a run. It helps me keep from reaching for the bottle!
They could name their blog “Richard and Martin’s Laugh In”.
Here Comes Da Judge!
(Old 1960s TV show reference for those who don’t know)
Sock it to me!
Wow. She called me an SOB. I’m devastated and will resign in disgrace.
Finally!
Martin:
The libertarian style of debate here is sometimes character attacks by people hiding behind monikers. Which is no debate at all. And resembles the leftist style of “debate”. … Maybe we should form a rock band and call ourselves the SOBS?
Richard,
You’re regularly insulting in mewly, supercilious way – and when I call you on it, you whine about it. Maybe try being less supercilious?
Both R Green and M Brock seem to think that if they don’t use profanity, they aren’t really insulting you. They are both very good at such non-profane insults.
That’s not the libertarian style of debate. It’s the common style of debate. I’m a libertarian and a climate change skeptic among other things. I have these debates all the time, and character attacks and the rest are as common as dirt from every ideological direction. I was a competitive debater in high school, so I developed other habits. If I called an opponent an SOB, I’d be immediately disqualified.
Don’t be a victim, Martin. We’re all big boys and girls here.
The fantasy:
“I do get tired of Richard constantly trying to advertise his blog.”
The Reality:
Not once in this thread is the URL for my blog mentioned.
My blog is free
There are no ads
No one is asked to contribute money
My blog is a public service that I dedicate some time to every day, hoping to publicize good articles by conservative authors. Sort of what the Drudge Report once did.
Lower vehicle weight and better aerodynamics lead to being able to use less energy to move vehicle around.
IIRC, the Elio was supposed to be:
• lightweight (~1300 lbs) vehicle
• use a 0.9 L 55hp engine and projected to get 80+ mpg.
• top speed ~100 mph (160 kph )
• projected 0-60 mph under 11 sec
The Loremo was another interesting low weight vehicle concept. (defunct according to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loremo )
http://www.loremo.com/englisch/02der02_varianten.htm
( ~1,000 lbs / ~80mpg / 0-63mph ~12 sec )
The Aptera sounds/looks like an interesting idea. I hope they succeed in selling vehicles to the public.
More vehicle choices can only benefit the driving public.
People should be able to buy and use the vehicles that they want/need.
Hey I thought this was a site about autos not college science projects! I’d rather be riding in a go cart then that ridiculous contraption. Tell me they aren’t serious about putting that thing on the street!
Hi Krusty,
I’m cool with people riding/driving whatever. Their “safety” is none of my business.
REGULAR HECKLER HERE:
The Aptera is NOT in production.
A professional auto reviewer who has NOT driven one should not be cheerleading for the company.
The price is claimed to be $26,000, but that could change since not one has been manufactured yet.
So what we have here is an article telling the auto industry what to do, based on a press release of a car not yet manufactured or sold.
Meanwhile, let’s consider what is happening with actual EVs being manufactured and sold.
This is what customers think of them, adding balance to the 100% negative EV articles here:
GLOBAL BEV SALES:
About 2 million BEVs sold in 2019
About 4.6 million sold in 2021
About 7.3 million sold in 2022
Many people ARE spending a lot of their money on BEVs.
The new edition of the IEA’s annual Global Electric Vehicle Outlook shows that more than 10 million electric cars (BEVs + PHEVs combined) were sold worldwide in 2022 and that sales are expected to grow by another 35% this year to reach 14 million. This explosive growth means electric cars’ share of the overall car market has risen from around 4% in 2020 to 14% in 2022 and is set to increase further to 18% this year, based on the latest IEA projections.
The EVs have MANY disadvantages versus ICE and hybrid vehicles.
The only advantages I can list are:
– Fast acceleration, although rarely needed
– Far fewer fires per vehicle
– The fantasy of saving the planet from climate doom, actually believed by many leftists
That is a pitiful list of advantages.
The big EV disadvantage is the batteries — a problem for over a century that is “always” going to be solved in 10 years, but never is.
The typical 2000 small cells joined together for a battery pack seems like too much risk, even if only 1 cell of every 100,000 cells has a catastrophic failure (spontaneous fire)
Due diligence: I may be biased by a lifetime of bad experiences with phone and computer rechargeable batteries. My luck with LED light bulbs is similar. These new technologies never seem to last as long as claimed.
The anti-EV articles here are similar to what Ford engineers say about EVs they are designing. They were thrilled with the fast acceleration for a while, but that wore off. The half hour stops at “fast chargers” with nothing to do there (no bathrooms to use and no snacks to buy) are very annoying.
But people have been buying BEVs (I don’t know why) and BHEVs (which do make sense), so we should report that fact.
Tesla (BEVs only) was the second most profitable (net profit margin of 15%) company in the world in 2022 (not one dollar from stock sales is included in the Tesla net profit margin). Ferrari was number one.
There seem to be a lot of people not listening to us criticizing EVs.
Probably the same people who think Covid shots are safe and effective, there was no election fraud in 2020, a climate crisis is coming, and masks prevent diseases. Many also think Trump should be in prison, but Hunter Biden is just a good boy with a drug problem. … Being alive in 2023 is like living in a bizarro world.
Richard,
I pointed out the Aptera is a prototype. I did not say a thing about how it drives. I made observations about the layout, which emphasizes keeping weight down and so efficiency up, in relation to obnoxiously wastrel, unsustainable EVs such as the battery-powered Escalade.
Finally: Don’t ever presume to tell me what I may not or ought to write about. Nor how I choose to write about it. You are not my employer and you are in no position to give me writing advice.
An article featuring a vehicle that does not exist, except in a press release from a company desperate for investors, is data-free speculation.
My advice is free.
But you don’t know how to take advice.
It must be very satisfying to know everything.
I used to ‘know everything’
When I was 14 years old.
Dick,
This is not RichardGreene.com and your opinion as regards what I write about is of less value to me than the piece of used toilet paper I flushed down the toilet earlier today.
You say I “know everything.”
No. But I do know one thing. People who deliberately “heckle” aren’t interested in honest conversation.
Richard precedes with: “REGULAR HECKLER HERE.” This is conclusive evidence, in his own ALL CAPS words, that his sole purpose in his post is to be a troll.
In other words, it is provocatively designed criticism directed to the author, written solely to elicit a reaction and not made to further the discussion in any substantive way.
Richard, not all of your posts are like this. Please refrain from doing this anymore.
Mister Liberty:
My “Regular Heckler Here” intro was both a joke and a warning to readers who do not tolerate any criticism of EP articles.
Interesting that you deliberately chose to ignore all the points made in my prior comment. I’ll assume that means you agree.
You know what they say about making assumptions.
Dick,
I have no issue with factual criticism; I take issue with oily passive-aggressive “heckling,” as you style it. I also do not like it when people who believe something is true insist it is true.
Save that for church.
Preach it brother!
Richard,
“A professional auto reviewer who has NOT driven one should not be cheerleading for the company.”
Which is exactly none of your business, even if true. If you don’t like the commentary, leave. You won’t be missed much.
The Aptera is one ugly car. They should make a round EV car that rotates on its wheels so you can easily get in and out of parking spaces (but parking spaces are rectangle, scratch that idea). I doubt the Aptera would fly in my neck of the woods during a typical winter of 10+ feet of snow and pot-holed roads full of salt.
I can see those two ugly front fenders popping off after hitting multiple pot-holes or skidding into a guardrail on an icy road.
Four wheel AWD cars with snows are dicey in the winter on the snow covered roads, can’t imagine what three wheel cars would do. I wonder if they tested the Aptera in snow? That is assuming the prototype is real and not just some AI mockup.
Hi Pug,
This thing could be useful to many in the manner of a motorcycle – only better in that it offers protection from the rain and cold and has the ability to carry a fair amount of stuff. Granted, in winter it would be terrible (probably) but so are motorcycles. I generally stop riding in late December and the bikes sit in the garage until March or so. But it’s nice having the bikes as an alternative to a car, especially since they all go twice-plus as far on a gallon of gas!
My object in writing about the Aptera was to defend the concept of it. I deeply resent the majority of EVs being made because they are insufferably obnoxious. Grotesquely wasteful over-expensive luxury-performance vehicles that preen as “green” while serving to enserf the people who cannot afford them.
The Aptera is a counterpoint to this.
I am not opposed to EV’s coming out. If someone likes an EV and wants to own one and drive one, more power to you! It is the fact that the Feds and tree huggers demand and are ready to force the rest of us into them because THEY want us into them (and ultimately, to eliminate driving altogether) that pisses me off. I do not want one, so piss off! It is especially irksome when the ones that are pushing EV’s who are still driving their ICE vehicles, and are just BS’ing the rest of us with their nonsense. They can afford to have an EV for show and tell when the cameras are on them, and they need to score points with the liberal media. But when you point these facts out to them, you get inundated with the usual slurs of the day…racist, whatever. The ones forcing us into these are the ones with the private jets and the two mansions, and can afford an EV and several other vehicles. It is hard to take these people seriously, if it were not the fact that they are serious about (ultimately) destroying the rest of us for the “earth”.
Well-said, Shadow!
It cuts to the quick as regards my disdain for EVs. It is inarguable they are being used to push everyone into EVs. Martin (and many others) seem not to understand this and for that reason do not understand our resentment. I would wager two out of three EV owners (the percentage is probably closer to 100 percent for Teslas) are liberals who support “Joe Biden.”
Indeed, those who defend EVs are in effect promoting them. Whether intentionally or consciously, or not. If you are promoting them, it’s pretty hard to believably fabricate the notion you aren’t in favor of forcing them.
So if you promote SUVs or pickups or V8s or diesels, you’re in favor of forcing them?
And expressing a personal preference is not equivalent to promotion anyway.
Hi Martin,
The point John and others (me among them) have made is that buy buying into the EV push, you’re supporting the displacement of non-EVs. It’s not your intention; I understand that perfectly. But it is a fact, regardless.
If it weren’t for the subsidization and mandating, would there be any EVs at all for sale right now? Take that away – especially, if you took it away from the beginning – I am doubtful there’d be any.
No. I’m not. It’s ridiculous to say that I can’t prefer something without favoring mandating it for everyone.
No. The EV1 sold (or leased) well before any subsidies existed. The first Tesla preceded subsidies, and it sold at a price that made the first subsidies laughably irrelevant. EVs were more popular than ICEVs in the early 20th century without any subsidies or mandates or climate hysteria.
Most EVs, up to now, including most Teslas, sell in the luxury car category with prices starting at $50k+. People buying a Tesla Model 3 (until recently) or Y, much less an S or an X. aren’t choosing it over a Honda CRV, and the tax credits aren’t a big issue for them.
Tax credits become an issue for more affordable EVs like the Bolt, but I’m not pushing them. The Bolt is an insanely good deal with the credit, but I’d buy it without the credit, and I’d pay less for it over a decade of ownership without the credit.
Martin,
Yes, you are – like it or not. When you participate in something, you are part of that something. Wear a “mask” – and you give support to “masking.” Buy an EV – and you give support to the pushing of EVs.
Bullshit on the EV1. I was there. Were you? Did you speak with the engineers/executives? Drive the thing? I did. The EV1 was leased at a massively subsidized price to a relative handful of people who (as today) were into EVs. They were not offered to the general public in a free market way.
