Aptera fighting Congress over whether Aptera 2e is "an automobile." Meanwhile GM gets Govt$$$

I know the legislative intent is to fund non-NEV's ... and there's a fear all 3 wheelers maybe nev's ... but ... that's our congress. Meanwhile ... October is only a couple weeks away, and that's when Aptera said they're going into production. I hope they're not going to delay again.

 

As I understand it, the legislative/regulatory definition of three
wheelers not being proper cars, stems from its being meant to cover
motor cycle-side car combinations. When treated as motorcycles,
three wheelers don't have to meet NHTSA's more comprehensive
automobile safety standards. I suppose there are good, or at least
historical reasons to keep this arrangement

Over the years many small vehicle manufacturers, especially kit
makers, have made three wheelers for just this reaon.

Congress is being boneheaded by rigidly applying an old idea to a
new situation. Change the law you dummies!

Call motorcycle/side car combinations something like a "three wheel,
two chassis vehicle."

Call something like the Aptera something like a "three wheeled, fully
enclosed, single chassis vehicle.

Address the two completely different types of three-wheeled
vehicles completely differently. This is not a difficult concept
to grasp.

Hello! Wake up! All four wheel vehicles aren't treated alike;
A pick-up is not a passenger car.
And SUVs are not passenger cars.

It looks to me that there are far too many toadying elected
representatives taking GM handouts.

 

Hi All,

Hmm, I wonder how much money GM and the UAW have donated to various parties over the years? Seems pretty one-side how the Apterra backers donations were called out.

 

You can't have it both ways.

If one claims a 3 wheeled vehicle is not a "car" subject to all the regulation & licensing then one can't complain about not qualifying for a handout. Is this vehicle registered as a car or a motorcycle? Is it street legal for all paved roads?

 

It is a trike but why does a "car" need 4 wheels? Aptera is a viable transport mode, cheaper than a Ferarri and more eyecatching.

 

Ok, so it has three wheels. If the law requires 4, just take that back wheel off, design a wheel 1/2 as wide, and put two of them back on. Just like "duelies" on a large pickup. BINGO! 4 wheels.
I don't see the big deal here. If you wanted to get fancy, you could even put them on a tiny super short axel of some type. It should be relatively SIMPLE for the guy's at Aptera to engineer 4 wheels.
They just don't want to.

 

Except they gave (or are giving) money to Tesla and Nissan. Its not that its not a Volt... Its that it has three wheels.

I agree too that the Aptera should qualify but those are the rules and this has been known by Aptera for some time. It would not be ideal but they could jam two wheels (very close together) in the back without messing up the air flow too much.

This is not a GM conspiracy.

 

If I were at Aptera, here's what I would do... add a 4th wheel, not
alongside the existing single rear drive wheel but in front of it.

This wheel would not be the proverbial useless "5th wheel" either.
It would be roughly the size of a go-cart wheel, immediately in front
of the drive wheel. It's purpose would be to act as a squeegee to
sweep standing water away and clear a path for the single drive
wheel.

In this way, the wheel could be touted as a safety advance, a forward-
looking, positive feature, not unlike windshield wipers.

In addition to neatly side stepping the 3-wheeler-is-not-a-car issue,
it might actually work!

 

Add a 4th wheel & Aptera would have to meet high speed / low speed crash test requirements ... and that's just what GM is trying to force them to do. They don't want the competition ... even tho they're owned by the Fed's now, pretty much. Schizophrenic. Fed's want better / cleaner cars ... yet they'd mess with new commers.
(shaking head)

.

 

A car must have four wheels in archaic, but on the other hand, having a car be a beneficiary of govt program to make EV's more mainstream, meet the safety requirements of other mainstream cars isn't a bad idea. Should federal funds go towards companies making electric sport bikes?

I would like an Aptera, but when it comes to Pa, the state might make me get a seperate license and wear a helmet while driving it. Maybe we need a new class for enclosed vehicles that can reach highway speeds?

 

First of all the low speed requirements are totally inadequate. If the Aptera can not meet them it should not be on the road. The requirement is 2.5mph into a barrier/object with no damage.

This is about federal loans and again they are giving money to Detroit outsiders, but not to Aptera because of the 4'th wheel and the tests. This is not a GM conspiracy. The rules are out there, published and reasonable. I would love to see Aptera get the money.... but the government is not willing to think that far outside of the box.

 

"Congress has approved a bill that will make fuel-efficient three-
wheeled vehicles eligible for federal funding.

"After getting approval from Congress, the bill is headed to the White
House for Obama's signature, who will most likely endorse this too.

"After Obama signs the legislation, any manufacturer of enclosed
three-wheeled cars that can average at least 75 mpg (or equivalent,
for plug-in models) and are designed to carry at least two adults will
be eligible for DOE funding.

"Companies that are looking to manufacture three-wheelers such as
Aptera and Elio Motors have been fighting for this rule change in order
to access funding."

Interesting, in a rant in post #3, I suggested that the Aptera be called
a three wheeled, fully enclosed, single chassis vehicle...

Close, but no cigar.

Full story here:

Three-Wheelers Will be Eligible for DOE Funds