Why not add a 4th wheel directly adjacent to the (existing) rear wheel. This would allow Aptera to qualify for federal rebates, and would solve the various odd state laws regarding Aptera technically being a motorcycle. The 4th wheel could be smaller than the other three (possibly so that it doesn't even touch the road), and placed directly next to the rear wheel. If it must touch the road, it could trail behind on a loose linkage, with a small shock absorber, such that very little weight is transferred to the road through it (e.g. 20 pounds).
I just don't see a reason why Aptera wouldn't want to be a part of a $7500 tax credit for electric vehicle purchasers. IIRC the original Aptera wasn't going to have airbags, which was ok because it was a motorcycle, but now the new Aptera seems to have all the safety features, so why not add a "tax credit" 4th wheel... it could even be removable by the end user, as federal law only requires the vehicle to have four wheels at the time it's sold.
I'm wondering if Aptera might design a flush inlaid clear covered enclosure that would minimise, if not entirely eliminate the effects of additional drag or compromising drag coefficient this state-level imposition might cause.
Okay, @Biff, so no-go on the street rod, but maybe flush with the hood.
“Street rod vehicle” means a vehicle with a body design manufactured in 1948 or earlier or with a reproduction component that resembles a 1948 or earlier model which has been modified for safe road use,"
Aptera would take a big redesign to look like a 1948 or earlier vehicle. it looks more 2048 than 1948.
I wonder how to make an Aptera qualify as a "street rod" in CO with no front license required.
Meanwhile, “the front license plate must be:
(A) Displayed horizontally".
Kinda like this? (flush with Aptera hood, "in the location designated by the motor vehicle manufacturer;”)...:
Since it is 88” wide, Colorado also requires clearance lamps: “CRS 42-4-207
(2) Clearance lamps. (a) Every motor vehicle or motor-drawn vehicle having a width at any part in excess of eighty inches shall be equipped with four clearance lamps located as follows: (I) Two on the front and one at each side, displaying an amber light visible from a distance of five hundred feet to the front of the vehicle; (II) Two on the rear and one at each side, displaying a red light visible only to the rear and visible from a distance of five hundred feet to the rear of the vehicle, which said rear clearance lamps shall be in addition to the rear red lamp required in section 42-4-206 .
(b) All clearance lamps required shall be placed on the extreme sides and located on the highest stationary support; except that, when three or more identification lamps are mounted on the rear of a vehicle on the vertical center line and at the extreme height of the vehicle, rear clearance lamps may be mounted at optional height.”
Current version: CRS 42-3-202 “The owner shall attach the number plates assigned to a self-propelled vehicle, other than a motorcycle or street rod vehicle, to the vehicle with one in the front and the other in the rear.”
That's the old version. Several years ago Colorado deleted the word autocycle from the front license plate exception.
Only in some states. Colorado appears to require autocycles to get front and rear car plates.
Good one, Paul. I was curious about what they were going to do for a front license plate. I didn't realize that three wheels got them around that requirement.
In general on this thread, I would rather see Aptera continue to pursue making the most efficient car on the planet than to have them shoot for getting a higher rebate.
The biggest issue that doesn't augur well for a 4th wheel is the federal requirements for standard bumper height and width which will be an aerodynamic challenge. Oh, and the front license plate state requirements...
The side-by-side 4th wheel is precisely what I am suggesting. You could even make the 4th tire slightly smaller, such that it barely touches the road. Note that to receive the federal $7500 credit, Aptera themselves must ship the car with the 4th wheel already installed, as part of the design.
To those suggesting that adding a 4th wheel somehow requires more testing, I have two comments:
1: Aptera has already suggested that their vehicle will undergo NHTSA motor vehicle crash testing.
2: I won't buy Aptera if it doesn't undergo these tests.
No one has yet chimed in on the extra drag and inefficiency caused by adding another tire? I think more than anything, that cuts across the grain of what Aptera was trying to achieve in designing a three wheel vehicle.
I suggested this already. Search for Dualie!
Instead of an actual dualie, I was thinking of 1 rim with 2 tires. Technically still a single wheel. For me this is a safety thing. I think its less likely for both ides to go flat. You can make it to get the tire fixed, may not need a spare tire, may all in al. give you more tread on the road. Blah, blah, blah. I'm not a mechanic or engineer. Just seems to make sense to me.
I think people dismissed it because of the 4th wheel. Personally, I think you can probably get it counted as a single. But, that legal stuff.
I like that you think outside of the box. My feeling is that making it a 4-wheeled vehicle would then require registration as an automobile rather than a motorcycle. I don't think it would qualify as such. It would also put very costly manufacturing standards into the requirements. Just my 2 cents. Have a good one.
Very easy interim step: Why not make the rear wheel be something like this to qualify for the 4-wheel tax exemption:
Wouldn't this be an easy / simple interim solution, as the tax/incentives things gets sorted out? Also it would greatly increase the customer-base as it would greatly expand the affordability factor? What says yous??
this can be a extra option for people to buys depending on their local laws, when people submit the state of their local laws to the spreadsheet, the customer can configure see the spreadsheet and the spreadsheet can indicate what extra "snap on" options to buy to benefit from tax breaks etc.
mentions a device to allow clipping on extra devices to the car without need for
screw holes built into the car structure:https://www.aptera.us/forum/main/comment/6031daa3b24694001774f006
I believe electric motorcycles also get a federal credit, albeit $2500, not the $7500 qualified cars get. I would expect the Aptera 3 would at lease qualify for this.
Hopefully the new US administration extend and improve the credit.
... & X years for approval...
Sure and add a $1,000,000,000 to the cost.
Fair point, but Aptera has stated publicly that they'll subject the Aptera to the same federal tests as a standard motor vehicle (please correct me if I'm wrong). Beyond that, there isn't too much additional federal oversight that doesn't already apply to a motorcycle.
I'll be the first to admit I'm not well versed in Aptera V2 (V3?). I was originally onboard for the V1 Aptera all those years back, and since then haven't invested the time (yet) to learn how the new Aptera compares to the old one.
I went ahead and pre-ordered the new Aptera... if it ships I'll gladly buy one. I doubt they ship in 2021, or even 2022... but I'll be here waiting for the day they do. Until then I'll just keep driving my Honda Insights... 20+ years old at this point, but still just as reliable as they were on day 1 (i.e. they're a headache, but I know how to keep them running).
One reason would be that making the Aptera a conventional 4 wheeler, would place it under the same regulations and requirements for that status, thus increasing the oversight and regulatory processes and checkoffs and delays that would probably significantly raise the price and increase the lag time to production.