As far as the grift that built the EV: It’s absurd to believe that Tesla could have built its business without “carbon credits” and without the multiple other subsidies. Elon is many things, but an idiot he isn’t.
No. I’m not. Get out of my head, or at least stop pretending that you’re in here.
I was certainly alive during the EV1 episode and aware of it. I’ve already said in this forum that I don’t buy the “who killed the electric car” conspiracy theory. I said it directly to you.
I obviously already know that the cars were leased. I say it in the comment to which you’re responding. So what is all this “bullshit” you’re supposed to be rebutting?
You keep asserting these counterfactuals as fact. Tesla had subsidies for most its history, and I’ve never denied it. We’ll never know how it would have developed without them. I don’t pretend to know, but I do know that someone paying a hundred grand for a Roadster or a Model S, or even $50k for a Model 3, isn’t worrying much about a $7.5k tax credit.
The bullshit, Martin, is your assertion that the EV1 was some kind of market success. It wasn’t. It was a compliance car circus that GM performed for a little while before closing said circus down. The vehicles were “leased” at a cost that didn’t begin to cover the actual cost. You read about the EV1. I drove it extensively. Spoke directly (and off the record) with the executives involved.
These are not “counterfactuals.” They are facts. Other ones include the fact that Tesla built its business via extortion, not “sales.”
The cars were popular with their drivers before GM pulled the plug on the program.
How was it a “compliance car” when there were no requirements to produce an EV when it was offered? If they need to comply with a requirement, how did they end the program?
The counterfactual I referred to is “It’s absurd to believe that Tesla could have built its business without “carbon credits” and without the multiple other subsidies.”
Martin,
The EV1s were popular with the people who leased them. They were EV people. Face Diapers are also popular with a certain set.
And it’s inarguable that Tesla built its business on grift. It used the government to force its competitors to buy “carbon credits.” The money thus extorted financed Tesla’s R&D. Further teat-sucking came in the form of the tax kickbacks to purchasers, which greatly advantage the people who buy EVs and thus, those who make and sell them. How many more Corollas would Toyota sell if people could claim a $7,500 kickback? Oh. That’s right. Toyota doesn’t need to get the government to “help” people buy Corollas at full market value. They just do.
If the government weren’t going to kick back $7,500 to you, would you still buy a Bolt?
Who else would a product be popular with, beyond its customers? Truck people drive trucks. Muscle car people drive muscle cars. EV people drive EVs. What else is new?
https://tsginvest.com/the-history-of-carbon-credits-and-trading-platforms/
I don’t read anything here about Tesla forcing anyone to do anything. Musk claims to oppose subsidies. Maybe he is a lying grifter. Regardless, I don’t buy products after carefully tallying the political forces for and against them. I ignore the political forces and buy what I want within any constraints beyond my control.
Since I have never, once, ever, defended any EV subsidy or other “green energy” subsidy, I don’t feel obliged to defend them here every time you remind me of them. I don’t approve of bans on raw milk either, but I still buy pasteurized milk because going out of my way to find raw milk isn’t worth the effort for me, and I’m not sure I’d like it anyway. Your mileage may vary.
Yes, I’ve said it here before. I’d buy a Bolt without the credit. With the credit, it’s competitive without the lower cost of charging at home. Without the credit, I’ll make up the difference over a decade or less, and I’ll keep the car at least that long, God willing.
You don’t need to remind me over and over again that ICEVs don’t qualify for an EV tax credit. I knew that years ago.
I understand it perfectly, and I’ve said so over and over again here. I oppose mandates everywhere I discuss this issue.
Exactly.
I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again.
If the goal is to control the climate, it all makes no sense. But if the goal is to control YOU, then it makes perfect sense.
Everything states do is about controlling you. That goes without saying. Interstate highways are about controlling you too. To avoid everything states do to control, you need to move to an off-grid cabin in the mountains, and you can’t have any solar panels or artificial fertilizer or water filtration. Good luck with that.
You miss the point that the objection is the extent of the control.
You mean like this asshole?
https://youtu.be/xgZC6da4mco
What the hell is so funny Al?
I couldn’t disagree more. It’s a beautiful car, but the shape is not designed for aesthetics. It’s designed for aerodynamic efficiency. It looks like a wing for a reason. Its phenomenal mileage (equivalent to 300 miles per gallon) is a product of its phenomenally low drag coefficient.
The performance on snow and ice is a fair point, and I don’t know if Aptera has done any testing in this environment, particularly since they’ll be selling it almost exclusively in California initially, but the car is available with all-wheel drive, and it’s very bottom-heavy, so I wouldn’t leap to conclusions. It may perform as well as other cars of comparable size. Maybe none of these cars sell well in your neck of the woods. If so, that’s fine. I don’t live there. In Georgia, I could easily drive this car year-round.
Hi Martin,
I think one thing is going to kill this car. Take one guess . . .
It will be government.
I doubt the Aptera – as designed – will be able to “comply” with federal bumper impact and other saaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaafety standards and I doubt the “three wheeler” thing will allow them to “get away” with an exemption using the current layout. Not without the Aptera being re-classified as being, essentially, a motorcycle – like the Polaris slingshot. In which case, people will be required to wear a helmet for saaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaafety – and only a few people will be willing to do that.
I want this thing to succeed, mind. I like simple/efficient/affordable cars. But these are precisely the kinds of cars the government does not want people to have.
Aptera claims to satisfy all safety requirements, not only for an autocycle but for a conventional four-wheeler.
>Do I need a helmet to operate Aptera since it is classified as an autocycle?
>Aptera is technically an enclosed autocycle, so you will not need a helmet in forty-seven states. We are working with our lobbying team to help nudge for change in legislation in the last states with this requirement for drivers under 18, Arizona, Oklahoma, and Wyoming.
https://aptera.us/faq/
Earlier, I said that no helmet is required in the U.S., but I was mistaken. Three states require a helmet, but I don’t drive in any of them, so it’s not an issue for me. Your mileage may vary.
Hi Martin,
Yes, but here’s the rub: Aptera claims. That prototype has not been run through the gantlet of federal testing rigmarole and I doubt it can meet bumper/side impact standards as designed. I also expect the insurance mafia to go after this thing mercilessly.
So show me some evidence that Aptera is lying. You can doubt anything.
Martin,
I never said Aptera is lying. Please don’t put words in my mouth. I said the car is a prototype. I don’t know how much you know about the car business and the compliance business. In case you don’t: Every new car must be “certified compliant” before it may legally be sold. This involves inspections and crash testing, as per government rules. When the production Aptera shows up, let’s talk.
Aptera says its vehicle requires no helmet in 47 states. You say otherwise. Call it what you want. If “lying” offends you, read “mistaken”.
My first comment under this article, after thanking you for the article, says, “Aptera still hasn’t raised production capital, and I’m not confident that it’ll ever be built for the advertised price …” You’re hardly telling me anything I don’t already know about production.
Fambro and Anthony know a whole lot about “certified compliant”, and I’m relying on what they say. If you’re interested, I suggest you reach out to them for a defense. Since you just wrote a complimentary article about their project, they might respond. I’m not in the choir you’re preaching to here.
Martin,
I was referring to the compliance with federal regs issue; not the helmet issue. But – as regards the latter – I am skeptical that government regulators will allow Aptera (or anyone else trying this) to “get away” with “dodging” the rules that apply to motorcycles – and cars. Aptera is trying to do both. I hope they succeed, by the way – as I despise these interferences, which are none of the government’s rightful business.
Which rules apply to an enclosed, three-wheeled autocycle? Can you link something?
Yeah, go on Eric, prove the negative! Really Martin?
His point is that Apetera makes claims that should not necessarily be taken as the gospel. Given the fact that this is just a prototype and has not been produced speaks for itself about its viability. Maybe it’ll happen maybe it won’t. Right now it’s just crystal ball gazing.
Eric takes a cue from you and writes an article extolling the virtues of your favorite prototype vehicle and yet you still want to quibble with him over his opinion on the future may bring regarding it’s possible production. Really Martin?
Proving that an Aptera requires a helmet in any state other than the three the company claims is not proving a negative. Maybe you don’t know what “proving the negative” means. He only needs a single counterexample to prove his point.
Actually, my first comment here thanks Eric for the article and expresses skepticism about the Aptera project. I’m responding to endless FUD in the comments, not to the article. Pay attention.
Pay attention, Martin:
You demanded that Eric prove that Aptera was lying (which seems like a high bar since they don’t necessarily have to be lying for the claims to be wrong) with respect to his comment as follows, which in no way relates to helmets:
“Yes, but here’s the rub: Aptera claims. That prototype has not been run through the gantlet of federal testing rigmarole and I doubt it can meet bumper/side impact standards as designed.”
You also cast the FUD aspersion toward drumphish below, by stating as follows:
“Martin Brock August 11, 2023 At 9:08 am
I’ll definitely die, but you likely had a Li-Ion battery on your lap when you wrote this comment, so your FUD is FoS. No one outside of your choir cares.”
I asked him to show, specifically, that Aptera is lying (or “mistaken” if you prefer) about the fact that 47 states do not require a helmet for an enclosed autocycle. He only needs to cite the law or legal precedent in one of these states. Aptera explicitly makes this claim at its web site, and it presumably has researched the subject extensively, so if it is mistaken, “lying” doesn’t seem a stretch to me.
All of the other road worthiness requirements are a separate issue. The issue we’re discussing involves the requirement for a helmet in an enclosed, three-wheeled autocycle assuming that meets other safety requirements.
Stoking fear of Li-Ion batteries bursting into flame looks like FUD to me, specifically the F part, especially if you’re composing the fearful assertion on a laptop with a Li-Ion battery. That’s just me.
Martin Brock:
No, sorry, you said show me how they are lying, not how thay are mistaken. Those are two very different things. Any your “So show me some evidence that Aptera is lying” response was to Eric saying this:
“Yes, but here’s the rub: Aptera claims. That prototype has not been run through the gantlet of federal testing rigmarole and I doubt it can meet bumper/side impact standards as designed.”
Eric made no mention of helmets whatsoever.
You know, you’re not fooling anybody with your cajoling account of what you said. It’s in writing above. We can all see it.
How about some intellectual honesty instead?
I made no general statement about lying. We were discussing a specific claim about helmet requirements for an enclosed autocycle. Aptera specifically claims that 47 states require no helmet. I linked the statement at its web site. Context matters. In never anywhere ask anyone to show that Aptera has never lied about anything.
The context is still up there. Eric also asked about other testing rigmarole, but I referred specifically to the helmet requirement.
My comment at August 11, 2023 At 8:47 am explicitly refers to the helmet issue and even quotes the relevant portion of Aptera’s FAQ. Eric’s immediately reply is “Yes, but here’s the rub: Aptera claims.” If there was a confusion about which “claim” he’s referring to, it wasn’t my doing.
Everyone can see that you’re desperately trying to construct some dishonesty I’ve allegedly committed. You want to turn the discussion into a clash between impeccably honest good guys (you) and disingenuous bad guys (me), but this self-serving dichotomy only appeals to your choir. It bounces off of me like a ping pong ball.
You say, “… I prefer truth, intellectual honesty and good faith arguments over obfuscation.” You actually seem to think that you alone in this discussion (with me) prefer truth, honesty and good faith arguments. So be it. I couldn’t care less how you divide the world into angels and demons.
