Talk:Aptera Motors/Archive 1

Archive 1

Talk

2 things. (1) What part of "currently aims to deliver first all-electric units to customers in October 2009" seems appropriate to a wikipedia article in December 2009? (2) wiki needs a general way of marking future date claims so they can be tense-corrected appropriately. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.126.215.43 (talk) 07:14, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

[1] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.247.51.182 (talk) 23:47, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

This is an ad isnt'it? --Gerfriedc 12:21, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Seems that way.

This blog post suggests that the Aptera is actually an enclosed motorcycle rather than a car, although that's splitting hairs. It doesn't fill me with confidence that the lead designer is willing to publish incorrect computer renderings, and then admit it in a public forum. -Ashley Pomeroy 18:34, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Can you give a reference to that public forum? --Csab 01:40, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Claimed MPG

The article currently states: "The fuel efficiency of 300 mpg-US (0.78 L/100 km) when plugged in every 120 miles (190 km) would make it one of the most fuel-efficient cars in the world. This is without accounting for the fuel used for generating the power that charges the batteries. If that is provided for, the equation would stand significantly altered." However, these conversions *are* accounting for the fuel used for generating the power that charges the battery... the power had to come from somewhere to charge the battery. In addition, the references cited to not support the statement. Instead, the references detail that the source of the power (alternative vs. fossil fuel) determines the true amount of CO2 emissions associated with that figure. Further, this statement is a characteristic of electric power generally and of MPG/electric car comparision, not specifically of Aptera cars, and therefore should be removed from the article. Instead, the figure can be cited as a MPG gasoline equivalent, and a link to the relevant article Miles_per_gallon_gasoline_equivalent can inserted. I will make this change, if nobody objects. Rest (talk) 22:57, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. The standard metric is vehicle efficiency, not well-to-wheel efficiency. --IanOsgood (talk) 02:39, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Claimed Cd

Assuming that is frontal area basis then 0.06 will not be attained by the current shape. The contribution from the front suspension alone, as drawn, will be almost as much as the rest of the car, which might achieve 0.07 if they can attain laminar flow back to 60%. My guess is that 0.12 would be the lower limit of what they could achieve with doors and realistic seals around the wheels. Nice idea none the less. Greglocock 01:44, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Good to see that they have revised the estimated Cd to 0.11. Spooky heh? Gosh I wonder what sort of windtunnel they used. Probably one of the F1, pull a number OOMA, ones.Greglocock 03:21, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

How come they doubled the aero drag yet have not claimed any change in mpg? Are these guys serious? Greglocock 23:29, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Removing lack-of-sources tag

Added references, removing tag. Sedonaarizona 02:39, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Original Research

At least two editors have placed their opinion/thinking on the car into the article. Wikipedia is built in reliable sources, not what you might happen to think about something. Just because you might happen to think something doesn't make it suitable for inclusion in an article, anymore than my thinking that the reason the Mayans disappeared is because of a comet. I'm warning the editors that did this, and in the future, if it isn't from the news, or the company itself, if you saw something and it stuck out as being odd, keep it to yourself --_ʇuǝɯɯoɔɐqǝɟ 17:50, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, let's just try and apply some of the century old ideas of aerodynamics. F=1/2*rho*Cd*A*v^2. I think you'll agree that that is not OR. If cd increases from 0.06 to 0.11 then F increases by 3.36 using five hundred year old maths (or more). Probably that isn't OR. So, all other things being equal, we'd expect the fuel consumption, in a vehicle where aero drag is dominant, to change by the same, ie from 300 to 90 mpg. Even if aero drag is only half the total resistance then you'd be at 130 mpg. Please explain which part of this is OR. I scarecely think the application of high school maths and physics is OR. Credulous articles like this one make wiki a joke. Greglocock 23:53, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Our job is not to make up warnings or try to correct the already existing information, we just here to collect it and digest it. WP:OR clearly states:

• It introduces an argument, without citing a reputable source for that argument

Which you plainly did. If you cannot come up with WP:RS, it is WP:OR by definition and is unsuitable. You do not manufacture the car, you did not design the car, you have not studied the car, you do not have any room to be saying how true the technical specifications are. You do not know if it was merely a small error, whether they changed their plans greatly, or anything else about it. If you know someone who has, such as a quote from someone who works for the company saying "Yeah, we screwed up. It's only going to get 75MPG", then by all means add it, but do not inject your own opinions into things. --_ʇuǝɯɯoɔɐqǝɟ 00:23, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

