Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

We Drive the Aptera, and It's a Real Car

blog.wired.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–27 of 27 posts

Re: We Drive the Aptera, and It's a Real Car

#21

Post by JulianMorrison »

HeyLaughingBoy wrote: post #7

I have to admit that it's pretty. I used to think it was a dumb idea, but it looks cool and seems quite usable. I'd buy one if I had that kind of "play money." It's by no means practical and I'm sure the first few 1,000s will be purchased like the comment said "as a fashion statement." But realistically, except for the crappy range, it's as "useful" as my 350Z: which is to say, not very - you buy these things for fun…

The range is a price thing. Tesla has shown you can squeeze serious range out of an EV - and design a commodity car for quick battery swaps. But all of that costs money. Aptera is undercutting Tesla's second car with their first, they can't afford to gold plate it, so they have to make the best of old tech.

Economies of scale acting on EV battery packs should make their jobs easier after 2010.

Re: We Drive the Aptera, and It's a Real Car

#22

Post by swillden »

jasongullickson wrote: post #2

I've been following Aptera for awhile and they are one of the very few companies looking at the electric car as a clean-slate design. I can appreciate the benefits of taking our current idea of "a car" and swapping out the traditional powerplant for an electric one, but we won't see the true potential of electric drive until we abandon our preconceived notions of what a car is and design one from the ground up using…

My only regret is their focus on "fair-weather" states, if they ever come to Wisconsin, I'll be the first in line.

That and I'm waiting for the plug-in hybrid model. Actually, what I'd really like is a direct-drive diesel version, like their very first prototype. It got 230 mpg. Still, the hybrid gas-electric prototype supposedly gets 120 mpg starting with an empty battery. The battery in the hybrid will be smaller, holding a 40-mile charge.

Re: We Drive the Aptera, and It's a Real Car

#23

Post by brc »

HeyLaughingBoy wrote: post #7

I have to admit that it's pretty. I used to think it was a dumb idea, but it looks cool and seems quite usable. I'd buy one if I had that kind of "play money." It's by no means practical and I'm sure the first few 1,000s will be purchased like the comment said "as a fashion statement." But realistically, except for the crappy range, it's as "useful" as my 350Z: which is to say, not very - you buy these things for fun…

History is littered with the wrecks of car companies who tried to do something different. We all admire radical car designs, some of us even like them. If there is one thing we can learn, though, conservatism in car design is the way to riches. Just ask Toyota.

The only caveat is if the design truly fits the times. BMW built it's post-war balance sheet by selling Isettas to cash-strapped Germans. However, since the Aptera was conceived and planned, energy efficiency has fallen a distant second to cash efficiency. And this will ultimately prove to make it a historical oddity, fodder for motor curiosity collections and little else.

Re: We Drive the Aptera, and It's a Real Car

#24

Post by Retric »

biohacker42 wrote: post #17
Retric wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The gas station could also directly split the water which is easy to transport. The only advantage to on bard electrolysis is home charging. Anyway, the real problem is storing enough H2 to drive a useful distance.

Good point the stations could certainly split the water. I was under the impression that fuel cells to have range comparable to gasoline. Here's a wired blog about Toyota's fuel cell claims: http://blog.wired.com/cars/2008/06/516-mile-range.html

You can burn hydrogen in a normal car engine the issue is the fuel tank. Pound per Pound Hydrogen has a higher energy density than gas, but high pressure tanks are costly and take up a lot of space.

Fuel cells have a higher efficiency which let's you store less fuel, but they are even more costly. You can even make a hybrid, fuel cell, hydrogen car like the FCHV-adv, but few people are going to want to pay the full cost of such a beast. Ok, they could do a small production run like the Bugatti Veyron http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bugatti_Veyron at a loss.

PS: Toyota, is getting people to road test their prototype, but don't think this is any where near being cost effective in mass production.

Re: We Drive the Aptera, and It's a Real Car

#25

Post by jasongullickson »

swillden wrote: post #22
jasongullickson wrote: post #2

I've been following Aptera for awhile and they are one of the very few companies looking at the electric car as a clean-slate design. I can appreciate the benefits of taking our current idea of "a car" and swapping out the traditional powerplant for an electric one, but we won't see the true potential of electric drive until we abandon our preconceived notions of what a car is and design one from the ground up using…

My only regret is their focus on "fair-weather" states, if they ever come to Wisconsin, I'll be the first in line. That and I'm waiting for the plug-in hybrid model. Actually, what I'd really like is a direct-drive diesel version, like their very first prototype. It got 230 mpg. Still, the hybrid gas-electric prototype supposedly gets 120 mpg starting with an empty battery. The battery in the hybrid will be smaller,…

I already have five gasoline-powered vehicles (two cars and three motorcycles) capable of good mileage and long range, so I'm looking for something with the simplicity and elegance of pure electric drive.

Re: We Drive the Aptera, and It's a Real Car

#26

Post by biohacker42 »

Retric wrote: post #24
biohacker42 wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Good point the stations could certainly split the water. I was under the impression that fuel cells to have range comparable to gasoline. Here's a wired blog about Toyota's fuel cell claims: http://blog.wired.com/cars/2008/06/516-mile-range.html

You can burn hydrogen in a normal car engine the issue is the fuel tank. Pound per Pound Hydrogen has a higher energy density than gas, but high pressure tanks are costly and take up a lot of space. Fuel cells have a higher efficiency which let's you store less fuel, but they are even more costly. You can even make a hybrid, fuel cell, hydrogen car like the FCHV-adv, but few people are going to want to pay the full c…

I wonder what's an easier engineering task, affordable fuel cells, or affordable high pressure hydrogen tanks?

Re: We Drive the Aptera, and It's a Real Car

#27

Post by gameguy »

biohacker42 wrote: post #13

100 miles in great. But gasoline is one hell of an energy dense and convenient fuel. It will go several hundred miles and "recharges" in minutes. Hydrogen could be as energy dense but transporting it is a pain. That's why I've been wondering about a sealed tank with water, which would use electrolysis to split it into hydrogen and oxygen. The gas stations could keep huge capacitors which continually recharge slowly f…

There's some problems with that concept based on how fuel cells currently work. The hydrogen feeding into the fuel cells needs to be very dry and pure, necessitating ultrapure water. Furthermore, the hydrogen would need to still be stored on the vehicle. Storage on the vehicle is actually not that big of a problem. Hydrogen is explosive, but people forget that gasoline is also extremely explosive... and yet we drive around sloshing tanks with very few issues (unlike the movies where the slightest fender-bender results in a fireball). The fuel cells are the hard part. The cheap ones are fickle, with narrow active temperatures and intolerance for contaminants. The most efficient ones run at very high temperatures, are heavy, and involve nasty chemicals... very useful for sealed stationary applications, not so for cars.
Post reply on HN