Martin Brock: “Stoking fear of Li-Ion batteries bursting into flame looks like FUD to me, specifically the F part, especially if you’re composing the fearful assertion on a laptop with a Li-Ion battery.”
This is your original FUD comment to drumphish:
“Martin Brock August 11, 2023 At 9:08 am
I’ll definitely die, but you likely had a Li-Ion battery on your lap when you wrote this comment, so your FUD is FoS. No one outside of your choir cares.”
Drumphish made no mention of using a laptop though. You simply made this up to support your ridiculous FUD epithet.
He referred to Li-Ion batteries in EVs spontaneously combusting. I referred to Li-Ion batteries more generally. Like I said, I remember when airlines forbade laptops and other devices on planes. Now, they don’t. It’s all still up there. If you want to say that I’m shamelessly dishonest while you’re a paragon of virtue, go ahead and say it.
Martin Brock: “If you want to say that I’m shamelessly dishonest while you’re a paragon of virtue, go ahead and say it.”
I didn’t make that claim, you did.
The wheel housing is not a bumper. It lowers the drag of the wheels. Obviously, you can imagine anything you like about them.
Pug didn’t claim the front fenders to be bumpers. It is actually you imagining things about the “wheel housing” that Pug did not assert.
He says “two ugly front fenders”. If he’s not referring to the wheel housing, I don’t know what he is referring to, but if so, I profusely apologize for the mischaracterization.
I’ll also profusely apologize for saying “bumper” instead of “fender” because I know how sensitive you are about these things. Maybe you should tell me your preferred pronouns too.
You feigning being insulted doesn’t help your case. Pug simply didn’t claim the front fenders to be bumpers as you accused him of imagining them to be.
Maybe you can’t quite tell by now, but I prefer truth, intellectual honesty and good faith arguments over obfuscation.
I’m not feigning anything, and I didn’t claim that Pug confused fenders with bumpers. If anyone did so, I did. I use “fender” and “bumper” interchangeably”. If I’m mistaken to do so, I profusely apologize to you and the rest of humanity.
My point seems clear enough to me even if it confused you. The wheel covers are there for aerodynamic efficiency like practically everything else about the exterior of the vehicle.
Oh yeah. You’re an absolute paragon of truth, intellectual honesty and good faith arguments while I’m only here to bamboozle you into believing that EVs have even a single saving grace. Thanks for clearing that up for us.
Martin Brock: “I didn’t claim that Pug confused fenders with bumpers.”
Oh no? What about this response to Pug?:
“Martin Brock August 11, 2023 At 8:30 am
The wheel housing is not a bumper. It lowers the drag of the wheels. Obviously, you can imagine anything you like about them.”
Like I said, that’s me using “bumper” as a synonym for “fender” after Pug used “fender”. It says nothing at all about Pug’s confusion of “fender” with “bumper”. My point was and is that the wheel housings are there to reduce aerodynamic drag not to protect the wheels from impacts or anything else a fender/bumper might do.
If you’d engage my points here rather than looking for every possible opportunity to attribute dishonesty or disingenuous intentions, we might converge on an agreement, but that’s not why you’re here.
Don’t be dishonest or disingenuous and we won’t have a problem. That would be a start, Martin.
“Obviously, you can imagine anything you like about them.”
Whatever *that* means.
Anyhoo, fender, bumper, wheel housing, they are still ugly in my opinion, and they will more than likely be damaged on roads with potholes and snow and ice, seeing as the clearance looks insanely low.
I went to the Aptera website, one can put $100 down to reserve a $33,200 prototype vehicle. I will be honest, sounds like a dream or possibly a well crafted grift to me.
https://electrek.co/2023/01/20/aptera-debuts-launch-edition-solar-ev-but-start-of-production-will-take-some-time-and-money/
(I’m a she by the way.)
I should have asked for your preferred pronouns too.
The ground clearance for the wheel housing looks low, but again, the entire design is about lowering drag. It’s hardly an off-road vehicle, but no one’s claiming that it is, and I don’t need one. I believe the wheel housing has some upward give. Some people criticized the first prototype because the housings vibrated visibly on rough roads. They don’t so much on the latest prototype.
This is Aptera’s second incarnation. The first version of the company folded in 2011 after refunding all deposits, and the $100 reservations are also refundable this time. They aren’t supposed to be investments in the company. The $100 reservation fee exists to discourage people without with a serious interest from reserving, so they’ll have a meaningful measure of interest.
And you have no interest, that’s fine. You’re free to forget all about it. We’re discussing a novel product here, not a religious commitment.
The word over at WUTT is that Biden is going to declare a climate emergency and assume 130 new powers.
What is the basis of this emergency? That CO2 is forcing temps to go up and create global warming.
CO2 is going up according to measurements at Mauna Loa:
https://gml.noaa.gov/webdata/ccgg/trends/co2_trend_mlo.png
But temperatures are going sideways:
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2023/08/08/noaa-u-s-average-temperature-anomaly-data-through-july-2023-wheres-the-crisis/
There is NO correlation between the two. If CO2 was forcing warming, then as CO2 goes up so would temperature. But as you can see with own eyes, temperatures are trending sideways.
Thhe sun drives temps, not CO2, which is a trace gas, which is having a small change in ppm. It is a stretch to think a trace gas can control the thermodynamics of a planet. Current CO2 levels are near the lowest in earth’s geologic history.
https://i0.wp.com/sciencefiles.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/07/Historic-Co2-levels.png?ssl=1
What Biden and his handlers are doing is claiming power based on a lie, and then regulating massive mal-investments. Eventually such insanity will cause permanent economic dystopia, but it will not matter to those well connected, because they will all the money they need to pay for increased prices in transportation, but leave the poor and middle class riding bikes and buses.
But, for those in the EV business, it could be a boom times.
Please give us a break with your climate science disinformation!
CO2 always impedes cooling, making our planet warmer than it would be with less CO2 in the atmosphere.
CO2 does NOT control the global average temperature.
CO2 is just one of many climate change variables
Climate change is the net result of ALL climate change variables
Therefore, the global average temperature can rise or fall when CO2 levels are rising
But more CO2, by itself, always results in a warmer planet.
Energy incoming from the sun, as measured at the top of the atmosphere (TOA), has barely changed in 50 years — slightly lower per NASA satellite measurements. Therefore, TOA energy from the sun could not have caused any of the global warming from 1975 to 2014.
What the Climate Howler Global Whiners are doing is ignoring actual climate science, in favor of data free, wild guess, wrong since 1979, predictions of climate doom. Science requires data. But redictions do not. Predictions are not science. Especially WRONG predictions.
Scary predictions of doom can create fear, and many people in fear will demand that their government “do something”. Telling leftists in government to “do something” is the same as telling leftists in government to ruin something. They ruin everything they touch. leftist government (non)experts should NEVER be allowed to “redesign” electric grids, or cheerlead for electric cars.
Richard Greene with: Yukon Jack, this is “climate science disinformation!” It reminds me of Dr. Zaius on Planet of the Apes bleating; “Heresy!”
Richard, you continuously profess to be absolutely certain about perhaps the most complex system in our solar system, which is Earth’s climate. You speak with with total omniscience regarding “ALL climate change variables.” Are you GOD? There are an infinite number of “climate change variables.” You have no idea how many, nor can you prove the effect of any or all. Your arrogance is simply stunning.
Your lack of common sense is simply stunning.
One does not have to know of more than two climate change variables to make the claim that actual climate change is the net result of all climate change variables.
The effects of CO2 and water vapor are accurately measured in laboratories with controlled spectroscopy experiments.
There is no evidence of CO2 and water vapor behavior indoors to be more than slightly different than CO2 and water vapor effects in the outdoor atmosphere.
I have spent 25 years studying climate science as a hobby, and 25 years trying to refute predictions of climate doom.
I have not spent all that time to falsely claim there is no greenhouse effect, CO2 does nothing, only 3% of atmospheric CO2 had manmade origins, Net Zero is needed to save the planet, etc.
There are some basic known facts known about climate science and a lot of unanswered questions.
I try hard to know when to say: “we don’t know that”, when that’s the best answer to a climate question.
No one today knows if the climate will be warmer or colder in 100 years. But almost everyone claims to know. Most people don’t like to say: “we don’t know that”.
You are confusing some very basic climate science knowledge, that you don’t understand, with arrogance.
My only point is that the climate of Earth is so complex and includes so many variables both known and unknown that no man has the ability to understand it or explain it to the level of certainty that you do. To believe otherwise is arrogance beyond comprehension. I do not claim that you are right or wrong. After all, broken clocks are right twice per day.
Therefore, is it a lack of common sense to come to the conclusion that Richard Greene (who admits to only studying climate science as a hobby) is unqualified to profess to be absolutely certain about perhaps the most complex system in our solar system, which is Earth’s climate?
Is it a lack of common sense to come to the conclusion that Richard Greene unqualified to speak with total omniscience regarding “ALL climate change variables?”
I really like it when questions answer themselves.
Richard,
You admit – you state – that you are a layman with no specific expertise and yet you have the effrontery to posture as someone who knows it all, with certainty!
Res Ipsa Loquitur
@Richard
“Please give us a break with your climate science disinformation!
CO2 always impedes cooling, making our planet warmer than it would be with less CO2 in the atmosphere. ”
You are clueless with your statement that CO2 warms the planet. CO2 in the upper atmosphere makes the earth cooler – and that is from NASA’s Orbiting Carbon Observatory OCO satellite which measures it directly. Of course the Judenpress and you ignore such data because it does not fit your narrative.
coldclimatechange blog:
“Carbon Dioxide is a Cooling Gas According to NASA
“Climate change can seem like a distant problem, a speck on the horizon. It’s not. It’s a present and deadly reality.” These words were recently printed by the Huffington Post. “Common sense dictates that the economy undergo a massive restructuring away from fossil fuels to save lives. And a growing body of research shows that the only way to avoid catastrophic levels of climate change is to cease production of vast amounts of “unburnable” carbon.
The only problem with this is that it is based on the assumption that carbon is a warming gas that is heating the planet. Every Democrat would bet their political lives on this. Unfortunately for them, and all the rest of us, is we are living on a cooling world not a warming one. They get it wrong on all points of the compass when it comes to climate change even with CO2 being a warming gas when the truth is that it helps cool the stratosphere by helping reradiate solar energy back into space.
NASA says that CO2 is a coolant not a warming gas. One part of NASA is now in conflict with its climatologists after new NASA measurements prove that carbon dioxide acts as a coolant in Earth’s atmosphere. NASA’s Langley Research Center has collated data proving that “greenhouse gases” actually block up to 95 percent of harmful solar rays from reaching our planet, thus reducing the heating impact of the sun. Carbon dioxide (CO2) and nitric oxide (NO) are two substances playing a key role in the energy balance of air above our planet’s surface tending to cool not heat.
Regardless of what one believes or all the myriad factors, “Solar activity has overpowered any effect that CO2 has had,” reports Dr. R. Timothy Patterson. World temperatures have been generally declining for about 10 years while CO2 is rising rapidly,” writes famous weatherman Piers Corybyn, who is an astrophysicist.
“Carbon dioxide does not drive climate,” says Piers flatly. “The idea CO2 controls climate, and that man’s CO2 particularly, controls climate, is actually delusional nonsense.” “There is no evidence for this in real data. Temperature changes in the oceans, in the long run, drive carbon dioxide levels, so they tend to move together.””