So you are unable to identify which part of my derivation above was OR. Thank you. To amplify. A promoter comes up with a web page advertising his new product that says that 1+1=3. In /your/ opinion wiki has to reproduce that claim in an article on that product unless an editor can find an RS(which is only a guideline by the way, so cut the legalistic twaddle) pointing out that 1+1=2. In this case that is harder since nobody is going to waste much time identifying the shonky claims on websites, and publishing them. It is not OR, it is high school physics. Greglocock 01:46, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

No, the problem is that there are far too many variables here, with no reliable source to back you up. That's OR. OR is trying to warn people with math that you have absolutely no way to know is correct. The fact that you say below that it IS in fact correct is a great example of why we don't allow WP:OR. --_ʇuǝɯɯoɔɐqǝɟ 08:14, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

However, a bit more schoolboy maths indicates that the claimed mpg change (I was unaware of the original figure when this started) /is/ consistent with reasonable values for the car, overall efficiency 20%, Crr 0.01, A=1.2 m^2, so I'd agree that the article as it stands is OK for this claim. I still think it reads like an ad. Greglocock 02:18, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

I'd disagree on the ad statement, it just lists the features of the car- although I think we should try to give it an intro, a history section (what it's missing), and a technical section. Right now, the entire thing is basically just a description of the car, which is alright, but we could do better, not to mention some of the problems they've encountered to make it seem less like an add (like going from 300+MPG to 230, which should be easy enough to find a source for) --_ʇuǝɯɯoɔɐqǝɟ 08:14, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

No, car companies don't publish the problems they are having in development. Especially not car companies that are looking for funding. "The fact that you say below that it IS in fact correct is a great example of why we don't allow WP:OR. " No it isn't. My original "OR" concerned the fact that the Cd had doubled yet the claimed mpg was unchanged. I was wrong on the latter, as it happens, but the point remains. Brain-dead acceptance of developer's claims will turn wiki into a catalogue of fantasies. Greglocock 19:34, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia isn't here to say "THIS IS FACT". Wikipedia is here to say "THIS IS WHAT THEY SAY." Remember, the guidelines for inclusions are verifiability, not truth. The Phantom game console obviously has enough people pointing out it's flaws to put in a criticism section, this however does not. In addition, like I said, your WP:OR WAS WRONG. Even you admit that. No matter WHY you are wrong, the fact remains that you were wrong, which is a large reason why we do not trust statements without WP:RS. If you do not like the rules on wikipedia, there are many, MANY other Wikis out there that would be happy to let you exercise your creativity --_ʇuǝɯɯoɔɐqǝɟ 19:42, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Latest estimate from the company themselves is Cd=0.15 . Now, I wonder where that leaves the mouthbreathers? If you repeat every stupid claim that a new company makes, are you authoritative, or gullible? Greglocock (talk) 11:27, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Ambiguous Drive Train Details

In a number of articles, and even on Aptera's own site, it is unclear whether the internal combustion engine (ICE) is diesel powered or gasoline powered. It is also unclear whether the vehicle uses the ICE in parallel or series. The company website seems to indicate a serial configuration, but a press release from earlier this year seems to indicate parallel. Perhaps this (and the gas vs. diesel issue) due to cost cutting decisions, but accuracy is questionable on the ICE fuel type and configuration at this time. The original press release seems to be unavailable but here's a reference to the original: http://www.treehugger.com/files/2006/01/how_to_make_awe.php

Also, the "CARB certified diesel engine" citation links to an article that makes no mention of CARB. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.251.248.21 (talk) 21:10, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

As of the most recent changes to their website (10/18/07 I think), Aptera is pretty clear that they could not make the diesel engine work. Revised the article to remove mentions of diesel engine. They decided to go with a gas engine, but I cannot find any more detailed specs on that engine. More info here: https://aptera.com/ask.php —Preceding unsigned comment added by CydeSwype (talk • contribs) 23:09, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Image Addition

Permission has been sent to the OTRS system for the addition of a picture of the Aptera. Dakscott 20:35, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

I've got two images of the earlier MIT Aztec (1994) and the Fusion (1984). Would it be appropriate to put them in here? I think they show the progression of design fairly well. I don't know how to add pics to Wiki very well. The fusion pic can be found in reference #8. The MIT Aztec can be found by googling it. The images from the EVA restoration project are probably the best ones I've found. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.117.148.2 (talk) 16:15, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Major re-organization

Ok, I've been doing a lot of research on this thing. I added a History section as requested earlier, which I think clears up some of the confusion between the original design, the first prototype Mk-0, the second prototype Mk-1, and the Typ-1. I also tried to group things a little better. There's been a lot of information added to their site, so I've tried to cite everything. Feel free to call me out here and in the article on anything I haven't cited. I'll be watching the page.

