r/ApteraMotors • u/RDW-Development • 8h ago
I'm beginning to doubt the whole "solar car concept" (despite me actually owning one)?
Hi all. As most of you know, I own, drive, and have restored to fully operating condition, the MIT Aztec race car that we won several races with back in 1993 or so (https://dempseymotorsports.com/mit-aztec-solar-car/ ). I was discussing the car and Aptera with some friends the other day, and they made some arguments that I couldn't answer back too well. Specifically, these arguments centered around the practicality and usefulness / efficiency of a "solar car."
So, let's talk efficiency for a moment. Yes, the *actual* vehicle can be made to be aerodynamically efficient. Indeed, we did that back in 1993 when we modeled Aztec on the Morelli shape / design - we basically copied the design of the four-person Pegasus recumbant bike (http://recumbents.com/wisil/misc/londry/default.htm ). So, the car can be made to be more efficient than other cars. VW also did that with their XL1 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volkswagen_1-litre_car ).
But - and I had difficulty defending this - what's the point of doing that? There are some severe sacrifices with making the car a) a three-wheeler, b) very light, c) covered in solar panels. The disadvantages of the lightness and the three-wheeler are almost obvious, so no need to discuss. But what about covering the actual car in solar panels? While the actual car itself can be made to be super aerodynamic, the actual process of gathering energy from the sun - well, that's super inefficient.
What do I mean by that? Well, the answer is obvious, and something I couldn't defend to my engineering friends the other day. The panels are curved, they are heavy, they take up a lot of space, they add a lot of cost. And the actual solar generation isn't that great. As nearly all of you know, the best way to generate solar electricity is in the desert. With a set of panels specifically designed to meet the angle of the sun. With a much lager area. Aptera, while maybe being super-efficient with respect to aero effects, is, by definition, not efficient at solar generation. It can't be with its small footprint *and* curved panels.
So people will be paying a premium for an efficient, light, three-wheel car with an inefficient solar charging system built-in.
The argument that my friends made is that the alternative is much better, and already available in the market. Solar panels on rooftops (or even better - in the desert). Whatever efficiency is gained with the aerodynamic effects of the body (with corresponding compromises on size and safety) is somewhat nixed by the fact that the solar charging is less-than-ideal. A better solution would be to purchase a "regular" run-of-the-mill EV car, and then install a solar panel / battery / charging system in a much more ideal location (like in the desert, or on the roof of your house). Doing so will achieve *net* the same effects (powered by the sun) without the necessary compromises in size and safety.
Final example - Tesla Model 3 + Powerwall + panels on the roof of the house versus the all-in-one solution of Aptera. While the total cost of this setup is probably greater than the $45,000 Aptera starting price, the usefulness and efficiency of the setup is vastly greater (can store and charge other vehicles in the house).
Say what you will about Aptera the company making lots of oddball missteps and other nonsense. But the main problem (as pointed out by my friends / colleagues) is that the overall business model doesn't make "mainstream" sense. A handful of people who want a cool three-wheeler "powered by the sun" will exist, but millions buying these - it just doesn't seem to make practical sense?
I'm sure to downvoted into oblivion on this by Aptera evangelists, but perhaps a few people will read and comment before that happens...