The fact is Richard you are a real arrogant dumbass, and your Jewish friends in the media are damn liars. The whole carbon thing is about political control, it is not about science at all.
The joke is on you Richard, we are in the ice age and CO2 does not change a damn thing, almost all of the warming effect of CO2 is in the first 20ppm and after 100 ppm is reached CO2 has no observable warming effect. Since ice age CO2 oscillates between 180 low and 280 ppm, CO2 has no effect on ice age progression, current CO2 levels around 420 will have no effect on ice age progression. That means our entire culture is dead wrong and delusional about CO2, the ice age cold will come and humans will have structured their entire society around warming, lol.
Almost every statement you made is wrong, or a misinterpretation, but I am too busy to correct them all !
Let’s start with one whopper:
“almost all of the warming effect of CO2 is in the first 20ppm and after 100 ppm is reached CO2 has no observable warming effect.”
In reality, the effect of CO2 at various concentrations has been measured and the data are in the MODTRAN and HITRAN databases that all scientists use, including “skeptic” scientists ON OUR SIDE, such as physicist William Happer, who uses HITRAN for his studies. here is a useful chart of the logarithmic effect of CO2 from MODTRAN:
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/03/08/the-logarithmic-effect-of-carbon-dioxide/
CO2 in the stratosphere:
In the thinner Stratosphere air, most of the heat re-emitted by the CO2 does not bump into other molecules. It escapes to space. Combined with the greater trapping of heat at lower levels, the result is a rapid cooling there.
Early climate modelers predicted back in the 1960s that this combination of tropospheric warming and strong cooling higher up was the likely effect of increasing CO2 in the air.
” Since ice age CO2 oscillates between 180 low and 280 ppm, CO2 has no effect on ice age progression,”
No human CO2 emissions existed in the ice core era where CO2 remained in a 180 to 280ppm range. Therefore, that period of time has no relevance for the effect of manmade CO2 emissions on the average temperature.
Says Richard Greene, the self-styled climate hobbyist. Give it a rest.
Richard – the wattsupwiththat link confirms exactly what I am saying, but for some strange unknowable reason you say you disagree with me, yet provide the very link that confirms my position. I am starting to think you might be a little cra cra.
Anyone out there reading this might want to check out the link Richard provides, an in that article the charts, which show almost all of CO2 forcing is in the first 100 ppm, and the graphic that shows carbon dioxide’s contribution to the whole greenhouse effect is nil past 20 ppm (just as I claim).
The charts show that at current CO2 levels, any increase has almost NO effect. That is why I claim that the ice age cycle will continue unabated regardless of what CO2 does.
The charts also imply that during ice ages, with CO2 oscillating between 180-280 has no effect on ice age cycles.
If you understand those charts, it explains perfectly why the computer models predicting temp rise with CO2 rise are epic fails, CO2 at current levels is already saturated, and thus no additional heating from CO2 occurs by adding more CO2.
Richard thinks CO2 traps heat. It is minor compared to water vapor, which is 96% of the greenhouse effect.
What that means is if you are out in Arizona on a clear night you will freeze your ass off because without water vapor, and regardless of CO2 concentration, heat from the day radiates out to space.
So the claim that CO2 makes the earth a greenhouse is utter bullshit. If the earth were to quit rotating, the dark side would cool so fast it would become all ice in days.
One thing to be aware of is that global warming is an intentional ruse the media focuses public attention on, while real pollution issues and wildlife habitat issues are ignored.
The reason for the ruse is simple, industry and it’s owners want you focused on a red herring while they go about business as usual.
You drive an ICE vehicle because there is plenty of diesel and gasoline at this time, doesn’t seem to be that much of a problem. 100 million barrels of crude does the job, demand has to be the reason for the supply. You gotta get that stuff done, you know, hey. No other reason.
You get to live another day.
Not buying an Aptera nor any other kind of BEV. You are asking for more trouble than it is worth. Amazon drones can deliver your groceries, clothing, stay in your lane, go home, work from there. Good luck to ya!
Not driving two miles in any of those dangerous EV’s, might be a big mistake.
Up in smoke is a real worry with a battery-powered electric vehicle.
A hundred dollar battery, more expensive brands are there too, with 650 cranking amps in a cold weather climate, the battery is still capable of starting the ICE engine. How it gets done. An automobile is going to beat walking, every time.
8,000,000,000 hungry souls need to eat. An average of 100 grams of chicken for a meal each day, 800 billion grams of chicken to feed their lost weary souls, nourish the stomach or something. A 20 McNugget order at MacDonald’s will exceed that by 10 times, pig down.
4000 grams for a chicken, the chicken production has to be in the neighborhood of 200,000,000 chickens sacrificing their lives so everybody on earth can have some Kung Pao Chicken.
Your fault you need something to sustain your physical presence on this god-forsaken earth.
Chickens make some serious sacrifices so you can live and breathe. Think of the chickens!
Chicken Little knows the sky is falling, chickens are slaughtered by the millions every day.
Chickens have to run for their lives, they still get slaughtered. Corner them, grab them by their two legs, they’re helpless, chop off their heads at the neck, let the chickens run around with their heads cut off to bleed out. Dip the headless body into boiling water, pluck them, singe them to remove the pinfeathers, cool the chicken in cold water, and bag them for the freezer. Cut up a few chickens into pieces for the grill for supper.
You feel like the fox raiding the chicken coop, because you are sly like a fox. There is no escape for the chickens trapped in the chicken coop.
You do have to eat, you are the fox in charge of the hen house.
It wasn’t me!
Them’s the facts, Jack.
That’s just chickens, there’s cattle, hogs, goats, lamb, ram, mutton, sheep, who knows what it is anymore. You can settle for bugs, all you will have to eat. It’ll be a smorgasbord of all you can eat bugs. So much fun!
Klaus doesn’t want you to have any part of living, just die already.
Why won’t you die?
Newsflash for Klaus! You are going to die, inevitable. Mother Nature is going to make it happen sooner than you think.
Lithium ion batteries will eventually be used for cremations, killing two birds with one stone will be a big help.
“…think of the chickens”….now that one cracked me up! And “…why won’t you die”? Yeah, we could ask the same thing about Klaus Schwab and George Soros. David Rockefeller had 5 heart transplants before he finally keeled over. The evil ones just seem to live forever. Or so it seems.
The good die young.
I’ll definitely die, but you likely had a Li-Ion battery on your lap when you wrote this comment, so your FUD is FoS. No one outside of your choir cares.
Martin Brock:
Why are you offended by drumphish’s comment?
Why use the term “FUD [fear, uncertainly and doubt]” The use of this term is a subtle way of casting an aspersion on people you disagree with, akin to terms like “transphobia,” “anti-vaxxer” or “science denier.” It’s essentially an ad hominem remark.
I thought it had something to do with Elmer Fudd?
The whetoric of that wascally Martin Brock is widicuwous. Hah.
You’re an expert on casting aspersion on people you disagree with. That’s why “you lack conviction”, because I wore a neck gaiter rather than a mask at Walmart when Walmart was requiring masks, was the first thing you ever said to me.
FUD is a very accurate description of much anti-EV (and also much anti-ICEV) rhetoric. I’ll go on using even if it hurts your feelings. When I use a term like “transphobia”, “anti-vaxxer” or “science denier”, you can address it without the conflation.
Nah, that wasn’t an aspersion. It was my opinion about the incongruity of your beliefs vs. your actions.
Well then you’re ICE-phobic with Conviction Hesitancy. Nana nana boo boo (i.e. said with tongue planted firmly in cheek).
Martin,
If you wore a “mask,” you bowed to the pressure. It’s not an arguable point. I understand there are reasons for bowing. But that is beside the point. You bowed.
As far as “FUD: It’s an example of argument by insinuation. The person you’re debating is “fearful” (and so on) rather than aware of (put facts here).
Like I said, I wore a black neck gaiter emblazoned with skulls. Like I also said, I also wear shirts and shoes where shirts and shoes are required, not to mention butthole covers. I just don’t think that justifies the generalization “you have no convictions”. You do you.
No. FUD is a description of an argument. If an assertion provokes fear, like “the battery will burn your house down” or “fossil fuels will flood Manhattan”, despite the considerable uncertainty in the assertion, I call that FUD. If someone says “cars a death trap”, because they kill 40k people each year in the U.S. alone, that’s also FUD even if it is arguably true.
Martin,
You keep bringing up shirts and shoes – as if there were an equivalence to wearing that idiotic rag over your face. There isn’t. Wearing a shirt is about good manners. Wearing the rag is about bowing to the cult of sickness abiding. It’s easy enough to prove this. Did you – did anyone – wear a rag over their faces before they were ordered to? Of course not. So it had nothing to do with obeying reasonable rules. It had to do with obeying.
EV batteries have burned houses down! And two cargo ships. That isn’t “FUD.”
It is fact.
The neck gaiter emblazoned with skulls seemed more amusing than idiotic to me, but you’ll choose the characterization befitting the “pandering to the pandemic alarmist” mold that you want to place me in.
Do you eschew pasteurized milk because the alternative is banned? Do you go shirtless and shoeless in stores that require shirts and shoes? Do you routinely drive 90 mph on interstate highways? [Yes, I’ve done it occasionally too, just to thumb my nose at the regulation.] Do you run every stop sign or red light after looking both ways? The list of regulatory constraints on my everyday behavior is practically endless. Somehow, bowing to this one requirement for a year, in the way that I did it, makes me a sycophant without convictions? While you’re what by comparison? A bold, brave opponent of the Man?
Yes, EV batteries have burned houses down. I’ve never denied it even once. Automobiles kill 40k people per year in the U.S. alone. That’s a fact too, and if I’m trying to persuade you to ban automobiles, it’s also FUD because your death in an automobile is extremely unlikely, highly uncertain, highly doubtful, so fearing it obsessively makes little sense. See the point?
Martin,
The fact remains: You bowed to the idiocy (and the evil). I didn’t. There is something pathetic in the wearing of a “tough” Face Diaper. It says: Look at me! I oppose this stupid requirement. I know it’s stupid.
But I obey it, nonetheless.
You continue to bring out the stupid analogy of shirt/shoes requirements. I have already explained why it is a stupid analogy. But – again: Being expected to wear a shirt/shoes is a civility. It is not an affirmation of an evil – a truckling to mass hysteria.
Those who wore the “mask” were either afraid – or afraid to disobey. There was no other reason to wear a “mask.”
As far as EV fires: It is disingenuous – specious – to say that it’s trivial. Was the Pinto’s risk of fire trivial? Apparently not. The fact remains: There is a built-in propensity for EVs to catch fire – and to do so spontaneously. There is no analog as regards non-electric cars. These have to be in an accident – and there has to be a spark. They do not just go up in flames.
Every single make/model EV has had a fire issue. Bear in mind that most of these models are two years old or less – like the EQE that just went up in smoke.
So much for “FUD.”
“Bowed to the idiocy (and the evil)” is an idiotic characterization of wearing a neck gaiter emblazoned with skulls in a store requiring a mask. You presumably also bow the idiocy and evil of buying pasteurized milk and wearing a shirt and shoes in any store requiring them, but you don’t hold yourself to the same standard because you aren’t interested in consistency here, only in constructing ludicrous standards of “integrity” that you can apply selectively to others.