I will admit to being excited about this product, but I've tried to be neutral in all my edits, and prevent it from becoming an advertisement (like it was before my first cleanup edit). Any NPOV feedback would be appreciated, however. EdgeOfEpsilon 00:23, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Just Pondering

It would look much cooler if the steering wheel was a flight yoke, with the blinkers controlled by the thumbs and the throttle and brakes controlled by the index fingers. Hell, it looks like a Cessna minus the wings. Looking at some of the videos of it on YouTube, it looks like it is a blast to drive.

The only real drawback that I can see is…, because it is classified as a motorcycle, will I have to wear a DOT approved helmet in states that require it? 24.44.24.69 (talk) 07:18, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

They say on their site you will not need to wear a helmet, since it's not *technically* a motorcycle. This is of course state-by-state, so it only applies in California. See their FAQ.

EdgeOfEpsilon (talk) 18:36, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Technical Details:

It would be nice to know: a:How much night time driving with headlights will effect the electricity used and range of the vehicle? b. How many watts at 110V the battery charger pulls when the car is plugged in and charging?— Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.116.121.202 (talk • contribs) 23:39, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Vehicle classification

US law requires cars and trucks to be above a certain weight. It is somewhere around 2100 lbs (the Toyota MR2 Spyder had to add weight to be marketed in the US because of this law) so how is this car classified? Is it considered a motorcycle or what? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.4.231.53 (talk) 18:08, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

It is classified as a motorcycle in California because it only has three wheels. Could you cite a reference for this weight threshold? I have not heard of this US regulation. --IanOsgood (talk) 18:19, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Sounds like an MR2 fanboy trying to come up with some rationale for Toyota's bloated pig of a sportscar. I wonder how much a Geo Metro weighs? Oh, 1600 lb. So Toyota added 500 lb of ballast? Greg Locock (talk) 00:25, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

EdgeOfEpsilon (talk) 14:03, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Title: Company vs. Product

The title of the article is Aptera Motors, implying a company right? But the whole article only really talks about the Typ-1, and it even begins as though it's an article on the Typ-1, but is, as I said, titled after the company, not the product. Is there a way to change this article to either include more information on Aptera Motor in general than this specific vehicle, or change the title to Aptera Typ-1 to make the article more accurate?

24.137.206.74 (talk) 23:54, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

The article name was originally "Aptera hybrid car," but it was changed in [2] by User:Nopetro. I don't really understand it either. EdgeOfEpsilon (talk) 18:32, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Makes sense to have a company page and product page, afterall they will add more products in future, most likely, so might as well have separate pages to start. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.148.73.133 (talk) 22:04, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Vehicle size class?

Could you provide justification for your assertion that the Aptera isn't really a microcar?

FTA:

A microcar is an extremely small automobile. Various definitions are used, including "less than 3 metres in length" and "less than 85 cubic feet/2400 litres interior volume". Typically, microcars seat only the driver and a single passenger, and many have only three wheels. Microcars are usually designed and produced for economic purposes when materials and heavy equipment are scarce or fuel is scarce and expensive.

Seems like Aptera applies, and defining it as a microcar certainly doesn't preclude it having three wheels. Additionally, three-wheeled doesn't really describe the class of the vehicle. How about settling on "Three wheeled Microcar"? EdgeOfEpsilon (talk) 17:54, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Here is why I don't think Aptera is a microcar:

• I could find no external reference listing Aptera as a microcar. According to Aptera themselves, their vehicle is officially a motorcycle in California.
• Other historical and modern microcar models are noted for their miniscule size. The Aptera is as large as a standard two-seater automobile in capacity, track width, wheelbase, and tire size.
• There is no official "microcar" vehicle size class in the US. There is a "two-seater" class and a "minicompact" class at the low end. Other countries have a city car class.

The best course of action is to ask Aptera what class it falls in. (In my opinion, it is in a class by itself!) --IanOsgood (talk) 18:51, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't think it's even a subcompact. While it may look small and seat two, you should look at its dimensions. Judging from the available pictures and media (as Aptera has not released stats), from the tip of the front wheel skirts, it's 7+ feet, wider than most cars from edge to edge of the side mirrors. The Typ-1 is long, too, looks to be over 14 feet long. There's a discussion about its dimensions at http://www.apteraforum.com/showthread.php?t=170 Dracker (talk) 22:33, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Bad reference

The article http://www.gizmag.com/aptera-typ1-three-wheel-electric-vehicle/8392/ made a mistake about the function of the solar cells, which is why I corrected the article and removed that reference. They only augment the cooling system by running a ventilator. They cannot be used to charge the main batteries or provide power to any other system. See instead the Aptera FAQ and the Popular Mechanics segment for the info from the mouth of the company founder. --IanOsgood (talk) 05:57, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Fuel Type?

