The usual measure of aerodynamic performance is the coefficient of drag. As a measure of the slipperiness of the shape, that's fine, but it isn't exactly relevant to consumers.
"Nice car, how much aero drag does it cause per frontal area square foot?"
- No one
More relevant for comparisons would be area * C_d. Or something like "brake horsepower needed to mix air at 60 MPH". That number would be immediately comparable to rolling resistance, cabin electronics, and numbers for other vehicles with similar interior space.
Consider, for example, that motorcycles have awful coefficients of drag, because it's such a complicated and messy surface that air flows over. They have great mileage, though, because of the size. A larger motorcycle might have a smaller drag coefficient but more drag.
So what is the frontal area going to be? I read somewhere that it's about 20 square foot, which is what you would expect of a small car. Fair enough, in that case the comparisons to Model 3 etc. are reasonable. It would also make the math work out in terms of battery pack size and estimated range (0.1 kWh/mile).
(In a recent interview though, someone mentioned that the vehicle has the drag of a 12 inch cube flying on the road. In that case, and assuming 20 square feet, the C_d would be 0.05. Which it obviously isn't. Maybe he meant to say 20 inches, or he only accounted for the body and excluded the wheels, or something.)
Anyway, drag at a given speed is more interesting to me. At highway speeds, specifically, because that's where the big energies are normally spent, and where efficiency and range matter.
The fact our data is for 48mph @75F no wind with accel/decel cycles makes the mathematical side academic
Ford used a mathematical model on their CMAX and was sued, most decent companies validate off the real world And add a fudge factor for temperature and weather.
If Aptera wants to claim a 1000 mile range on a vehicle class that is exempt from EPA MPG certification they really better be using the pants down realistic highway range like Toyota and Honda do Or people will be disappointed.
From previous automotive experience I can say a 30% loss of range is very realistic off the EPA highway metric in 60F 65mph operations which are very normal conditions .
amd the EPA allows vehicle makers to legally down rate their expected MPGS/range on the Monroney Toyota and even Hyundai have been know to do this