You haven’t explain why it’s a stupid analogy. You’ve only called it stupid because you bow to it yourself.
I never anywhere call any fire “trivial”. That’s you again.
Martin,
You bowed. That’s it, bottom line. You can rationalize it all you like. You bowed. Wearing a shirt/shoes in public is not idiotic. Wearing a “mask” is. Why? Well, there’s the obvious reason. You look like an idiot with a “mask” over your face.
No one looks like an idiot who wears a shirt/shoes. But it is much more profound than just that. By wearing a shirt/shoes when requested by a store owner, you are not bowing to pressure to pretend a “pandemic” is afoot and furthering the propagation of hysteria and tyranny. But that is exactly what you and every other person who wore the “mask” did do.
Unless you wore it voluntarily, because you wanted to. In which case you were a dupe who looked like an idiot.
As far as milk: We buy unpasteurized, actually.
Good Lord. Martin, you protest so much about this it’s clear you’re trying to convince yourself you didn’t bow. We know you did. Just get over it and move on all ready.
Good morning, Mister!
Martin wore the “mask” – which he equates (and defends) with wearing a shirt/shoes in stores that require them. That he sees an equivalence is startling. Does it really require explaining the difference?
Apparently, it does.
Actually, I don’t think so. I think he’s unwilling to acknowledge he was either (a) a fool or (b) someone who bowed to evil. I understand that. No one likes admitting they behaved like an idiot because they were told to. That they were used. I am harsh about this because I think it is necessary for those who were used to come to grips with it and by doing so, get angry about it.
So that “masking” never becomes a thing again.
>Escalade EV, which weighs nearly four tons
Four tons ???
They ought to call this beast the Escalade PkW I (PanzerkampfWagen Eins)
Aficionados will no doubt eagerly await the up-armored PkW II mit das Rheinmetall 88 Geschütz.
Indeed, my 2 ton International truck (which can and has hauled over 10000 lbs) doesnt quite weigh 8000 lbs. What a waste!
‘something like the Aptera, which isn’t an affront to common sense’ — eric
In terms of its compact envelope, yes, the Aptera is quite sensible.
But I do not believe its claimed 400 miles range. Nor do I believe it can squeeze out up to 40 solar-powered miles a day. The solar collector area is barely enough to charge a freaking laptop.
Take it from me: the Aptera is a scam. It can never deliver on its promises, which bend the known laws of physics and thermodynamics.
Aptera fans would be better off keeping their ICE vehicles, and dusting off those old blueprints for a 100 mpg carburetor. Gas for nothin’, chicks for free. 🙂
RE: “But I do not believe its claimed…”
See, that’s your problem, ya just gotta, ‘believe’ …like, lotsa people who eat bioenginerred foods ‘believe’ the experts have their best interests at heart,…why can’t you ‘believe’? ….What’s wrong with you?
…Do you do your own research, or sumthin’? …. Don’tchya know that’s racist/conspiracy theorist thought?
…Just eat everything that’s spoon-fed to you! …I mean, it’s just too damn hard to grow your own potatoes,… don’t you just wanna bitch about the high price of potatoes rather than grow your own?
…Food lines are Fun! It’s just like Black Friday! … But, I digress. … And, my day is over.
‘G.T.O. · Ronny & The Daytonas’
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QiFHKAbxG50
…except the war baby elderly I took care of in nursing many, many years ago. Whom, after they died their Boomer kids would clean the house up, and find tens of thousands of dollars hidden throughout the house and the walls they never knew about, because after the crash of ’29, they never ever trusted banks again. They learned the hard way not to believe anything shoveled to them. Mmm, garden potatoes. Now that sounds delicious. It is up there with the fresh, Georgia peaches.
Hi Shadow,
My parents kept a fair amount of cash in the house as well, having lived through the “Great Depression”. This time around the PTB are preparing to make sure that can’t happen again with their attempts to set up CBDC’s and eliminate cash.
How true. You can stash the cash, but it will not be worth anything, and you cannot buy anything with it when CBDC’s come into play. And then again, that is when black markets and parallel economies start developing, too.
You don’t present if scintilla of evidence to support your claims, Mr. Physics, because you don’t have any.
Uncle Tony gives a fine breakdown of the EV thing:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uzYPi0VtkCg
I followed the Aptera https://aptera.us/ since it’s announcement since I am interested in ultra mpgs for a wheeled enclosed vehicles. The first thing I learned was it was designed to be light, and have an extremely low Coefficient of Drag like an aircraft, which have low Cd’s by necessity since they travel at high speeds where air is like a vicious fluid.
With CAFE mpg requirements being raised to Japanese levels, Cd is going to become a big issue in the next decade. This is good for people like me who want low Cd and inexpensive cars, because just maybe the auto makers will push fuel economy over 70 mpg. I have no interest in 700 hp and 7 mpg when gasoline costs nearly $5 a gallon in Oregon right now. And seeing how expensive gas is in Europe, I am sure we will see those prices soon – since they want us out of ICE vehicles.
—————–
https://money.cnn.com/pf/features/lists/global_gasprices/
Whatcha’ going to do when gas gets to $6, $7 or even $10?
https://www.nytimes.com/2023/08/09/us/politics/fbi-shooting-utah-biden-threats.html
(Biden, of course, is intentionally destroying the United States at behest of his Zionist handlers. And that poor man shot dead in Provo Utah was made an example, because with Clintons or Bidens, they kill anyone they damn well please.
Biden’s shock laws like killing natural gas or raising CAFE beyond what is achievable or reasonable, is done on purpose to kill the economy. To kill you they say get Covid vaxx4 times a year – yeah baby – keep getting the shot till your dead ’cause Social Security is out of cash.)
————–
https://ecomodder.com/wiki/Vehicle_Coefficient_of_Drag_List
Aptera 2E prototype Cd = 0.15
GM EV1 original Cd of 0.19
Prius 0.26
Chevy Volt Cd 0.28
Geo Metro Cd 0.35
Tesla Cybertruck 0.39
https://electrek.co/2023/07/12/aptera-anticipates-lowest-drag-coefficient-of-any-car-ever-in-wind-tunnel-testing/
https://www.edmunds.com/fuel-economy/improving-aerodynamics-to-boost-fuel-economy.html
https://www.carscoops.com/2020/06/lucid-air-is-the-worlds-most-aero-efficient-luxury-car-with-a-0-21-drag-coefficient/
https://www.carscoops.com/2021/07/how-can-a-ram-1500-truck-have-a-better-drag-coefficient-than-a-human/
If I lived just on the outskirts of some giant modern megapolis this might be just the ticket. As long as its mechanically sound enough to handle 65-80mph stop and go traffic, might be a good choice. That assumes you live somewhere where they bother to keep the roads in good repair. If you just needed a in city vehicle it might do as well. Although it looks like it has the same amount (none) of storage space as my T-Bird. The passenger can always hold the groceries on her lap.
It’s a bummer that you can’t build a small, lightweight car with four wheels. Three wheeled cars are considered motorcycles by regulation, so they’re not subject to the myriad of rules that make a four wheeled version of the Aptera impossible.
Lots of our regulations prevent small and efficient cars. US car standards are proscriptive; they mandate a certain kind of crash beam, a certain kind of bumper, a certain kind of headlight, etc. All this adds up to weight. I’m no fan of regulations, but EU does it better. They’re not as proscriptive but results based; in a 60kph frontal offset collision, occupants shall only take a certain amount of impact force, etc. it’s up to the manufacturers to meat the outcome goals, but they’re not told how to do it. Compare the specifications for small light car like the Alfa Romeo 4C that sold both in the EU and US. It weights about 1980lb in EU and about 2500lb in US. It’s 500 lb heavier for our market. I mention this car because I’m familiar with it; it’s got a formula 1 style crash structure that absorbs energy by splintering, it’s very safe. That isn’t allowed in the US, so they bolted US crash structures to it. They do nothing to make it safer, but they comply with the rules, and harm its gas mileage and performance.
RE: “It’s a bummer that you can’t build a small, lightweight car with four wheels.”
…Wait a minute, guys.
It’s already being done. It’s called, a UTV.
They are all over the place here in Eastern Iowa, …They practically do parades up & down the highways here on certain Saturdays.
[I wonder when Eric will review one] They are extremely popular here.
Go ahead. Knock yourself out. Just no subsidies, mandates, climate hectoring, etc. Rise or fall on the merits. But no. Already sucking off the gov teat and barely a going concern. Just get an f’n golf cart. Pffft.
OT, but I gained a lot of respect for Tom Woods admitting the one virus was BS and issuing a written apology about being wrong on LRC a few months ago.
That was my thought as well. Why not just get a really nice golf cart? Maybe they’re not fast enough and don’t offer enough protection from the elements though.
There’s an outfit near me that rents these golf cart like things that seat 6. It’s like an elongated but narrow car. I see them on the roads that are 25-50 mph just like cars. Folks seem stoked. But, ya know, ludicrous speed. This Aptera thing seems like a red herring. Eric’s a gem for indulging this Tom Woods fan. But, ya know, I’m just a liberty oriented junk yard dog who doesn’t care for the smell of diminishment or authoritarian collectivism. Oh, that’s the other guy. Whatever.
The Aptera seems like an interesting concept, but it doesn’t appear to be something that would actually come to fruition. As some have noted here, it looks very fragile, It’s somewhat expensive for what it is, the open wheels and single rear wheel seem like a compromised design and it’s pretty small.
The Chevy Volt seemed like a practical plug-in EV/hybrid design. Room for 4, can travel at highway speeds and an on-board generator so range is not limited. The problem of course, is that it can be untethered. It’s too independent. That’s not what they want to promote.
Ultimately though, the ICE vehicle is just not broken, so there’s no need to fix it. I saw a video of a 1.5 turbo VW Jetta that costs $23.6k and recorded 54 mph highway! 158hp and 184 ft lbs. of torque. 7.7 seconds to 60 mph and 126 mph top speed. with 13 gallons of fuel it would have a range of 700 miles. This seems like a miracle to me.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P98cKcun2xM
I think Eric makes a very valid point. At least the Aptera, is usable as a local, grocery getter. Personally I like 4 wheels so something the size of a Fiat 500 might work. As to the Rivian, they certainly made a lot of poor choices with the electric parking brake and no mechanical cable release for the charging door. Every domestic truck has had cable release hatches and parking brakes, since what the 60s-70s…but i guess it is not high tech enough.
I think they went with the trike layout to classify it as a motorcycle. That way they can bypass a lot of the saaaaaaafety requirements.
I wonder if the driver will need to wear a helmet in states that have laws?
You can drive it in the HOV lane with a single passenger. Three wheels also reduce friction with the road, but the teardrop shape is the real drag-killer. The drag coefficient of this car is insanely low. If regulations didn’t require side mirrors, it would be even lower. At highway speeds, most of a vehicle’s energy is pushing air out of the way. This entire car has a lower drag coefficient than the side view mirrors on some vehicles.
No helmet is required in any state.