Article says its powerplant is a diesel and then says it would run on gasoline? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.84.194.243 (talk) 16:13, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

The first prototype used diesel for maximum MPG, but they switched to gasoline in order to meet the strict California emissions standards. --IanOsgood (talk) 17:05, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Emissions

Regarding the following quote from the article: "Aptera will not face the same battery of tests for safety and emissions as would be required were the vehicle introduced under the requirements for an automobile, drastically reducing development expense." The thing here is, why even talk about "emissions"? Aptera is being developed for a contest that already requires low emissions. Saying what is said in the quote above makes the Aptera sound like it pollutes more than it does. -- Slythfox —Preceding comment was added at 23:24, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

License Plates

How much will the drag increase when you need to put front and rear tags on this car? --Razmear (talk) 06:36, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

It won't. As a motorcycle, it only requires a smaller rear plate in the US. --IanOsgood (talk) 04:45, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Article should be split into two

This article has gotten quite long, substantially because it is taking about two separate things: Aptera Motors (the company), and the Aptera Typ-1 (the product). This should be rectified.

It looks like most of the History section could be put in with the company's page, and there's some information available about their finances and production capabilities that could be incorporated.EdgeOfEpsilon (talk) 03:55, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

I second this idea, if someone else is willing to do the work. They're getting close enough to commercial production that it only makes sense. -- Rei (talk) 17:49, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Why this article is split in two

Step 1: Edit the article. [3] Step 2: Change the name of this article. Step 3: Go to the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.247.51.182 (talk) 21:07, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

This article is split in three now

I based the split on the Lotus page, ie one overall page for the company, and then one for each vehicle. I'm pretty sure the refs survived, except three youtube ones. I'm not actually convinced this was a worthwhile exercise, but since someone had already created the Typ1 article it looked like that was the way to go. Greg Locock (talk) 05:38, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Er, I was offline editing this page because it was terribly organized (Safari has a bad habit of crashing). I don't think the Mk-0 really deserves its own page, since it's only a historical footnote in the development of the Typ-1. The only reason I included details on it was because I've seen so many people confuse the two (claiming the Typ-1 is diesel, for instance), so I thought it necessary to include it for clarification reasons. Also, instead of deleting references (and reducing verifiability), why not bring over the reference specification? EdgeOfEpsilon (talk) 05:44, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

More detail please

A user asks "WHAT HAPPENED? THERE IS AN ALMOST THREE YEAR SKIP IN THIS "ENCYCLOPEDIC" HISTORY AND THEN THE COMPANY GOES OUT OF BUSINESS WITH NO DETAILS WHY THEY COULD NOT GET FINANCING? WHAT HAPPENED TO THE DOE LOAN APPLICATION? "

which despite the shouting is a good question.

Greglocock (talk) 01:02, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Paul Wilbur lost his way as he never understood the concept of the perfect being the enemy of the good ..

Federal dollars hit a stumbling block about a car (4 wheels) vs a bike/motorcycle (less than 4 wheels) .. also the "best minds" of the auto business thought a three wheel vehicle would never sell (despite tons of press, real (cash) orders and exceptional showing in the Progressive Insurance Automotive X Prize), Wilbur poured time, money and energy into developing another car/model (4 wheel/4 door sedan) till "the lights went out". They failed not at making the car that everyone was excited about, but by developing another 4 door sedan to add to the litany of 4 door sedans made all over the world. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.113.119.56 (talk) 06:00, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

About the silence: the main founders and talent of the company were forced out shortly after Paul Wilbur and cronies came on. Their period of NDA is about to expire, and Steve Fambro has a book about the rise and fall of Aptera Motors ready for publication shortly thereafter. There will be a wealth of detail at that point. --IanOsgood (talk) 17:01, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Pure electrical vehicles (unlike Aptera) can claim infinite MPG !!

If Aptera can claim 300 mpg which is mostly an electric vehicle. Just because it uses little bit of gas , it gets to claim 300 mpg. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 120.61.8.89 (talk) 03:17, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Aptera Motors. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20110707154430/http://aptera.com/newsletter111908/, to http://aptera.com/newsletter111908/,

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

N An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the |checked= to true

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 20:32, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Aptera Motors. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081204115001/http://aptera.com/newsletter111908/ to http://aptera.com/newsletter111908/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081227005227/http://aptera.com/newsletter121908/ to http://aptera.com/newsletter121908/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110707153934/http://apteraforum.com/showthread.php?t=3872 to http://apteraforum.com/showthread.php?t=3872

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:36, 16 October 2016 (UTC)