As I’ve said elsewhere, “any state” is mistaken here. According to Aptera, an enclosed autocycle does require a helmet in three states but not in the other 47. The three states are Arizona, Oklahoma, and Wyoming, and (apparently) the requirement only applies to drivers under 18, but if I lived in one of these states or frequently drove in them, I would avoid the Aptera until the law is clarified.
https://aptera.us/faq/
Martin,
The point here is that it is very likely the federal”safety” regulatory apparat will not sit back and let Aptera “get away” with building a three wheeler to evade the regs applicable to cars. And state regulatory apparats will see this thing not as a car – or an “autocycle” – but as a three wheeler; which is to say, a motorcycle. That is my prediction.
We’ll find out in time, I suppose.
No. My point is that you and others earlier claimed that Aptera drivers will be required to wear helmets because the vehicle is a three-wheeled autocycle while Aptera claims that the vehicle requires no helmet in 47 states under existing law. Yes, countless other regulatory barriers exist too, and Aptera is now trying to satisfy them all, but I’m not trying to show that Aptera has already met every one of them, only that Aptera says that it can. I have consistently referred to the helmet issue in this thread.
I expect Aptera ultimately, even soon (as in next year) to meet regulatory requirements in California because it is extremely “green” and has already received a $21M grant from the California Energy Commission and seems likely also to receive a Federal ATVM loan since the head of that program recently praised the vehicle publicly. It has many backers among the “green” cult within state regulatory agencies.
But you may be right. Maybe the “safety” cult will win out in agencies thoroughly captured by legacy automakers. As I’ve said repeatedly, I can only hope not.
No, Martin – I never “claimed” any such thing. What I said was that it’s likely – in my opinion – that if the Aptera is ever produced, it will be targeted by regulatory bureaucrats who will regard it as “cheating” because its design allows it to “get away” with skirting the “safety” requirements that apply to cars – and motorcycles.
I hope this does not happen. But I expect it will.
You’re mincing words as usual.
At August 11, 2023 At 12:01 pm, you say, “And if that is what they do, then people who live in states that have helmet laws (for motorcycles) will have to wear them to drive the Aptera.” No “likely” there. You’re very definite about it.
“If that is what they do” refers to “get around the safety regulations by claiming it is a “motorcycle” much like others such as the Can Am and Slingshot.”
We’ll see what happens. I have doubts about Aptera that I have already expressed, but relevant agencies in both California and the Federal government, namely the California Energy Commission and the Advanced Technology Vehicles Manufacturing program, have endorsed it. Since you seem to think that the Green Goblins have a lock on every level of government and want to destroy every ICEV at any cost, I’m surprised you have any doubts.
Martin, do you have a financial interest in Aptera? I just can’t imagine anybody getting so worked up like you are over what amounts to some mild criticism of a prototype product. For God’s sake, Eric titled the article about your beloved Aptera as “the EV as it Out to Be.”
Eric, I’m sure you’ve already answered this but any thoughts on the possibility of the Supreme Court overruling the Chevron Doctrine next year?
Thanks. Aptera still hasn’t raised production capital, and I’m not confident that it’ll ever be built for the advertised price, but it has 40k preorders and seems close to an ATVM loan after receiving California’s equivalent. I’d rather see private capital, but I’m more interested in seeing the vehicle produced.
Aptera is less an EV than an efficient engineering project. It’s all about being the most efficient automobile possible. They have no interest in bolting a battery to a conventional pickup or SUV or even a conventional, compact hatchback. The original project started in 2005 but faltered after the founders left. They resurrected it in 2019 after buying the IP from what was left of the original company.
I suppose they’ve had trouble raising private capital because they’re jealously guarding their control of the project this time, after losing control the first time, but the difficulty raising capital makes me wonder. For what he paid for Twitter, Elon Musk could have financed the production of the Aptera forty times over. What a waste.
Aptera started out as a crowdsourced product. Anyone in Detroit who brought something like this in to the developer’s meeting would be laughed out of the room. Because no one would ever be willing to sign off on that sort of radical design. But the crowd is smarter than the cathedral. The crowd already knows that trying to make EVs that look like SUVs is a non-starter, because the crowd knows they are gas hogs.
The cathedral thinks we actually like their product. We don’t. We buy a compromise. It does nothing well. It is the least bad choice. Now they’re even going to take away the one thing it does seem to do fairly well, get you from point A to point Z without much drama.
Aptera won’t make it to profitability. Hell, it might not even deliver what it promised to the backers. But the people who built the thing will get hired on by Detroit to incorporate whatever innovation they produced for Aptera into the 2027 Chevy Compromise, where it will make a barely marginal improvement in whatever.
I hope the pessimism isn’t warranted this time … If Aptera fails, again, I still expect more attractive EV options in the next few years. GM uncanceled the Bolt, and I expect the next model to have an LFP or LMFP battery with better cycle life and less risk of fire than NMC batteries. The Tesla Model 3 Highland will have an LMFP battery and could start as low as $35k.
The Bolt is also a very reasonably priced EV. It starts at $27k (though it’s almost impossible to find one on a lot at that price) which is only a few thousand more than a Mazda 3 (a similar compact hatchback that I currently own). Charging at home, I’d make up that difference in the first few years even if I bought the Bolt EUV with the options (like autopilot) I want. Charging at home with a level 2 charger is a whole lot less expensive than pumping gas, and it’s also more convenient. I also expect less maintenance, no motor oil, no spark plugs, no transmission fluid.
Hi Martin,
As regards the expense of charging at home: Last December (when it was very cold here) I had three EVs back to back. My power bill for that month more than doubled. I heat with wood and propane, so it was not the heat pump that did this. It was charging the EVs. The total sum was not quite as much as it would have cost me to gas up engine-propelled equivalents – but the “savings” (if any) were trivial, especially relative to the cost of the vehicle.
As far as “less maintenance” – you will pay more for tires and there is coolant to service in an EV, as well as the suspension – which will likely require maintenance (replacement) sooner due to the weight/loading.
If you charge an EV at home, much less three of them, of course, you’re power bill will go up. The question is: how much does it go up compared with the gasoline yon you aren’t buying? Why not address this question in detail? I can link countless sources that do, and the savings are not trivial at all.
How much more you pay for tires depends on how you drive. You’ll pay more for tires with a Ferrari too. No one’s claiming that EVs are maintenance-free. The issue is maintenance compared with an ICEV. If you have some evidence that EVs require suspension replacement more often, present it here. FUD is as common as dirt and about as useful.
Hi Martin,
I had three EVs back to back (not all at once) during that period last December. Granted, filling up a non-electric F-150 isn’t cheap; nor a non-electric Mercedes S-Class. But charging up the Lightning and the EQS (as well as the Mach e) wasn’t cheap, either. I did a whole article about it. I wasn’t able to specifically separate out the draw (and so, the charge) for these EVs but my utility bill that month did more than double. Did paying to charge cost less than gassing those vehicles up? Yes. But the difference wasn’t much. Meanwhile, the difference in price – Lightning vs. F-150 – is massive. Whatever the supposed virtues of EVs, “saving money” isn’t among them.
As far a maintenance: It’s not contested that EVs (all of them) go through tires about 30 percent faster. Given the cost of tires, that is not a trivial expense. Suspension wear is apt to occur faster as well – for the same reason. Weight wears. Finally, it is disingenuous to not bring into the discussion the battery – a maintenance expense that dwarfs all the others. You might prolong the life of the battery by avoiding heavy discharge (and “fast” charging) cycles and by driving the EV “gently.” But then why bother with the power/performance? And – regardless – the battery will lose it capacity to receive/hold a charge. The cost of replacing a tiring battery is stupendous.
If you were charging an F150 Lightning, your experience is even less relevant to me. I’m not in the market for an F150 Lightning. Like I said, I’m in the market for something more like a Bolt, and I’ve done the comparison, and it’s not trivial at all. Electric pickups make little sense at this point, and I’ve said so repeatedly.
I replace the tires on my Mazda 3 every few years. Even if I pay a grand for four tires (and I don’t), that’s $300 more for an EV at your 30% or maybe $100 per year, probably less since I average less than 10k miles per year. It’s hardly worth accounting for, but I’ll account for it anyway. Thanks.
Martin,
The Bolt is a subcompact that’s priced about $10k higher than an otherwise similar subcompact such as the Chevy Trax. The idea that you will “save money” is risible when you factor in what you spent – including what most people would have to spend to wire up a 240V charging set-up in their home – and the higher depreciation of a used (and tired-battery) EV. Let’s also not forget the cost to insure a $30k vehicle vs. a $20k one. And the taxes…
Buy one of these things if you like, but there’s no other reason to.
And they ask me why I drink…
I don’t believe so because I’ll save a grand per year by charging at home vs. buying gas, and you’re exaggerating the price difference which is closer to seven grand. I’ve driven my Mazda 3 for thirteen years, and I’m not through with it yet.
And this comparison omits the tax credit. Criticizing the tax credit is fair, but it exists, and I’ll take it ’cause I prefer writing smaller checks to Uncle Sam under any circumstances. With the credit, a Bolt isn’t more expensive than a Trax at all, out of the door, never mind the cost of fueling it.
Martin,
With the tax credit, the cost of buying the Bolt is about the same as the cost of buying the Trax. But you will still pay much more to insure the Bolt due to its higher replacement cost (and also probably the fire risk). And if you have personal property taxes that apply to vehicles, you will pay more there, too. And most people will have to pay to have a 240V circuit/receptacle wired up/built in their garage, too.
The Trax is cheap to fuel. The Bolt is only slightly cheaper to charge.
The Trax has a 15-20 year service life. The Bolt will need a replacement battery long before then – and it will cost more than the Bolt is worth by then.
You can talk up the EV’s merits all you like; saving money isn’t among them.
I don’t know the insurance costs. If you can link something, I’ll read it.
My dryer is directly beside the door to my garage, and the door has smaller door for my cat, so I don’t really need a new outlet in the garage, but I’ll have one installed for a few hundred dollars anyway. It’s an insignificant addition to the cost of the vehicle. I paid a thousand dollars for that door with the cat door, so it’s not something I’ll notice.
“Slightly cheaper to charge” doesn’t comport with my research. We can go into the details if you want.
A battery that’s rarely deeply discharged (all the way to empty) and rarely fast-charged, as opposed to using a level 2 charger, can easily last 200,000 miles, and if Edmunds can be believed, my Mazda 3 will have very little resale value left at 200,000 miles anyway the way I drive it. I suppose the Trax is no different.
I don’t expect to save a fortune, but I don’t expect to lose a fortune either. In fact, I’ve never claimed that the car will cost me less over its lifetime, only that it won’t cost more. I’ll make up the initial difference in sticker price if I charge at home for a decade. That’s all I’ve ever claimed. Meanwhile, I experience EV ownership.
Hi Martin,
Insurance premiums are based in part on the replacement cost of the vehicle. It costs the mafia more to replace a $32k vehicle than a $22k vehicle and that is reflected in the premium. Expect your premium to increase on account of fire costs, too.
As far as “insignificant costs” – in re the modifications to the home needed to be able to “Level II” (240 v) charge an EV. First, this is a value judgment. If you are affluent, then spending the $500 to $1,000-plus it generally costs to have an electrician come out to wire up a dedicated 30 amp circuit for the 240V plug is perhaps “insignificant.” It isn’t to people who aren’t affluent. And if you do not own a garage – and a single family home – what then?
I’ll investigate insurance costs when the time comes.
I do have a garage, and my washer/dryer is directly next to the door between my kitchen and my garage, so I only need to extend the circuit from an existing 240V outlet a few feet. I just measured, and the center of the outlet is 27 inches from the wall of my kitchen. The other side of that wall is in my garage.
I doubt that the new outlet, with installation, would cost close to $500. I could probably do it myself, though I probably wouldn’t. If I’m paying $30k+ for a car, as I did for my Honda CRV a few years ago, I won’t notice this cost. I’ll pay cash for the car and won’t much notice that either. I’m not a spendthrift, but I am an early adopter of new technology. You do you.
I certainly understand my experience is not everyone else’s experience. Anyone else considering an EV needs to take their own circumstances into account. I’m a libertarian, remember? I don’t want everyone else on Earth making the same choices that I make. The only point I’ve ever made here is that, after considerable research, I’ve concluded than an EV can work for me, and I’d like to experience one for myself. I’m not trying to sell you one.
Fair enough, Martin –
But the issue here is that for many people, these costs are both real and significant. Also: Using the same (existing) 240V circuit to charge an EV and use your dryer means you can’t do both at the same time; it would trip the breaker. My understanding is that Level II requires a dedicated circuit with its own breaker. Some home panels may require significant upgrades to allow this.
It baffles me that anyone would want to do this when they could just drive a normal car and skip all the rigamarole – and the expense!
Martin Brock:
A serious question which is not intended to be argumentative in any way. You said to Eric “I’m a libertarian. . .” From many of your posts I don’t get the sense that you are (not a criticism). What makes you think you are a libertarian?
Why not? What have I ever said here that makes you think I’m not a libertarian? I’m only asking you to name one. You’re asking me to prove the negative.
I think I’m a libertarian because the only political constraint I support is an enforcement of individual self-ownership and free association. I’m quite zealous on this point. If you and others want to set up a voluntary community somewhere and drive only ICEVs there, as long as you don’t hold people in the community against their will, I’m 100% on your side. Others may choose communities where only EVs are permitted. Others (like the Amish) may choose communities where only horses and buggies are permitted. I suppose most people will choose a community permitting any of the three, but if people want to be more exclusive, that’s their right.
That’s my libertopian ideal, and I’ll defend it all day long. I’m well aware that it’s utopian and doesn’t exist anywhere in reality and likely never will, but that’s not the point. It’s an academic thesis I defend. In reality, I was born surrounded by states, and I’ll die this way too.
By comparison, I expect to save a grand or more per year by charging an EV at home (a Bolt, not an Aptera) compared with buying gasoline for a Mazda 3.
The need to replace an EV battery that was not damaged in a collision is near zero. There are many false claims made by conservatives on this subject.
Dick,
How would you know whether an EV’s battery had been damaged in a collision? Are you going to disassemble the thing and check all the thousands of potential failure points?
Who made you the arbiter of “false claims”? And what “conservatives” are you wheedling about?
I will add more details here.
I read and recommend on my blog up to 35 conservative articles every day as my main hobby. I see a lot of false claims of EVs needing battery replacements, just from age, with no data. Included in otherwise good articles.
I said the need to replace EV batteries is near zero, except for collision damage.
Even a 1% LOSS of range per year would not make an EV worthless after 20 years.
Collisions are a different subject.
If the battery case is visibly damaged in any way during a collision, I would never drive an EV again and I’d hope my EV insurance company would agree.
If there is invisible internal damage from G-forces of an accident, i don’t know how that could be detected. That is a potentially BIG risk without data to verify how much of a risk.
I am anti-EV, but I am also anti-false claims about EVs.
EV have had fewer total fires per vehicle than ICEs. There are some false numbers online about this subject, that make no sense, but that fact remains true.
EV have batteries capable of at least 200,000 miles of use, with modest deterioration. (Under 1.5% of all drivers go more than 200,000 miles with their vehicles.)
Replacing EV battery packs — UNLESS THEY WERE DAMAGED BY AN ACCDENT — is mainly an imaginary problem.
Please read my comments carefully before replying. You will still be wrong … but at least we will be talking about the same thing!
You may start drinking now.
Your “favorite” heckler and fact checker, who actually agrees with almost everything you write about, but not 100%, which you can’t stand.
Leftists argue with emotions and character attacks. Libertarians are supposed to argue with facts, data and logic.
The need to replace EV batteries is mainly imaginary
Dick writes:
“The need to replace EV batteries is mainly imaginary.”
I’m not even going to bother.
Hey Eric, but get a load of this article. Now granted, it is from Breitbart, so take it with a grain of salt. However, it IS from California. That is, “California moves to confiscate power from your electric car battery”. LMAO! https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2023/08/11/nolte-california-moves-confiscate-power-electric-car-battery/
Eric, just the perfect thread to post this link. The article is titled “What Happens When a Rivan EV Runs Out Of Battery Charge”. I think I will take the few minutes to fill up the gas tank in my car, and save myself the hassles. What a pain in the ass! As for that vehicle above? Meh, it would sit in in the driveway all Winter long, just like the Harley’s and sports vehicles do. That thing will be worthless on the ice and snow, and the solar would do you no good, either, with only 3 hours of daylight in the dead of Winter. But maybe down south it might do someone some good? Trying to be positive and all…. https://www.motortrend.com/reviews/2022-rivian-r1t-yearlong-review-update-10-running-out-of-battery/
I would drive this car every day year around, and I’d hardly ever need to fuel it at a public charging station or even plug it in at home. 400 miles is further than the longest trip I make with any regularity, like a few times a year, and I always stay overnight when I make the trip. I visit my family in my hometown 250 miles away. My sister already has a dryer outlet in her garage. Where are the hassles again?
I don’t know how it would perform in ice and snow, but it hardly ever snows in Georgia, so I don’t care. I’ll wager it would perform better than you think because it’s extremely bottom-heavy (from the battery) and has either front-wheel drive or all-wheel drive. I wouldn’t take it far off-road because it’s so low to the ground, but I think it’ll do as well as other small cars on ice and snow. If that doesn’t work for you, so be it.
If you only get three hours of daylight in the dead of winter, you live a whole lot further north than I do; however, I consider the “solar electric vehicle” angle to be mostly a marketing gimmick anyway, as it was for the now defunct Lightyear. The Aptera at least gets a decent amount of range in a day if you’re close enough to the equator and buy the full array of solar panels. The standard model only has panels on the roof and gets you less than 20 miles ideally.
Even with the solar panels, I’d usually plug the car into a level 2 charger at home as with other EVs. If I lived further north, I wouldn’t bother with the optional solar panels, and I’d still buy this car if it had no solar panels. Charging at home overnight is the saving grace for EVs generally.
It might work in the Summer, but forget it in the Winter, being up in Alaska. But also, am not sure how a three-wheeled vehicle would do on the frost heaves on some of these roads (perma frost) even in the Summer. The DOT just likes to do band aid road maintenance on some of the roads, and when they can get around to it. You can lose your back end hitting some of those frost heaves! I could just see it tipping over hitting one of them-ha ha! But for those closer to town, it could work during the Summer, and off-set the horrific price of gasoline. The price of which is a crime, considering the pipeline is in our back yard! Maybe with solar panels in the Summer? You would not need gasoline, maybe? Aaah, I remember a traveler worker came up from George. Brought us some peaches from his neck of the woods to share. Mmm, it was like eating liquid sunshine, and was not anything you would ever buy up here.
EVs rarely tip over in accidents because they’re so bottom-heavy. They have other problems, but that’s not one of them. Three-wheelers with two wheels in the back tip over, but two wheels in the front are much more stable. You may be right about Alaska. Lots of things I take for granted wouldn’t work in Alaska.
I did not realize they would be bottom heavy. There would be that one, though, that would fly over the frost heaves at a high speed, and still manage to wipe out. But maybe hitting Bullwinkle would be a different matter, as maybe due to the shape, the moose would fly over it instead of wiping the vehicle out? Hmm. It definitely poses different and unique questions, that is for sure. At least the squirrel would still not stand a chance-ha ha!
An EV is bottom-heavy because of the battery.
You just say things like “fly over frost heaves at high speed” because you feel like it. Your imagination is not evidence of anything.
Yes, it poses different and unique questions, and experience will answer the questions like it answers questions about everything new and innovative.
Until you have drive these roads, Martin, you sound just as stupid as Richard, and have no clue! “Fly over frost heaves” is not my imagination, it is because I have done, and seen it. So how about you SHFU until you have driven these roads, both in the Summer AND Winter, and how about trying it in one of those vehicles first for a few years. If you are lucky and get stranded, someone nice will pull over and offer you a ride into town even if you are an ass.
Again (and again), I’m not denying anything you say about your driving experience in Alaska. I explicitly state, in the comment to which you respond, “You may be right about Alaska. Lots of things I take for granted wouldn’t work in Alaska.” You insist on calling me “stupid” and “an ass” and telling me to STFU anyway. Only you can explain why.
If you cannot clearly read between the lines, I cannot help you. And I am done with you. I swear, you are just Cashy under another name.
“My sister already has a dryer outlet in her garage. Where are the hassles again?” – Martin
Hope she has really good fire insurance! Those thing will turn themselves into crispy critters and a house to ashes in a very short time. Sissy may not like that!
EV fires are extremely rare, but FUD is not. You have half a dozen Li-Ion batteries in your house right now, don’t you? Let’s discuss insurance. I’d love to sell you some.
So far EV fires per vehicle have been rare, but will certainly increase as batteries age.
To have an ICE fire, you usually need a collision
Not spontaneous fires
To have an EV fire, the vehicle does not have to be moving. Usually happens while the EV is charging. but sometimes just sitting there unplugged. Can’t be prevented or predicted.
With perhaps 2000 cells in one EV battery case, just 1 serious battery catastrophic failure per 100,000 cells could be a serious problem.
Just another EV disadvantage in a long list of Ev disadvantages.
Your imagination seems less certain to me than it seems to you. Is your laptop moving right now? How about your phone?
EV spontaneous fires are are rare but they are real.
They have nothing to do with my phone or laptop.
I did have a phone whose battery got very hot. I replaced it, and the new battery got hot too. Didn’t explode.
Hey Mr. Brock, I’m the official regular heckler here. Are you trying to take my “job”?
I’m not heckling unless I’m being heckled. Turnabout is fair play. I’m making my personal case for buying an EV, not telling anyone else, much less everyone else, what to do. My only point is that EVs have a use case even if they won’t save the planet. It’s not a difficult case to make.
“My sister already has a dryer outlet in her garage. Where are the hassles again?”- Martin
These appliances have a nasty habit of igniting turning them into crispy critters and a house to ashes. Hope Sissy has good insurance.
Sorry for the double post.
Indeed, what other consumer device with such alarming potential for super hot fires that can’t be put out, and spew highly toxic fumes would even be allowed on the market? Much like the “vaccines”.
How about your phone? I remember when planes prohibited Li-Ion batteries because of the fire FUD. Now, they don’t. There have been some EV fires, all extremely well-publicized, and battery manufacturers have responded, but if you lose sleep at night over every well-publicized disaster, you don’t get much sleep.
My phone battery doesn’t weigh 1-2k pounds, and I can simply throw it out in the yard if it catches fire. Simple enough for you?
A retired fireman I know is thankful he never had to fight an EV fire. Toxic fumes that last a long time because the fires are so hard to put out. A fireman’s nightmare. These are people who have sen dead bodies in fires, so EV fires must be pretty bad to get their attention.
If EV fires are so ubiquitous, why hasn’t your friend fought one?
Yes, EV fires are hard to put out. I’ve said so myself in this forum already. They’re also rare, but battery manufacturers should take them seriously anyway. LFP and LMFP batteries are much less susceptible to fires and are less costly as well. The Tesla Model 3 Highland will have an LMFP battery, and I expect the next Bolts to have them as well, but if I bought a Bolt this year, with an NMC battery, I wouldn’t lose sleep over it any more than I lose sleep over 40,000 automobile fatalities (and a lot more injuries) every year. I drive around every day without worrying that my car is a death trap, and so do you. You only worry about these things when you’re FUDing EVs.
What part of “retired fireman” is hard for you to understand? Or would you just prefer not to.
Does he know a fireman who has fought an EV battery fire?
I have repeatedly commented that EV fires per vehicle are rare when compared to ICE and hybrid fires per vehicle. One of the few EV advantages…. My retired fireman friend also never had to rescue a cat from a tree.
Richard, please stop citing to yourself as authority. Also gasoline fires are not = to EV electrical fires, which appear to be more like mini nuclear meltdowns.
The history of electric vehicle promotions is filled with exaggerations, lies and deceptions. Many described AT THIS WEBSITE, MORE SO THAN AT ANY OTHER SOURCE. Why would Aptera be different?
The Aptera is not even in productions, so all we have are extraordinary claims for it, with no road tests to verify the claims. The company is desperately seeking investors — that’s a huge red flag for me.
If you believe all the Aptera hype, I’d like to sell you my 25% share of the Brooklyn Bridge.
Related Wisdom:
A gold mine is a hole in the ground with a liar on top.
The history of promotion is filled with exaggerations, lies and deceptions.
Everyone already knows that Aptera is not in production. See my first comment here.
I’m not in the market for a bridge. Thanks. Silly platitudes go in one ear and out the other.
“Where are the hassles again?”
Mainly with guys like you constantly praising and excusing them, right or wrong, truthful or not, which just makes it easier to cram them down our throats.
You’re helping the enemy.
People who disagree with me are not my enemy. You aren’t my enemy either.
“Constantly praising and excusing” is a ridiculous characterization of my position here. I have asserted myself, consistently, here and elsewhere that EVs make no sense for long-haul trucking or even most pickup trucks. I’ve agreed that they make no sense for most apartment dwellers at this point. If you can’t charge routinely with a level two charger overnight at the same rate you pay to dry your clothes, they make little sense. I’ve agreed with Eric’s criticism of big electric SUVs and their absurdly massive batteries. I’ve conceded every point about battery fires, only noting that ICEVs and other technology also pose risks and that these risks are problems looking for solutions, not proof positive that EVs particularly are the work of the devil.
But if you want to divide the world into warring camps of allies and enemies, go ahead. I’m not interested. I live in this world, but I don’t need to join one of the warring camps. Peace be with you.
I’ve also agreed that an EV makes no sense if you routinely drive hundreds of miles a day. I’ve agreed with EV criticisms so often that I can’t remember them all. I’m not seeing the same nuance on the other side of the argument here.
Martin,
What you’re missing is the resentment of EVs that attends the forcing of EVs. I doubt many – certainly not I – would have much to say about EVs, per se, if they were just another type of vehicle available for those who wished to buy them.
But that’s not the case.
EVs are being forced on people. And non EVs are being forced off the market. Thus, they are regarded as obnoxious by those of us who don’t like choices being made for us, contrary to our own choice. It is why, in particular, there is such a vehement reaction to any apologizing for the EV’s many weaknesses and disadvantages – as well as the EV’s wastefulness, of resources, energy and time.
EVs are inextricably bound up with the “climate crisis” hysteria. In this respect, they are like Face Diapers (which few of us would care about, were it not for the association with weaponized hypochondria) and for just that reason, regarded with great contempt by many, me among them.
Must have hit a nerve, MB didn’t reply.
At some point, I will stop commenting here because the repetition is painfully dull, and you can then declare victory in absentia. Have fun with that.
Wow. I didn’t reply in ten minutes. I must be suicidal. I guess I should monitor this page continually to establish my sincere convictions.
No. I’m not missing the resentment at all. I’ve argued repeatedly, here and elsewhere, that mandates are counterproductive, that they’re polarizing and encourage a faction ideologically opposed to EVs regardless of any arguments based on the technology. How you miss this point is beyond me.
You and others here repeatedly say that EVs cost too much, that they take too long to charge, that they cost too much to charge at public stations, that they’ll burn your house down, and on and on. None of these arguments have anything to do with mandates, and when I agree, ad nauseum, that the mandates are a terrible idea, you only repeat, ad nauseum, that I’m conspiring with the mandaters anyway. Everything I say here opposed to mandates, which is everything I say about mandates, falls on deaf ears.
I heard you, and if I had considered otherwise, I would relentlessly chastise you over it. What I won’t do, and have chastised others for doing, is post comments that exceed the length of Eric’s articles. It’s not my web site, neither is it yours.
My comments don’t exceed the length of the article. Maybe all of them combined do, but so what? If you have less to say, say less. I’m not robbing you or anyone else, including Eric, here. You’re only constructing yet another ridiculous standard by which I’m supposed to be one of the ill-mannered bad guys despite the fact that I don’t call anyone an asshole or call anyone’s mother a bitch or tell anyone to shut the fuck up, all of which I’ve endured here. Your congregation isn’t half as holy as you imagine yourselves
It’s not “my congregation”, and I don’t recall ever using profanity towards you. I try to refrain from that at all times.
You don’t have that much to say either. It’s the same old tripe, day after day.
I haven’t accused you of profanity. Others use it here.
It’s a group of people sharing a view with you. If you don’t like the word “congregation”, insert you favorite synonym.
Of course, I’m repeating a view here day after day, as you are, but I don’t feel a need to characterize your view as “tripe”. EVs are mechanical contraptions with advantages and disadvantages compared with other mechanical contraptions. I’m only interested in discussing these advantages and disadvantages, not in dividing the world into Good and Evil.
Martin,
“I’m only interested in discussing these advantages and disadvantages…”
Exactly. Without context. Without any discussion of what’s at stake. You understand this – as you have said. And yet, you act as though it doesn’t matter.
It does.
Unless you think that forcing everything that’s not a battery powered device off the market doesn’t matter. That the false justification for this doesn’t matter. That the precedent being set doesn’t matter.
Und so weiter.
Yesterday at August 11, 2023 At 8:37 am, I say, “I understand it perfectly, and I’ve said so over and over again here. I oppose mandates everywhere I discuss this issue.” I’m responding directly to you, where you say, “Martin (and many others) seem not to understand this and for that reason do not understand our resentment.” What I say is irrelevant. Saying it now doesn’t matter either because you’ll keep repeating your accusation no matter how often I say it.
Per your own statements, the only thing you have to say here is that EVs work for you. I don’t recall if you ever claimed to own one. If you do, good for you. If you don’t, then you don’t really know yet. The only critique I recall directing at you is you talk too much, and you promote and defend EVs, which are a dangerous enemy to free travel. Subsidized or not.
Mandated or not as well.
You’re right. I don’t really know yet, but as with any purchase I haven’t yet made, I must decide without knowing yet based on the information at my disposal, and I’m here exposing myself to views highly critical of EVs for this reason among others. I’ve heard many arguments against EVs, and I’ve yet to hear one that applies to my circumstances, so I remain willing to find out in reality.
I do many things that other people never do, like hanging from the wing of a biplane flying upside down. You could tell me all day about all the risks involved, and you’d be right, but if you’ve never experienced freefall, I’d say you’re missing something. I’m not saying you’re stupid or evil for choosing to miss it. I’m only saying that I’d rather not. For me, the experience was well worth the risk, and I’ve never regretted it even after a couple of significant injuries. Your mileage may vary.
Martin,
If you haven’t actually lived with an EV, I recommend you try doing so before you buy one. I have lived with almost all of them and I can tell you from first-person, real-world experience that: Their range is typically off by 10 percent or more (under ideal conditions). Their range plummets when conditions are less than ideal. It is necessary to keep them plugged in when not in use in order to avoid “seepage.” Using “fast” chargers can be an ordeal and isn’t cheap, either. Use of the touted performance will dramatically reduce the range remaining, which – in an EV – means you will be stopping (and waiting) much longer, more often.
You will experience none of these issues with a non-electric vehicle.
What’s the EV upside, again?
I’ve already responded to all of these objections repeatedly. See my earlier replies. You don’t need to agree with them, but I don’t need to repeat them either.
If you think I talk too much, replying to my comments seems counterproductive on your part. Maybe you’re cooperating with evil. Say a little prayer for yourself.
You just can’t !agree! with some people.
So true
If you really want to power a car from the sun, putting panels on your roof or in your yard and charging from an outlet makes more sense. I love this car, but solar panels mounted directly on a car really are a gimmick.
A very fragile one! They are unlikely to stand up to the kind of abuse dished out by our wonderful road network. Even just good smoothies will cause body roll and twist when turning, and anyone who’s ever tried to twist a brittle material like silicon knows what happens. Even if they don’t look damaged the microfractures in the silicon substrate will cause opens and shorts that build resistance in failing cells. That in turn will draw off other cells’ output into heat.
A lot of this can be reduced with the use of diodes, but they aren’t perfect conductors, so there’s a trade off between reliable output and total efficiency. And eventually too many cells will be damaged anyway leading to the panel becoming dead weight.
Hi Martin,
You need a large (read, very expensive) solar system to pull in any meaningful charge as regards EVs. And event then, the assumption is the weather is clear and sunny. In my area, it gets foggy and overcast for days at a time during the fall and winter. Another inconvenience, eh?
Not that large if you only want to add 50 miles of range to an EV, but I’m not suggesting it. I’m only saying that it makes more sense than mounting panels directly on your car. Someone tried to sell me a rooftop solar package only a few months ago, and I declined because the numbers didn’t add up.
Martin,
“50 miles of range” can be 35 miles of real-world range. Sometimes, less. I know this for a fact, having test driven most of the EVs currently available for sale. And even 50 miles is skating on thin ice if you live in the country, where people regularly drive that far one way in a day.
I think we al got your point long ago. “EVs are wonderful!”
Actually, I have repeatedly conceded many disadvantages of owning an EV. I’ve explicitly and repeatedly said that electric pickups make no sense for example. This simplistic characterization is your projection. You want a simple “good EV vs. evil ICEV” or the reverse argument, but I’m not giving you one.
How true.
The Rivian article was fifth article on my recommended list of 20 this morning. When I worked at Ford product development, we always considered Motor Trend (and Car and Driver) to be industry cheerleaders. They would test cars they already liked, per an editor’s recommendation, and avoid testing the models they didn’t like. That created a positive pro-industry bias. They got even worse with EVs in recent years. The Rivian article was very interesting, but not relevant for ordinary EV drivers.
I find the article very relevant, Richard.
Few people own Rivians and I’d bet only one person ever drove one until all three batteries were dead. That would be the author.
An interesting experiment, but not relevant many EV owners
Richard is simply intolerant of Shadow’s opinion that the Rivian article is relevant. He must follow up with an I’m right and you’re wrong.